lude

So looking forward to this, because of the inherent lack of I decided to run USI LS and kerbalism at the same time.. :> so that I can have more planetary options.

I added this to my config so the habtech cupola offers entertainment 2/3 of what the big one offers.

I assume Kis/Kas fills that role but I don't know. I wanted to ask for kerbalism support, in universal storage are a good examples of patches that work per mod.

I'm watching Cupcake Landing's videos and I'm amazed, wow. At least I got a munar rescue mission right after dropping a sat to keostat with almost ideal d-v usage, i'm pretty proud of that :E used like 7342 dv

whoa, those are really beautiful now seeing that I probably would have preferred the older sleeker design the only 'good critique' i read was that it needed a tiny amount of space for a certain payload diameter tho I never had problems stuffing stuff inside the spacious cargo bays. I really hope someone fixes that adapter it looks pretty awesome.

After using both recently I'm positively unable to even remember/see any differences directly after switching. Ever since I've known OPT it's extremely great and had by far the most elegant SSTO Plane design parts. imho

Thanks, that looks like a nice deltav saving tool, so far had problems following the dv maps if the places were too far away

I'll try that did this mod add kerbals dancing IVA when returning home? if so that's kinda cool (could be the shaky camera tho, but i swear they're dancing all the way through that very long aero break) could this be due to RT? can't leave vab anymore nor launch rocket

Could you add a patch that gives entertainment factor to all crewable parts that have "copula" in their name? also how to satisfy the antenna need? I got an omni one patched for RT that isn't recognized as one, does it need to be a non RT one?

AVC Update info still links to kerbal stuff also great work thanks a lot

I'm not saying "they are different things" like an apple and an orange are, I'm saying they're perhaps two different kind of bugs unrelated to each other just happening at the same time

I have a similar problem, trying to track it down, only appeared after starting a new save but I think it's not caused by FAR but by an incompability also the chute and too little lift things are probably two different things. The chutes should be fixed in the most recent build but I haven't tested yet, realchutes worked well for me as well as those patched even before the most recent version. Currently starting KSP for another test. In my last stable mod conf. FAR worked as intended. -- edit -- one of my test crafts has very similar aerodynamic qualities to yours, in a normal pull up maneuver it'd be getting increasingly negative lift the only thing to change that was reversing the pitch on the back elevons which lead to an absolutely unflyable craft since the back was lifted while the front was lowered

so how do i get to dres?

I asked and was told if it's about chutes not working in FAR (for me it is partly) then the next release will fix this and apparently I had the bad luck that the three configs I opened were the only three with their own texture library I will try to make a patch and test it, actually one chute has it's patch if I saved the file, let's see how it broke everything

You're sure they're firing and don't just look like it? RCSSounds causes a bug that makes rcs and co look like it fires all the time, it's a bug caused by module manager. -- edit -- ah hmm rcssound removal didn't fix it what version of module manager are you running? is there by chance a second RCSSounds caused by installing with ckann? (it might be hidden in gamedata folder which is hidden inside a mod)

If I want to try this out, I need to remove USI-LS?

If I wanted to make mm patches for a few mods that have their own chutes, how do I go about it? Do I need to create a texture library for realchute based on the deployed chutes or could I just use existing ones? I noticed that every patch has it's own texture library and a few values existing in stock are not in those patches, does that mean the mod calculates it's drag effects? I'd like to do this since non realchutes are apparently not FAR compatible.

I just had a look at RealChute mm patches and they seem rather complicated, each set of patches has it's own texture library in realchute I dunno which would be the closest approximation and I guess the textures he uses are for smaller chutes anyway perhaps post your chute specs in his thread and ask for some help?

I just came here to say: What a seriously great mod, it improved the accuracy of all my maneuvers, especially those in flight to low orbit, perfect ascends through FARs air (which the SAS can only do with rockets that have a certain ascend profile and aerodynamic/mass properties) I'm wondering something like a function to extrapolate above which pitch a craft would stall and show this in the same hud is probably not possible? I only know of mods that can calculate that info (FAR, NEAR and correct Centre of Lift) anyhow really great mod, so much more accurate than the navball

To each his own, I'm more like a Fakir before I can even enjoy a proper 'sim' game I have to go through excruciating times of modding it and making these mods compatible, in some games that I played hundreds of hours to under a thousand this can make up more than 3/4 of the time and a lot of these mods are more like an iron maiden than they are a lofty bed with silken beddings.

