drhay53

Something else that's happening to me is that the landing module is not decelerating in time, and the craft is crashing into the ground. This has happened with 3 different crafts now and on both Kerbin and the Mun. Has anyone else seen this?

awesome! always wanted more rotors in KAX.

@tsuvekio the easiest way to share a log is usually through dropbox.

Yes, sorry, I realized that it's modular rocket systems. There are 3 0.625m MRS jet engines on the back too :/

same behavior with firespitter update. I can try to make a stock craft that's similar and see if i can reproduce

its possible, although i havent noticed anything from them in the log, and tca handles vertical behavior perfectly, so I assumed it was a controller issue, since its basically only yaw that oscillates it looks like firespitter 0.7.3 is for ksp 1.1.3, but the ckan metadata is wrong. will try that real quick.

Here's a link to the craft: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cqz0s60qu04ozsi/CrazyCopter.craft?dl=0 It requires KAX. Thinking about the craft, it probably doesn't have enough yaw control authority, but since it flew without any oscillation at all in the previous version, I just wanted to see if there is something else going on. Here's an image; it has several helicopter rotors for most of the lifting, then several jump jets to help with stabilization, and several horizontal engines that lets it get up to ~130 m/s. http://imgur.com/ycsaH8K

I have a craft that flew fine in the previous version of TCA that now oscillates like crazy under bearing control. Like overshoots by 90 degrees and doesn't ever seem to fully settle down. Anything that changed that I should play with to fix it? I can't seem to fix it with the controller parameters either. Nothing different about the craft at all from the previous version.

It appears TCA doesn't load in 1.1.3. I assume this is known but I post a log snippet anyway:

@RoverDude I'm glad you picked up on the fact that I was not particularly taking sides, and thank you for explaining your part of the issue well. I did not know what's been proposed and so I try not to take sides too strongly, but at the same time, I'm upset by what's happening as a user who enjoys all of these mods and uses CKAN to make managing them possible for me. There was a day when I kept a document manually with all of my mods, links, and versions, and I surely don't want to go back. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt in the sense that I believe people understand when they're being unreasonable, even if pride or something else gets in the way of admitting it and coming to a solution. I just wanted to put a user's thought-out perspective out there that tries to convey how bad this conflict can be for the community, in the hopes of getting all major players in the situation to put aside pride or whatever else is holding them back and do what's best for the community as a whole, authors and users alike. My hope is that we'll come to a system where it's expected that mod authors will WANT to list their addons on whatever management system we have, as it's convenient for them to get exposure for their time and effort, and less work on them in managing it's distribution.

FWIW, I will post my thoughts on why I feel mod authors and CKAN should come to some kind of compromise. 1) I discover alot of mods through CKAN, as it's the most convenient way to find mods that are being actively developed. Simply looking through the list of mods that are 'compatible' is the primary way in which I've installed new mods. 2) Mod authors are extremely inconsistent in their habits with respect to mod hosting and updates. Some mods are posted at Curse, Spacedock, Github, and a private dropbox. And some mods have different versions updated at those different locations. And then some mods don't even use AVC so there's basically no realistic way for a user to keep track of their mods except to keep a spreadsheet and a folder of browser bookmarks. Comparing the time that a user spends trying to keep their installation up-to-date with the time a modder spends developing the mod is missing the mark IMO. The modder presumably enjoys the process of developing the mod; an end-user most certainly does not enjoy the process of mod updating without tools to aid in the process. 3) Mod authors frequently package dependencies with their releases and these dependencies are not always up-to-date, leading to other mods breaking at no real fault of the user (at least in the sense that they could follow the author's instructions exactly and still end up with a broken installation). In fact, this has happened to me way more frequently than an installation problem that could be traced to CKAN. edited in: 4) Some mods have 3+ different versions, where an author has stopped development and someone else has picked it up. The old versions are then stuck on all of those sites and it can become quite confusing to the user which version they're supposed to be installing. Here, for me, is the big question; if CKAN allows mod authors to remove their mods irrespective of licensing, then will the bigger more popular mods all be forcibly removing themselves from CKAN? It seems to me like the more popular the mod, the more anti-CKAN the authors are.... and, from my observation, doesn't this really mean the more fed-up the authors are at dealing with the same questions over and over? I follow a lot of the big threads for the most popular mods and for every CKAN-related question there are literally 15 other questions that have been answered within the last page or 2 of the thread, wasting everyone's time. This game has hundreds and hundreds of addons being actively developed. It needs an addon manager. What good is CKAN if it allows all addons to be removed irrespective of license? "I'm tired of questions about my mod, so please remove it from CKAN" is basically the same as "eh, it's Thursday, please remove my mod from CKAN" as far as the end-user is concerned. There will be no way for an end-user to trust that the tool has good coverage of the best addons anymore, and in fact, from what it looks like, the best addons would be disproportionately removed from CKAN. This is just a terrible development for the entire community. And that's what will happen if CKAN simply gives in and allows authors to remove their addons for no reason irrespective of license. All of this is simply an argument that this is all a big shame for everyone, and I'm really disappointed that it's all come to a point where the best mods are removing themselves and no viable compromise seems to be in sight.

I have installed, updated, and maintained literally hundreds of mods with CKAN, and I have not experienced a single instance where CKAN installed something wrong. And I see this claim over and over again that CKAN screws up people's installations. I'm not saying it's false, but....is it being blown out of proportion? What are these screwed up installations people always talk about? edit: apologies, I thought I had clicked to the end of the thread, but it took me to page 6. I see an above error where someone reverted to an older KSP. Other, really common scenarios are still welcome to be presented.

Yes, it appears the timewarp KSP API has changed.

I think those are actually the DMagic experiments that he has placed in the US wedges; apparently automatedsciencesampler needs to be re-compiled by the author with the latest DMagic update, it's just not been done yet.

I love making helicopters out of the KAX props. Nice video!

I was trying to use this to reach an orbit with a precise eccentricity. I noticed that when changing the orbit with the 0.01 or 0.1 settings, the predicted eccentricity doesn't get updated. It only updates when using the 1, 10, and 100 settings.

must. resist. temptation. must. not. learn.

Just to throw in my 0.02, I would love the IVA's. I use the MK1-2 IVA and switching from that into the LET landers is a shock. Always love LET though, it's one of my must-installs on every career.

Ok, thanks for the update, I was unsure because one of your posts a while ago talked about not having the update yet. I've been anxiously anticipating trying out the new features, but take your time and make sure you're happy with the release.

@allista are you stuck waiting for a linux release before you can release the next version of TCA?

So happy to have this back. Please add this to stock, squad.

Is there any way to avoid the KSC baby biomes in science.cfg? I use AvoidSrfLanded but the KSC biomes still show up.

i've started using the mod biomatic to kill warp on biome changes combined with [x] science's "experiments available now" feature. its getting me through it.

This addon is not updated for KSP 1.1.2 yet. The author is working on it but if you downloaded the source code it's probably in a state of development (meaning, not really working). Since the main download link is still for KerbalStuff, which no longer exists, you're going to want to wait for the author to update the addon for KSP 1.1.2 and provide a download link to the released version. Then you won't really have to mess with figuring out what goes where, other than dumping a folder into GameData. But by that point, it should work on CKAN anyway, so you shouldn't have to worry about it.

I use TCA for my helicopters and such, things are pretty stable....but who wants to fly in warp x4? What's the fun in that? You're not even doing anything. You're just watching 10-15 minutes pass by at a fast speed without really even doing anything.