Duke Leto

I'm seeing an odd bug with RMM, although it has been, in general, all I can hope for. I have a SS at 250 km, 0 inclination over Kerbin. and I'm using medium sized 2.5 m rockets to ferry fuel supplies up to it in bulk while my Minmus refinery is still under construction. Usually, a recorded mission takes 1d,2h give or take a bit. But on two occasions I have had to re-record because one of the missions has, after I procure a re-run, had its ETA jump up enormously. First it was 7d, now it's 22d. This also changes the value of the ETA for all future procurements of that mission, hence the need to re-record.

Caveat Emptor: The link to the "Best Orbits" thread in the OP should be removed, as experimentation seems to have shown that they may be many things, but accurate or best isn't one of them. We don't know if the original program calculating the things is FUBAR, or if the tables have gotten corrupted, but the orbits generally don't work. I myself am about to put a fist through the wall trying to get the original Octave/Mathlab script to run when I don't know anything about the language, so I'm officially done with screwing around with the stupid thing.

This bug is the absolute BANE of large scale Tourist missions. (It is functionally impossible to move tourists from a station to a docked lander when this crops up.) I'm going to try Snark's suggested workaround. Or possibly slam the EXPLETIVE mouse through the EXPLETIVE monitor.

Had been connected and disconnected from a lander previously. If you mean the center of mass is far from the center of the craft, then that really isn't the case, I went way out of my way to get it at the exact center of the base. The pipes and pylons add to the mass very slightly but probably not enough to change it meaningfully. If you mean something else by "severely unbalancing", I have no idea what it is. - - - Updated - - - Alright, I see what you're saying, thanks for the advice. Still got me angry enough to blow a gasket, but at least I understand what's happening and can mitigate the issue now.

Yeah, you see, that conveyed information, your previous post did not. And the last one could easily have been interpreted as condescending by someone who is about ready to throw the CPU through a wall. Interestingly, reloading a quicksave after the thing rips itself to shreds seems to guarantee that it'll do it again immediately once the quicksave loads up. So pressing F5 before doing anything at the base seems like an unwise choice.

~50 meters. Looking to loop around to a parked spacecraft that'll extend things maybe another 50 right now.

Yeah, you know what that isn't? Helpful.

OK, ... is going on with pipes? If you attach a chain of them to ground pylons they have a bizarre tendency to spontaneously jump into the sky, ripping themselves apart or yanking the pylons up out of the ground. It's REALLY >>EXPLETIVE<< ANNOYING!

Slightly confused on a minor point. I brought a buttload of struts and ground bases in my bug ass base to Minmus so I could strut it to the ground. I placed a ground base next to the base and attached it, and then attached a strut to the base body and the ground base, and was then told I could not link them as they are not part of the same craft. So if the ground bases are not able to be attached to landed crafts, what is the point of them?

So I'm trying to build a nice critically over-engineered refinery in high Kerbin orbit to land on Minmus, and I've hit what amounts to a game ending bug. Basically, once a ship moving an ISRU unit moves close enough to the base under construction to get ready to begin docking, the universe goes insane. First, the two craft undergo a constant small change in relative velocities (0.2 m/s^2) even though neither has RCS or engines running and they far above the atmosphere. This throws MechJeb into a bit of a tizzy. The base sometimes snaps back to its original position during this process, and does so if you cycle through the available craft with the bracket keys, but does not stay put afterwards. Second, you lose the ability to go to the Space Center after hitting escape. The button appears active, but has no effect when pressed. Third, the ability to switch to other craft either doesn't work or behaves strangely. Switching to the base via orbital view moves you to the center of an empty patch of space. switching via the brackets will cause the craft to snap back to their original positions if you move out of physics range, but the base just starts flying away again after you do so. You also cant rotate the camera view when the base is focused on. Eventually the base starts vibrating and begins to disintegrate. This makes the base unfinishable as it stands since I really need to get that base operational to complete my contracts, and I'm going to have to revert to a previous save to see if this a freak occurrence or .... I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling everything but it makes no difference. I have not tried sequentially removing the mods yet since most mission critical craft contain mod based parts. For related reasons, I have no idea which Mod, if any is at fault. KSP: 1.0.4.861 Windows 32 bit Problem: Newtonian Mechanics Fails Critically Mods: Kerbal Engineer Redux 1.0.18.0 Kerbal Alarm Clock - v3.4.0.0 MechJeb 2.5.3.0 Kerbal Inventory System 1.2.1 Kerbal Attachment System 0.5.4 Save File: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kzk5bg5w6ye9xy4/quicksave.sfs?dl=0 Reproduction Steps: 1.) Load quicksave.sfs 2.) Flying "Mining Review Assembly ISRU Unit", target "Minmus Mining Base". Rendezvous with the base however you wish. 3.) Watch physics stop working once you are within ~200m of the base. Log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/klhb5bomn89t0qc/output_log.txt?dl=0

6/1.58333 Then. Or (probably more likely on a world where the short munar orbit makes a week a rather pointless concept...) 6/6

Have not run the incremental kerbalziation test yet because (to be frank) shuffling 25 kerbals off of and onto a station is a bit tedious. I will run it soon though. Want to set up my Minmus fuel mining project to get the ridiculously large craft ferrying groups of 30 kerbals around the system economically fueled. Yeah, I saw the patch note. Just wondered if there was any more detailed knowledge. It makes sense though. 50 Level 5 scientists would have a throughput of 14.175% of the stored data per day, which would take 500 points of data down to nothing in about 50 days. That does feel a bit exploity. 10 seems like a good compromise number. It'd feel more natural, truer to the economics of multi-person teams, if the addition of each kerbal caused less and less of a throughput increase, until it peters out entirely. On the brighter side, it means I can run my little 30 3 star Kerbal scheme on three labs simultaneously, which amounts to the same thing as 1 with 30.

