Deimos Rast

And I suppose it's not as simple as swapping the two modules? From what little I've seen of ModuleEnginesFX I seem to remember it's the one connected (as the name suggests) to all the custom effects, which I'm guessing you'd lose (I'm thinking purely from a MM patch perspective, as that's the extent of my experience). Eh, yeah, I think that'd be messy, especially since with MM it couldn't be done on the fly (that I know of). Oh well, just thinking outloud. Cheers (and thanks again).

Well if you read my posts a few up I talk about playing with it with FAR and DRE. To save you reading: aerodynamically, it flies fine with FAR. The issue is with Deadly Reentry (which I realize is outside the realm of your question), but because your turn is so gradual, the continual friction from the air ends up cooking your capsule, or at the very least burning off your solar panels. I have heard of it having (or that it at one point had) an issue with the 64x kerbol expansion mod, since that mod moves where the boundary of space is as I understand it. This mod is programmed to basically putter along till 70km, at which point it thinks it's now in space (which in 64x it may not be) and proceeds to tell MJ to circularize. I don't know if that applies to RSS (if that mod changes the scale of the solar system, then it may). This issue may have been entirely fixed though, since it was brought up a while ago.

A huge thank you for this! Did not expect you to take me up on my request, since it was a bit out there. Hopefully, it wasn't too much trouble to make it compliant with the latest version. That's sort of what I figured. When you say engine type, I take it you mean the technical config listed "EngineType = SolidBooster" or Electric, LiquidFuel, etc? If so, and I was really desperate to get it working 100%, couldn't I just run a MM patch that changes problem engines to all one type? I've switched the type of engines before with no discernible effects, but maybe there are some that I missed. Just a thought, not saying I'll go that route, or that I even need to (it wasn't that big of an issue to start with). Oh, and just today, this mod saved Bob Kerman's life by allowing him to throttle back some overtuned SRB I designed mid flight. That's when you know you have a workable UI - when you can set up thrust limiters for your engine with Mod Actions, assign it to a hotkey with AGExt and execute it successfully while you're strapped to an overheating engine that's about to explode and all while spinning wildly out of control. Maybe not the most realistic usage, but useful nonetheless. Cheers, and thanks again.

The plot thickens! Many thanks.

Out of curiosity, does CLS have a blizzy toolbar button? I've always had just a purple box and I always get "button missing" messages in my log. An issue of Kerbin shattering importance to be sure. It also seems I'm a version behind, so that might resolve the issue. Also, to insert myself in the conversation above without invitation (sorry), the CLS Options Menu has the "Allow Unrestricted Crew Transfer" which might be the same thing as what you mean by "turning off cls."

I stumbled across this on Spacedock, and I've been tooling around with it in the VAB for a bit - it's pretty neat. A couple of suggestions: Better description on Spacedock: currently the main page just says it requires the Firespitter dll. I don't know if you can have the gif from the OP in there, but that would be grand, since that perfectly encapsulates what this does. I believe Firespitter's (since you're already using it) has the ability for texture switching as well. Something to consider, since although I like the texture, I wouldn't mind an option or two closer to stock textures for blending purposes. This one is probably not worth your while to implement, but it's just a thought: a return to "default state", or a "previous shape" button. Basically, I started hitting all the buttons and came up with some Picasso style abomination that wasn't remotely usable. I know I could just trash it and start over, but say it was the root part, or had parts attached to it. I guess a little more control than just cycling through all the buttons again (especially when you forget which you hit). That's about all I have at the moment. Out of curiosity, how does this perform aerodynamically? I have FAR installed, and I'm wondering if this will render as a cube even if I curve it (I think that depends on whether colliders get changed, from what I've heard). Anyway, just my 2 cents (which may not even be worth that); take it for what it's worth. Cheers.

Bug Report: Blizzy Toolbar setting resets every time game exits Just as the title says, it resets every time the game exits, requiring the user to reapply the setting. It's a minor annoyance to be sure, but it's there none the less. Been this way since 0.19. Submitted it on github as well.

Can't play without this mod; looking forward to this update!

Damn you make good looking rockets. My only complaint, as mentioned above, is with the filter extension mod, the added part category. Not a big deal, and can be deleted easily enough (the one on the left). Cheers.

As a fan of xcom (although I haven't tried the recent one yet), I'd be keen to give it a whirl when you're ready. Eventually, I would strongly vote for some modularity, although that probably makes it more difficult for you. In that case, which seems to be your idea first too, is get a working model out first. My test pilot resume: I'm pretty new and generally a terrible pilot. Sold yet? No? I only play career, most of my experience is at the beginning/middle; so if this is going at the end of the tech tree, I can't really comment. I've also been known to poke around a config or two. Basically, I'm a semi fresh set of eyes and another warm body in the jumpseat. Eitherway, good luck.

Off the top of my head, the only thing I can think of is "hideFlow = false" but I think that's just for resource transfer flow. I looked through the CFG File Documentation and the Module wiki documentation briefly, but didn't see anything else. Admittedly, not the best answer, but I just hate seeing a question go unresponded to. Cheers.

