Dweller_Benthos

Look back a few pages, someone uploaded a handy little program that will give a GUI to the MapGen program. Here it is: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/9396-0-17-ISA-MapSat-Satellite-mapping-module-and-map-generation-tool-v3-3-1?p=279291&viewfull=1#post279291

Nova has already said they mean nothing: So, from that, what I can judge as the relevant parts of the picture, the pyramid, the line from it to the object in space, and the four figures on the "ground". Though Nova may have meant those aren't anything either, if you count them as part of the "dots" on the left side.

Best explanation of the moon impact I could find quick. Of course, all theory, but pretty cool anyway.

I had thought of trying something like this, never got around to it. Will have to give it a go, thanks.

No, I tried that, changing the craft file, it loaded as just the command module with nothing else. There's extra info in each part that apparently ties it to the other parts in the file, like so: part = Mark1-2Pod_4294887962 Those extra numbers at the end...... I don't know, maybe try to just insert the pod name? I forget exactly what I did. Make a copy of the craft file and try it, you never know. If you get it to work, by all means, post the solution, I'd like to know myself.

Wouldn't it be called a transition, not an eclipse, if Minmus were in front of Kerbol? Anyway, to get a near total Minmus eclipse, you'd have to get a lot closer to it. Probably with the right amount of maneuvering, you could get a ship to a spot where Minmus is in eclipse for a long time.

Having fun with this plugin, been doing more mapping than flying :-) Anyway, got a couple questions. First, has anyone found it's better to have a low orbit that concentrates the mapping beam, but makes the ground speed faster because the orbit is low? I just put a satellite into Minmus orbit at 8Km and it's whipping over the terrain, so that got me thinking it might be going too fast to collect decent data. Is there a trade off / sweet spot? Anyone figure out the optimal orbital heights for all the planets/moons yet? I've noticed on my data files when I render a new high res map (3200) that my Mun and Minmus maps have a spot on each that seems to be completely out of place from what I can only assume is corrupted height data. Will this self-correct once I fly over that spot again, or is that data always going to be there? If so, is there any easy way to delete the corrupt data from the CSV file without dumping the entire file?

Definitely a Saturn-type planet, ring system and many moons. I think we can skip Neptune and Uranus type planets, they are pretty boring, but depends on how hard it is to add planets to the game, if a single large gas planet can be added without too much trouble, then sure. An asteroid "belt" between Duna and Jool would be very cool. Even better, they don't show up automatically on the tracker, you have to launch a Hubble-type telescope and look for them. A dozen or more would be great, but if too hard or CPU intensive, then 5 or 6 would do. Varying sizes & shapes, one or two bigger round ones, smaller lumpy ones. Also comets, for sure, as many as could be put in, sun grazers, long periods, the works. Also be cool if you had to find them with telescopes or probes launched to outer reaches of the system that report back. Something that has a deeply inclined orbit would be cool too, something far out of the plane of the ecliptic. Oort cloud stuff, why not? Or a multiple orbiting system, might be a real name for it, I don't know, but a moon orbiting a moon that's orbiting a planet, yep.

I've only just started using the ISA Map Sat and found that once you get the in game map at default resolution done, there are still large gaps if you render the map separately with the external processor, at a high pixel width like 3200. My "complete" map of Kerbin became a patchwork of stripes and spotty areas and gaps at the poles. Mostly because I mapped at 50x warp probably. Need to just let it run at 1x and see how it goes. Hope my 71km orbit is a decent one.

Gas giants just don't have enough mass to create the pressure to start a fusion reaction where hydrogen becomes helium, like in a star. Still, the pressures are so great near the core, though, that the terms we have for "liquid" and "solid" probably don't really apply. Any person and their ship would be squished almost flat before they got anywhere near the core, and the wind shear would tear them to pieces before they got close enough to be squished. This is what happened in the movie 2010, where the monoliths increased the mass of Jupiter so that it could "light" it's fusion reaction and become a star. I think. I'm sure I've missed some info there and misunderstood something.

OK, yeah, it looks like you're using those airplane struts on the nuclear engine pods, you need radial decouplers. I also don't see a stack decoupler between the lander and the main body of the rocket. This should help: http://kspwiki.nexisonline.net/wiki/TT-38K_Radial_Decoupler http://kspwiki.nexisonline.net/wiki/TR-18A_Stack_Decoupler Then, you just have to get them in the right sequence in your staging profile so that you can use them when you want. When you add them, the game sometimes puts them in weird places and you end up ejecting your rockets before you want (like right after launch, lol) If you want some hints, watch the videos in this thread: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/15652-Orbital-Mechanics-101-A-Kerbal-Space-Program-Tutorial But, if you want to discover things as you go, that's always fun too.

Are you using those launch tower gantry things? Forget the actual name. Ever since I started using those, I've not had any launch pad explosions. Right after launch, that's another story. I put them in a stage just above the first engine stage, put the throttle at 75% and let it sit for a second, then release the gantries and then throttle up to 100% once it clears the tower. Plus, it could just be a weird physics things, rebuilding the craft again by just replacing all the parts might help.

Plus, aren't those the nuclear engines on the upper stage? Too heavy and too low thrust for a munar landing, those are better for interplanetary maneuvering, and one will do, I think. I haven't actually used them yet, just from what I'm reading here.

THE FRENCH WARSHIP!!!!! I almost spit at the screen for that one. Hey, the crew actually survived a few of those, so SUCCESS!

Yeah, with RCS you can froward and backward "burn" (can't really call it a burn with RCS can you?) and get it very close to circular. I've gotten them really close, but can never get that last 5-10 meters or so because the physics engine bugs out so bad, the Ap and Pe start to fly around the orbit in spasms and you can never settle them down again.

