TauPhraim

Hum, it sounds a good explanation, but I'm now getting this very frequently, whereas I don't remember any occurrence in the some 600 hours I used PN before 1.0.5.

Hi, I'm sorry I didn't have time to re-test with version 1.2.1 but since it's not mentioned on the changelog, here are some problems I found: - the option to show the "pager" (to navigate between several maneuver nodes) doesn't seem to be saved when restarting the game - when rapidly clicking on + or - buttons, it seems that the game detects double-clicks or something, and the cursor is yanked away from the precise node window, and locked to some planet

I don't remember if it's crew reports or EVA reports, but for one of these, the brown notification "already stored in ..." kept being spammed for me too.

Same problem here, plus I think some of the stock experiments are not triggered (ex mystery goo, although I think I checked the necessary options).

Do command pods count as invalid parts ?

If I just uninstall the whole TAC without destroying the parts on vessels, will it crash ? What of the command pods that have TAC resources but are not TAC-specific parts ?

How easy is it to switch from TAC to USI, mid-game ? Given that I have bases around with TAC containers, but none currently manned. (would just installing one and uninstalling the other just work, or lead to crashes ?)

Hi, I just got to the Jool monolith and am a bit confused. [spoiler=] I got very close with my vessel (<1km) and when I EVA'd a kerbal, it immediately got sucked away. First I thought this was a bug, because you sometimes have these kind of warp/teleports, but then I realized the camera angles were too pleasant, and it teleported precisely to the planets where I previously found monoliths. The very last camera angle is cool (above Kerbin) ... except the Kerbal suffocates And then I'm teleported back to the explorer ship, with the remaining companion and no monolith (and no contract completion notification). Is the Kerbal supposed to die ? Should there be more feedback (I only saw the temporary "I'ts full of stars" when I retried for the third time and watched the contract text). Is that why you need to send 2 kerbals (if so, you could make it that this happens only to the scientist, so that you're left with the pilot for the trip back home).

I tested with a ship having just 3 of that part, the first one root, the second added picking the part in the list, and the third cloning the second. In the VAB the cost displayed was 1600 (500+500+600), and the ship mass 4t (1.25+1.25+1.5). In the launchpad menu, the cost displayed was 1800. It effectively cost me 1800 part to spawn it. The spawned vessel had a mass of 4.5t. Upon reopening the craft file in the VAB, cost becomes 1800 and mass 4.5t too. So if the correct dry mass is 1.5t, and EL is just using the mass, I'd say the bug is not in EL.

I could not reproduce this problem after restarting KSP In the meanwhile, maybe I have another issue for you I'm using UKS and I noticed the Rocket part cost displayed in the VAB is not the same for (at least) one part, depending on how I add it. To reproduce: - start with any root part - add a "UKS octogonal landing module" by clicking in the part list on the left and placing it. Cost goes up by 500 rocket parts - add another, by cloning the placed first one (alt-click). Cost goest up by 600 rocket parts ! I noticed the part list says "mass = 1.5" for it, but once placed from the list, the part says "dry mass 1.25". Whereas placed by cloning, the part says "dry mass 1.5". If the cost is calculated from the mass, it might be related to the problem.

This is not the part that I enjoy the best, but I suppose it's a matter of taste On (almost) another topic, I now have a situation where I get explosions upon trying to spawn a rover. It's not spawning in the ground, and explosions happen with the MKS launchpad as well as with stakes. If you care having a look, and it rings a bell, the log shows some spamming of an exception, and then something that might be related to EL. Thanks ! Edit: I tested with another smaller rover: this one hovers for a few seconds when I "finalize", and then gets teleported under the launchpad, pushing it in the air. I'd say the big rover suffers the same teleporting, but explodes instead of just pushing the launchpad away, due to being bigger. With the small rover, when clicking "finalize", the finalize button does not disappear, and it apparently allows spawning additional instances of the rover (but the launchpad is flying away by that time).

By cranes I meant anything that legitimately needs to be some distance off the ground. I agree that for these, it's the engineers' responsibility to place them (although the fact that it's not WYSIWYG makes that painful). It's also their responsibility to ensure the thing won't topple, probably. Now preventing stuff from spawning clipped into the ground, I have a hard time putting this on the engineer. Maybe for people used to design 3d models or things like that, it's easy, but in a video game it's rather unexpected, and people usually see that as a bug rather than a player failure.