Does anyone have any tips or tricks on how to fly the Viper/Lander/Ranger trio of craft? I am, without a doubt, one of the worst pilots to grace the halls of KSC, and the best I can manage with these sleek and deadly contraptions is to wallow around in the air like a drunken catfish. (And I can just feel you getting antsy @JPLRepo, but this isn't going to turn into another stealth bug report, although I do have some info you may or may not find interesting). My background with aircraft, both in real life and in game, is virtually non-existent. I have yet to, in the hundreds of hours (rounding down) I've apparently logged in this game, successfully make it off the runway. Ever. So naturally, VTOL sounds immensely appealing, because...hey, no runway! Anyway, as coincidence would have it, I just so happened to be rummaging around in the configs for the Viper/Ranger/Lander (which, I can assure you, has nothing to do with why they weren't flying straight....like I said, this is most definitely not a bug report). One thing led to another and I sort of made a spreadsheet comparing all the lifting surfaces in Stock KSP to the lifting values of the Trio in an effort to track down my issue (instead of, you know, learning how to fly). I offer it without commentary, because I really don't know what to make of these numbers, if anything; maybe you do, maybe you have some use for them. If not, that's cool too. My opening question was actually a legitimate one: if anyone has any suggestions on how to better fly these things I'm all ears. Currently, aside from having a retard at the wheel, my basic diagnosis of the problem is I went too heavy handed on..."customizing" ...the mass and the thrust, and threw off the balance, which, when combined with the built-in lift of the aircraft and FAR (the craft are also shaped like kites), causes them to do loop-di-loops (Lander) or just flounder around (Ranger). I don't know what they behave like normally or in stock aerodynamics or with a competent pilot or really anything about them. They look killer though. A couple questions and other comments: Are you supposed to put engines on the back of the Ranger (it has attachment nodes there)? I didn't, but it looked like the lander engines might fight and hey, more dV! Because of the design of the crafts, I don't actually know which direction my thrust is pointing in. I mean, the back is obvious (as are the engines on the lander), but where are the other engines on the Ranger and Viper? How do they work with FAR (or how are they supposed to)? Because I use FAR, and I think I already know how they handle with FAR already (like a kite). The NAVBall Alignment, being horizontal, is great for rovers and such...but I ...actually don't know about this one. Thinking about it now, I suppose this is standard on aircraft? I just know telling MechJeb to align Surface:UP had rather unfortunate results. Cheers. (oh, I did find the turning down the reaction wheel torque from the default value of 100, to around 25, helped at least make it so MechJeb's corrections weren't so violent. Increasing "crashTolerance" to triple figures also helped me too, but I suspect that one might be more circumstantial). ---edit--- Forgot about the Cooper Engines...that might have helped last flight. ---edit2--- After attaching 3 Cooper Engines (and later disabling the third), I successfully took the Ranger from ground to...well my Ap is currently in excess of 1,000Km, but we're in space, so I'm happy. My thoughts on the Ranger: She's a touchy mistress, but seems to handle well. The ascent took over 10 minutes, because I had to do most of it at under 5% throttle due to the massively quick build up of dynamic pressure (I am more or less playing with default values now on the Ranger/Cooper Engine). At less than 5% throttle, I was at a constant 30,000kPa dynamic pressure according to FAR; 40,000kPa is when things start getting rough. Tapping Z once (maxing throttle), then hitting X (killing throttle), shoots my kPa into the 70 to 100 thousand range, at which point if I lose control (which happened once), the G force from the spinning alone instantly kills the crew (if you have the mods that enable deadly G's and such). As the atmosphere receded, and about the time the ClosedCycle engine kicked on, I could open up the throttle more and it wasn't an issue. I have no idea what an optimal ascent profile would look like for this type of vehicle, so I just told MechJeb a pitch of 10 degrees and hit execute. I'll poke at the configs some more and see if I can even things out a little (for me anyway). Your future plans in the OP does mention "tweaks to the Ranger engine air mode"... Also, it turns out the Ranger doesn't float. You know, in case you were curious. ----edit 3--- Took the Viper successfully to from orbit (HyperEdit) through the atmosphere and back up again. I'm beginning to suspect your lift values might be fine. I did suffer engine failure though (DangIt mod), and during the attempted servicing of the engine, discovered that trying to re-enter the Viper cockpit from EVA is apparently impossible (well, I'm 0/4 in my attempts; Bill grabs on momentarily, then gets kicked back out into space). No need to throttle the throttle on the Viper due to dynamic pressure. She was rather stable, until I decided to test out where the RCS ports were, at speed, during reentry.