If this gets revived I'd like to help in some way, as a tester or coding monkey.

I'm currently trying to make mm patches for some aerodynamic mods (specifically OPT 1.8) and I was wondering how I'd best get/estimate the values for MAC, MidChordSweep, b_2, TaperRatio and e nonSideAttach is probably not for wings, so the new controlsurfaces for the wings in OPT 1.8 would be 1 instead of 0/no? (they're independant of the wings now and have to be placed without node) or is a 1 just for node dependant things? maxdeflect I guess is the shape of the wing and it's angle towards the plane (or the maximum setting when tweaking the parts in game?) ctrlSurfFrac is probably the amount of the surface being used for controlling purposes (pitch/yaw/roll etc) anyway back to flying stuff around kerbin, I like how with FAR you can glide for so long when entering atmosphere again, really great mod --edit-- why exactly could this be important?

So in 1.8 the FAR patches are removed, by using the 1.7 I get some functionality I tried to add all the new parts but it kinda didn't work I do not fully understand why, especially since I quadruple checked if I spelled stuff right some items had their FAR module added but others (that I didn't even touch in the mm patch) got it removed after trying to add their second variant (like opt_stabilizer_a and b) -edit- now in a second run through with changing considerably less it got add properly to all control surfaces I touched but I swear, I didn't do a thing different from before, I wonder if I should delete the mm config cache before doing stuff like this -/edit- If you explain to me how to set up FAR patches properly based on qualities of the objects (surface area etc) I'd help but to me the examples I gathered from the older patches are not readable by me, only know what the last two values are. Meanwhile I could add all parts to OPT_FAR_VOXEL_OVERRIDE.cfg

First: Kerbal doesn't care much for multicore performance, sure having win10 is better than 7 in sheer performance, especially multicore but eh Second: There are several settings that affect the performance by changing how much physics load there is, they are explained in game under the settings. Third, the more concurrent programs you have that require accurate and fast cpu time the less performant kerbal will be, because it's physics engine is restrained to one core and due to technical limitations barely can use 100% of it there are few things one can do to help there, removing programs that require a lot of calls will help even tho windows will try to schedule it somewhat smartly it won't always succeed increasing the FSB gives the greatest increase in this 'mythical IPC' rating since it increases the speed at which information gets delivered (or rather the bandwidth) on some CPU you apparently can restrict one core per CU (architecture dependant) it should be a net single core performance increase of over 10% but will ravage multicore (since it basically halves the amount of cores) also , my cpu isn't that much more powerful and I'm running ~65 mods and have yet to run into any performance problems, doesn't matter if I dart through the sky at 1km/s or leave atmosphere while nearly burning up. Perhaps it's just some bug from 1209 or something completely unrelated, have you opted out of the beta yet to receive the most recent built? Have you had a look at the logs and could just upload them? If it's using that much cpu there is a high likelyhood at least something will be logged. and there's also the possibility to enable dev version and probably increase log verbosity, perhaps that's even possible without or not. p.s. You have to be in space center view to access the physics part of FAR and without these two mods performance is normal? Also my CPU is by far not strong enough to handle KSP (how I play it) despite outperforming yours by quite a bit. I'm used to ascending at half frames per second.

doesn't necessarily need to show an error in the log, could be a normal log operation last mod that completely broke the game for me wasn't even a plugin mod but a contract pack: field sciences it spent most of the time creating new contracts and never stop ui lag of several seconds but with only two mods having such bad performance is pretty strange and far only does so and so much on space center view (finishes pretty quickly usually) Have you tried changing the physics related settings under FAR yet? As long as you're not on a laptop i5-2400 @ 3.1 doesn't seem too bad but kerbal is a very hungry game when it comes to single core performance.