So I have a station in LKO with literally all the science on Kerbin getting milled into Data and more science by 19 1 Star Scientists in lab equipped facility with seats for 30. And I figure, "What the Hell, let's make it an even 30 before sending them to the Mun, Minmus and Solar Orbit to get them all up to 3 Star." So I rescue 3 scientists from wrecks in LKO and take them back up to the station and bring the total up to 22, and nerf the data total up to 500. I am a bit surprised because the processing rate doesn't seem to go up much. I bring up another 3 Level Scientists and can then confirm that they have had no effect on the science processing rate, which has maxed out at 3.375 science a day. At first I think it's a fault in recognizing what does and does not constitute a part of the station, that it is only counting the 15 scientists in the pods that were directly connected to the lab in the same stack, rather than the 10 in another part that is docked to it. But I moved Bob Kerman from one part of the station to another and this did not affect the processing rate at all. I did the math based on the data provided in the wiki, and 500 data and 0.0675% per day per level 1 scientist with an output of 3.375 per day matches the output of 10 scientists. So are the number of scientists who can work a single lab capped at 10? I can't see any variables in the largeCrewedLab.cfg file that would indicate that is the case, and it isn't mentioned in the wikis... ?

This may be already in the pipeline, and my reasons for wanting it are trivial and absurd, but here it goes... It would be nice to be able to have Kerbals sitting in external seats use the IVA view so you could record video of them watching each other while driving rovers. The only reason I have for wanting this is that I have a ludicrous Kerbin rover that is built like a Humvee for driving around KSC and sciencing the crap out of stuff. I would like to use one of these rovers and Jebediah and Bill to make a shot for shot remake of the opening of the TV Show "The Sopranos". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUT07eZoXPw

Interesting idea, although that sounds even more exploity than what I was proposing. You probably should not be able to process the same data in two labs in different locations.

I have a Science Lab with 500 data and a dozen Level 1 Kerbal Scientists processing it. The speed at which they process this data into science is a daily percentage of the total data. So is it capped at 500 or will sending up another lab to attach to the station raise the cap to 1000 data?

I'm not so sure, I think it may be inadequate total lift... But whenever you can get a chance, the original design was awesome and really helpful.

This is not actually a bug, and you will only notice it if you are prospecting KSC for science points, but it is disconcerting. Pictured here is one of my scientists painstakingly gathering a surface sample from the side door of KSC R&D's Small Lab (as one does). (Note also in the background one side of what is probably the most insane rover ever made.) She is as close to the door as one can get. The door handle is just above her eyes and out of easy reach of her hand. The door looks to be between 5-6 US feet high, too small for use by the average range of human heights, but WAY too big for Kerbals. So, who, or rather, WHAT works here? Dun dun dun. Rescaling all the building exterior artwork to keep them the same size but with more floors is something the team may want to toy with if they get bored. (Trivial bug side note. It is possible to fall through the ground in the Level 3 R&D complex and wind up standing on the original ground level the complex is slightly raised above. Walking out of the complex is easy though, so it is not important. Presumably another Physics engine issue?)

I'm sure you've noticed this, Wanderfound, but the Kerbodyne Hiflyer design can no longer take off under its own power post 1.0.3. The waiting world of people to confused to build decent planes anxiously await your redesign! Brighter side, my little Explorer Plane is now able to get to the farside of Kerbin with mild tweaks, adding a 2nd pair of wings.

OK, thanks for verifying that everything is kosher. Most of what I'm working on right now is related to using the nuclear engines with these larger capacity Mk 1 LF fuselages. This produces some truly huge delta-v, and I guess I just thought it seemed too good to be true. Do have to redesign all my planes now though... (All 3 of them...)

OK, so the amount of liquid fuel in Mk1 fuselages has gone from 150 to 400 as of yesterday's update. I'm also using Kerbal Engineer Redux, in case that was not obvious. Means I have to redo all the ship designs incorporating it, including the planes. So what I now see is insanely high ranges on the plane models, which are also drastically slower. Is this intentional behavior or is my install now FUBAR?

Yes, this and the suggestion to look at the key bindings in settings helped.

OK, I'm trying to use the docking controls listed on the wiki key bindings page. http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Key_bindings I go into docking mode and press space to switch between translation and rotation. It makes no difference whatsoever to the behavior of the controls, and it activates the staging sequence, jettisoning my main engine. This is annoying.

Right, because Kerbals are totally biologically similar to humans. OK, thanks for the info, all.

I ought to be able to tell this but I can't. Been trying to lose altitude during air flight by flipping the craft upside down, since this causes normal planes to undergo reverse lift and drop much faster than normal. The wings don't appear to be installed with an angle of attack relative to the center of thrust, but they also don't really have visible cambers. This is obviously something Squad might want to abstract for modelling simplicity, so I'd like to know if I am wasting time by inverting.