On flat ground only, I think. When you want to spawn stuff on a slope, it becomes much less obvious (in my opinion). Though I'm not making cranes (yet), I understand that it's fully customizable in order to legitimately build stuff in the air. But spawning basic stuff on a slope must be more frequent than making cranes, I suppose. I see 2 ways to solve this without reworking everything: access the spawned ship's bounding box (if possible), and the local slope (hoping it doesn't curve too much) to choose the right altitude that prevents clipping some easy to find doc/tutorial on how to place things on a slope (I'm not talking for myself, because I think I got it now, and next time I can try, it will work)

Not all, to me I'm not sure what was just spawned and what was already present, in the image. I will just try with origin/+x/+z, and -yBound and see how it goes. So basically I should place the -yBounds stake somewhere higher on the slope, and only it's altitude counts, not the rest of its position ? I still think a wiki would be valuable: it would probably be faster to write, and personally I prefer alt-tabbing to a wiki than reading inside of KSP (or it opens a PDF viewer maybe, but either way I didn't like it, last time I tried). If I'm correct, you're currently only reading each stake's position, not its orientation. What about, for the Y stakes (or for a new type of stakes like "Vertical"), also reading the orientation, so that the stake *by itself* can point to a Y direction (as opposed to needing the stake's position + some other reference point) ? I think that would be more intuitive (provided that a stake is perpendicular to the ground it's planted in), and would not require an arch

Is this correct ? : * there is no point in trying to choose the vertical/Y direction, because the mod will take the planet's vertical anyway * however, you can indicate the Y lower bound, with the position of a -Y/Bound (not "Direction") stake * it should be possible to spawn a ship on a slope without clipping into the ground occurring (ie: it is a "supported" use case) Is there a documentation somewhere ? If no, I think it could be good to create a wiki on the github repo (or somewhere else). Even if you don't have time to compose documentation, just drop what you have, unformatted (what you wrote in this thread for example, or more), and maybe others will rearrange it (even if they don't, it would still be better than scattered thread comments). Thanks !

Okay thanks, the clamps don't completely prevent it from spawning into the ground (though I think they made the orientation change somehow), but at least they prevent it from flying away, long enough for things to stabilize (I can safely release the clamps afterward).

I just clicked on "Finalize". I tried a bigger rectangle just after that, with the same effect. The slope does not look that steep to me How would I go about using clamps ?

Hi, I think I might have a bug. I'm trying to build something on a slope on Minmus. I'm not sure I understand everything here but I have more or less given up on orienting the ship parallel to the terrain, as impossible. However, I cannot spawn it inclined either, because part of the ship spawns into the ground (and it is sent flying away). Pictures here (stakes are: origin, +x, +z). KSP logs for spawn time here. Thanks in advance for any help Cheers !

I just tried with Eve, and there simply isn't such an altitude: one height everything explodes in a few secondes. Epsilon higher, and you almost don't lose any delta-v. The airbrakes are exploding way before all the rest, so I wonder if they're any use. I admit I didn't use the new radiators yet, but I figure they'd get ripped off by the drag pretty fast (it looks to me like things for supporting nuclear engines in space but I could be wrong).

I don't know how soon, or how you value that, but having the mod available through CKAN would make life easier for some (potential)users in the meantime (I'm not talking for myself, as I now have learned enough to install manually with "old" compatibility info).

I checked with the CKAN guys, they were really nice. Someone added IR into CKAN by referencing the KerbalStuff page. From there, CKAN is supposed to automatically update itself. However, on KerbalStuff, IR is declared to work with KSP 1.0.2 only, and ckan does not want to install it for KSP 1.0.4. Would you mind updating the compatibility on Kerbalstuff to 1.0.4 ?

I have no idea if this is a problem on the mod's side, or outdated information in CKAN, but when trying to install via CKAN, it tries to download: https://github.com/MagicSmokeIndustries/InfernalRobotics/releases/download/v0.21/IR_v0.21.zip which is kind of broken (404/{"error":"Not Found"}). Let me know if I should open a github issue in either side. Thanks !

The arm looks nice but I won't bother with an additional mod just for it (for now). Sorry, I was understanding, until your last sentence How does the "Utility Pack" relate to the base of Infernal robotics, or to the "rework pack" ?

Thanks for the clarification. So I need a decent "parts pack" to enjoy the experience. Are there any that are as popular as the "rework" one ?

Hello, This mod looks very cool, but could you please clarify: in the current version, is it still needed to add an additional mod on top of it ("rework") ? This seems optional from the description, but I think someone in this thread had problems that were solved by using the extension. Thanks !