swjr-swis

I don't claim to understand why they made that change to the game, especially since it used to work fine before - I built and used a heap of craft with closed fairings over the years. But Kerbals (and parts) exploding inside a closed faring is a very new thing. That's why this particular interaction with Take Command has only become evident now - the (game) problem simply did not exist before.

It is, I think it was mentioned in either the 1.3.0 or 1.3.1 dev notes; that's why I wondered. That's ok, you did the right thing in adding the endless loop prevention - game freeze trumps convenience.

Can it tell the difference between a closed and an 'open' (interstage) fairing? Kerbals are safe inside the latter.

If you bought it through Steam and are still playing it where Steam installled it: in your Steam library, rightclick on Kerbal Space Program, Properties, Local Files, Browse Local Files... If you bought it from the Squad store, rightclick the KSP icon on your desktop/menu/tile and 'Open file location'.

I like this idea. Don't stop there though, do the same thing for the CoL marker. Hmm. On paper certainly on the wishlist, but practically, that might be complicated to visualize on craft with multiple engine(s| groups) or stages, especially when they are oriented in different directions (VTOLs, lander payloads, etc). I'd be pretty happy with just getting a way of telling the thrust marker which engines to include/exclude in the visual. So I can separately check thrust for vertical vs horizontal thrust, or for booster vs payload. (*) (*: I'm aware I can manually zero individual engine thrust limiters to show this. Which in complex craft builds gets tedious to keep doing, and sometimes results in forgetting to reset the limiters before launch...)

El mod que tienes en mente es RemoteTech, pero ten en cuenta que reemplaza completamente el sistema CommNet, y tiene sus propias reglas que son bastante diferentes. Una alternativa interestante puede ser el mod CommNet Constellation: Ese amplía el CommNet dándole frequencias específicas y diferentes a grupos de antenas, formando sistemas de comunicación separados. Usando KSP sin mods y si habilitas el CommNet, ten en cuenta varias cosas: Naves sin piloto perderán un grado de control si no tienen antena/señal, o hasta todo si así lo configuras. Se supone que el control es mantenido desde el CEK, lo que requiere una conexión. Estas naves pueden perder señal al alejarse demasiado con antenas de poca potencia, o cuando otro planeta se coloca entre ellas y Kerbin. El envío de ciencia registrada obedece las mismas reglas, aunque haya piloto - requiere que haya una conexión con Kerbin, sea directa o indirecta. Como menciona @Noobton, se hace necesario lanzar satélites con antenas repetidoras para extender el alcance y poder 'rebotar' la señal indirectamente cuando no hay conexión directa.

The devs having to work on the code and assets might disagree. @linuxgurugamer (and others that work their collective rear ends off maintaining mods) might strongly disagree with you that there are that many mods truly abandoned. KSP might disagree. She's got to be the prettiest zombie I've encountered - death truly becomes her. I have another date planned with her later today... snacks, comfy seating and a large screen are already prepared and waiting.

I keep several old versions on my disk right alongside the most recent one, so it was no problem (*), you're welcome. You really should upgrade, there's a marked performance improvement to look forward to plus a nice list of new features and fixed bugs. Just copy your current 1.2.1 folder to another place so you can still fire it up if you want/need to. Save and craft files should transition without problems, but it's always good to have that backup. (* actually, it did cause me a tiny self-inflicted problem: in reloading my 1.2.1 install, I got reminded how many lil projects I had left unfinished/unpublished in that version. My KSP task-list just doubled again... so much for entering the new year well-rested. )

Congrats on visiting the next celestial body! There's nothing quite like setting yourself a challenge or goal, and then achieving it. KSP certainly offers many opportunities for that. What it's also very good at is surprising us with the difficulty of said challenges, or throwing entirely new ones in our faces that we hadn't even considered yet. In Real Life(tm), this would likely mean death and destruction, but in KSP we can retry again and again, learning with each failure until we succeed. Kerbals are quite resilient, and they willingly face the perils of space-faring with defiance, which one can't help but smile at. Keep us informed on your progress in both bringing Jeb back home and your continued exploration of the Kerbol system, and keep challenging yourself - you're in for an experience.

Good catch - no, I did not try them, since it lands so easily even on rough terrain. They won't work from inside the ramp, because of the dreaded 'deploy while stowed' mechanic which I keep hoping will once and for all be made optional for ALL parts. You can work around this in that version of the plane by opening up the ramp just 1% by using the slider - aside from the chutes now opening, the whole ramp now adds drag and works like a giant airbrake too. Or you can download the adjusted 3a2 version I uploaded to dropbox, in which I replaced the 2x Mk2-R chutes entirely by 2x Mk16 chutes that take the place of the two small nosecones on the tail fuel pod. 2 less parts in total, and it's a more logical place for the chutes. I still had to slightly offset the front chute upwards to avoid the stupid 'deploy while stowed' code from getting in the way of that one, but I think it doesn't retract from a clean aerodynamic line. (*) I admit I didn't test this one in 1.2.1 either, since I copied what I had done in 1.3.1, and there it worked; I can confirm that in 1.2.1 it's not functional this way. This is easily fixed too though: with fine offset (hold shift and make sure it's set to absolute) moved it three 'ticks' forwards into the cockpit bulkhead. In that position, the kerbals smoothly transition from the ladder to the hatch and back. The adjusted 3a2 version I linked above has that fix in place as well. I think she has spaceplane aspirations... once she gets up to 20+km, she really wants to just move on into orbit . If you fly on SAS hold, you really have to force nose down a bit before hitting cruise altitude or she will overshoot. I find it easier with SAS off and adjusting trim and throttle. (*: a tip - your engineer kerbal can go into the cargo bay and walk up the closed ramp to be in range of 'repacking' the two chutes, so they can be utilized for multiple landings.)