Watch the videos here: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/15652-Orbital-Mechanics-101-A-Kerbal-Space-Program-Tutorial You will have many an "AHA" moment. At least I did.

That would be really cool. Can't wait to see what you come up with. Now I just need to learn to fly better and stop crashing the things. Really wish there was a separate throttle for the VTOL and main engines, that would make normal in-atmosphere flight so much easier, having the VTOL engines at half or third power, whatever is needed to keep it in the air, and the main engines at full to keep forward flight. Since it has no flight surfaces, this is pretty much the only way it really could have flown.

Ah, too bad about the hatch problem. A ladder down the side would just be wrong. Only thing I can think of at this point, is to combine the cargo pod with the command pod, clunky and ugly. Or, just assign the cargo pod as the command pod, also clunky but not so ugly. KSP wasn't really meant for modular ship designs like that. To be able to swap out cargo pods, or have none at all, wouldn't work either that way, unless there were several versions of each part, with crew, without crew, etc. Not a pretty solution. Yeah, the Cygnus is probably out of the question, the thing was a mile long or something.

Not sure it's really necessary to have the landing gear compress on landing, the terrain collision model on most things I've landed and walked on are imprecise enough that stuff sinks in anyway, when you're looking close enough to notice, and usually I'm not. You'd have to be looking really close to see the landing gear flex, and I'm not sure that's worth the time it would take to implement. Same goes for retractable gear, for me, not worth the effort unless it's really easy. I thought about the exit hatch problem with it not being attached to the command pod. Not sure what could be done there. Unless there's some setting for where the exit is, does it have to be the edge of the model? If there is some coordinate setting (just thinking out loud) of where the exit is, seems you could set it anywhere you wanted in relation to the model itself. Then, you could have it exit at the cargo pod hatch. That would be nice if possible. I did have a problem though, once I got a guy out of the hatch, I couldn't get him back in? There never popped up the "Grab" or "Board" prompts, the guy just floated away and the jet pack controls were all weird, I never could get back to the Eagle to get back in. Same goes when it's landed, the hatch is on top, and if you're walking around on the ground, there's no way to get to it. I only tried this on Kerbin itself, so the jet pack isn't strong enough to lift you off the ground to get back in. This also could be my clumsiness with EVA, still not used to it much yet. Anyway, great work, it's been fun flying around in one of my favorite scifi space ships. Now, if someone could build the Cygnus from the Black Hole movie, that would be incredible. How big was that thing again? lol

Awesome, can't wait to fly this around and crash it as usual, lol. Many thanks. To add to the landing gear controversy, I know (think) in the show, there are some shots of them acting like shock absorbers, they compress a little when the Eagle touches down. Extracting all the way is of course possible. Then, there's the main entrance/exit, which was shown many times on the show as a set of 3-4 steps extending from the utility pod hatch to the ground. These would never reach with the landing gear extended, so they must have retracted after landing to allow for the hatch to open and the steps extend to the ground. According to the plans I linked to a page or two back, there is no direct exit from the command pod while it's attached to the service module, a person has to go out through the main hatch into the utility pod, then out the main door. This would be a really cool feature to add once scaling has been figured out, to have the exit be out the main hatch in the utility pod. Plus, the other four VTOL engines on the service module main frame between the landing gear. Though I think that's another thing never shown in the show, all eight VTOL engines on at one time. More plans / info here http://www.starbase79.com/space.htm

I can get this to work under 0.16 by rebuilding from scratch (the old craft files don't work, unless you change the version number in them, and then they are weird). Maybe a few alignment issues when you snap the landing pods on, but otherwise looks pretty good. No crew of course, but the way I've been crashing these things, that might not be a bad thing. =P Works fine with the newest MechJeb and I can get it into orbit pretty easily, and to the Mun and back though it would be cool to have separate throttle control for the VTOL and main engines, but that might not be possible the way the game is set up.

Yeah, I\'d like a few hints on how to use the Rendezvous module, I\'ve tried a few things, and it seems like it\'s trying to do something, (I tried 'Sync Orbits' I think) but it doesn\'t like time warping, so I tried watching the readout while it\'s waiting for apsis, then turning off warp as fast as possible so it can burn, and sometimes that works, and it changes the orbit, but most times it doesn\'t and I end up shooting into space.

Hey, this is pretty cool, will have to try it out! Been a long time since I\'ve seen any Space:1999, though I did watch the whole series on DVD a few years ago, but mostly it\'s fond memories from being a kid and watching it Saturday nights. My cousins and I built so many of the plastic model kits (and subsequently blew them up with firecrackers) that I feel I know the things inside and out. A lot of technical info here http://www.space1999.net/catacombs/cybermuseum/MATN/matnindex.html I have the printed version of that somewhere....(yes, showing my inner nerd there) Eagle blueprints here http://www.space1999.net/catacombs/press/w2starloge.html I like the 'Anti-Gravity Stabilizers' wonder how they work? lol Maybe that\'s what is used for the lateral translation that the OP says is missing. Plus the 'steering rockets' on the command module and the fact that the cargo pod also has landing rockets, so there are actually eight VTOL engines when it\'s carrying the standard cargo pod. No mention of retractable landing gear, just that it has a hydraulic suspension, but it sure looks like they are supposed to retract.

Ah, thanks for the link! Strange that didn\'t come up from Google. Also strange the forum thread went poof. D_B

Is there another link to Kerpollo? Because when I go here http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=6256.0 (the link from http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=1633.0) I get An Error Has Occurred! The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you. ???? General searches on Google only come with board posts here or youtube videos.