I have updated the 1.2.1 craft file - I noticed several of the tanks were needlessly locked, and for some reason KSP 1.2.1 decided to reverse the flap deployment direction, so I had to negate that. Make sure to download the update before usage (same dropbox link).

Looks like an oversight, the devs may not have anticipated that so many mods would add custom config options. Best thing to do is to report this with that screenshot in the KSP bug tracker (after checking if it hasn't been reported already).

Ok, craft done, uploaded to Dropbox instead of KerbalX to avoid confusion between the two: link here. Took a bit longer... keep forgetting all the little things that were added in 1.3.x that make things easier/faster.

If you are doing this only because of my craft file, don't. Give me 30 mins and I'll rebuild the craft in 1.2.1 (which is it specifically: 1.2.0, 1.2.1, or 1.2.2? Never mind, saw 1.2.1 in your craft file), it'll be less hassle than having to upgrade for just the craft file.

A Giganto-Claw to grab small moons and pull them off rails seems like the logical endpoint on that path...

You could still remove the other Mk3 tank, which will give cockpit access to the bay and make balancing much easier. Also, it really doesn't need 4 engines when it can do the same job with 2. Here's a leaner version that still offers the same cargo capacity, and can circumnavigate Kerbin in an hour with 900LF to spare: Due to less parts and much less total mass, it's good even without any (auto)strutting or rigidizing. Full imgur album here. Craft file on KerbalX: Transport-3a

Los tutoriales dentro del juego mismo han sido modernizados un poco, pero más importante: échale un vistazo a la KSPedia, que fué añadida al juego en 1.3 (en la barra de botones, un libro blanco con un cohete azul en la tapa). Es una buena base de información para empezar.

Bienvenido de vuelta al KSP. Ten en cuenta que ambos tutoriales son de versiones antiguas, y las cosas han cambiado bastante. RP-0 ha tenido una cierta evolución desde ese tutorial, pero todavía es bastante válido - fíjate en las diferencias y adapta las cosas. En cambio, tutoriales basados en versiones de KSP de antes de 1.0.5 tenderán a confundir más que ayudar - convendría buscarte algo más reciente, aunque sea menos completo que el de Pecan.

Good to see you found a workaround. Now that you have found the possible source of the issue, you might want to report it in the Tweakscale thread.

Not just a tiny difference, this here is key in this problem. This needs to be reported in the HyperEdit thread.

Fixes for bugs, regardless of how rare or insignificant they may seem, are always welcome. A more useful option than uploading a compiled DLL (which could be obsolete/incompatible as soon as the next minor patch hits KSP), would be to post the code change you made, either here in a code segment (the <> left of the smiley on the post edit toolbar), or -preferably- as a pull request to the github repository for this mod. Either one would allow the fix to be included in future releases.

Mods can change 'stock' parts to behave radically different from stock even when they still look the same, and sometimes add unintended side-effects or bugs of their own, so a bit more information about your mod list might be crucial to finding out what's happening. Do you happen to have a mod loaded that patches docking ports to only engage when they are at specific rotation angles relative to each other (eg. 0, 90, 180, 270 degrees), or that makes docking ports gendered, such that some ports are 'male' and others 'female' and only mixed-gender couplings work? These are relatively recent features added to the stock docking port code, that are normally not enabled in stock, but can be enabled by module manager patches. Some realism-enhancing mods add that sort of patches; also part mods sometimes make the stock ports behave like the modded ports they add. You could test if this is the issue by trying to get your crafts rotated such that the docking ports are aligned.

I've had no problems using the (stock) docking ports in 1.3.1. So there must be something causing your troubles. Make sure the docking port size matches; you can't mix port sizes. You give very little information to help diagnose the issue though. You mention KSP 1.3.1. What OS do you run it on? Are you using mods? Can you explain a bit how you are trying to dock? Do you notice the magnetic attraction when the ports come close together, or is that absent too? Do you have pics of the crafts you are trying to dock together, or (better) a download of the craft/save files so we can try reproduce it too?

Obviously the rocket's TWR (Twitchy Wheelscrolling Response) is too low. More boosters...?

For this iteration, may I ask you to specify this one rule a bit better? Taking this as it's written, one could place the payload on a 90x90km orbit and still be allowed - might as well just simply state 90km as the minimum Pe.