Yay, glad to hear it worked. I'm not the most experienced with writing MM configs, but something like...erm... So I started writing you an example and I accidentally wrote the entire thing. I haven't tested it, but it should work (if not, let me know and I'll poke at it). And I also explained an alternative method of getting the same result in the comments (and how to install it, etc). For the sake of history, if people are curious as to what this does, it just targets every SRB (I separated the Ullage motors out into their own section if you need to remove them for whatever reason) by name and sets their minimum thrust setting to 0. Why is this useful? Currently, it would seem a number of KW Rocketry SRBs (maybe all of them, I didn't pay attention) have a minimum thrust "floor" that even with Tweakables and thrust limiters, can't be broken through. Until now (hopefully). Anyway, it was your idea (and I don't want to get stuck supporting it) so I titled it "Tommy59375's Fantastic minThrust Reducer Patch for KW Rocketry" ---- and now if it doesn't work, I'm off the hook! In the off chance I need to state it, you can consider this released into the public domain (or whatever I'm supposed to say). Do with it what you will. And @linuxgurugamer if you want it for the patch pack (reading your above post, you don't seem to add to it, you just maintain, so probably not), go for it, not that it's anything special or that I think there is an overwhelming market demand for it. Cheers. (and if it really doesn't work, let me know; I'm not promising anything, but I'd rather not be plastering the web with shoddy merchandise)

@JPLRepo I removed that mod and I still get it.

It's basically a better (from what I understand) version of TAC Fuel. I think I misinterpreted your question, since if you have GPO and Manifest, well you're back to where you started basically.

Actually it occurs twice, and toward the end of the log, both times. It's not the cleanest log (baseline is 6 nullrefs, this is at 14) and there is some spam about "Look rotation viewing vector is zero" and Kopernicus being dumb (which I think eventually leads to the final "not enough memory"). None of that is relevant to you, just painting a picture of the environment. By the way, should we move this to the DeepFreeze thread or? Link Reloading game without aforementioned outdated mod to see if I can reproduce the issue. Might I suggest GPOSpeedFuelPump? I run it myself. It works in 1.0.5 if you run the recompiled version mentioned in the later comments and make some of the changes I mention in the thread.

Unfortunately, you can't add washing machine reaction wheel because this already adds one. I mean, a Radial Stabilizer Device (as they call it). Good luck!

And he arrives before I even get a chance to offer congratulations. Well, congrats! Seriously, nice work. From reading your changelog with Deep Freeze, I understand some things are still in a bit of an interim with regards to Ship Manifest (or maybe that was CLS). Specifically, well, I know how much ya'll love selected slices of logs, so here is precisely that: My only in game time consisted of flying a small pod for a couple minutes; didn't try to crew transfer or eva. The only thing relevant about the parts involved is that they...maybe haven't been updated since 0.24. I hadn't intended on actually submitting this until I tried it without said parts and could replicate it, but since JLRepo once again showed up in a flash lightning, I feel like I kind of have to now that the entire crew has been assembled. *sigh* I can and will provide my log (about to eat dinner). And as always, I'm trying (such as it is) to provide you guys with support, not the other way around. If you fix an issue I'm having great, but I have zero expectations. Mod authors, and you two in particular, provide a tremendous amount of value, and I believe in doing what I can to support that - which is why I am always in certain people's threads providing feedback, bug reports and suggestions. Now, with that out of the way, is there anything you'd like me to do, besides not installing dodgy mods (it was a one time thing, honest!) and uploading a log?

I haven't tested the latest version, or looked at the configs the community patches applies, but the part configs for the rocket you mentioned is "partL.cfg" found below. You could compare them to a similar stock, let's say the Thumper, which is "solidBoosterBACC.cfg" also found at the directory below. Main difference without looking at numbers is the KW rockets has a ton of added FX to it, while the BACC also has Test Results. Oh, here's the answer to your question. The KW rocket has a min thrust level of "minThrust = 247.5" while the BACC has a "minThrust = 0." Adjusting that entry should let you throttle your SRB (I'm guessing). Hope that helps some. Directories: /KWRocketry/Parts/Solids/075mAeroSRBs /Squad/Parts/Engine/solidBoosterBACC

There is also a reference to Kerbal stuff in the OP, not that it matters. Thanks for the update.

It would seem you've been busy while I was away (sorry about disappearing like that). I downloaded and installed the latest DeepFreeze and ShipManifest and it seems to have worked - I can now seem the roster for the first time in a long time! Reading through the change logs for both ShipManifest and DeepFreeze it seems like a lot of work went into this. Thank you! On a completely hypothetical level, and completely divorced from reality in any way I assure you: your wrapper class (which I think is something you created to allow other mods to easily talk to yours?) follows a naming convention of "MyPlugin_ShipManifestWrapper" yes? So if I just happened to be reading through the logs and saw a reference to a "DeepFreeze-SMWrapper" that would be the DeepFreeze version of your wrapper class, correct? So if, to continue the example, "DeepFreeze-SMWrapper" were misbehaving in some way, who would be the person I would talk to? If it seems like I'm being annoyingly oblique about this (which I am), I just want to make sure I have the right interpretation and the right person, before potentially spoiling the (well deserved) celebratory mood. Cheers.

I'm actually playing with it right now. The parts that I have unlocked (which are seriously funny, good find, and good work to the creator) work, with no NullRefs in the log, which is surprising. One word of advice: the nodes are a little bit wonky, and I had to constantly flip the parts to get them to attach properly (you'll notice the fridge in the picture is upside down, that's not an accident). Below is my historically accurate Saturn V style Falcon 9 Heavy, something something, flown by Jeb. Looking at the plume on the rocket, it would seem it features an SRB engine and an LFO fuel tank. Yup. In the second picture you begin to see the effects of building aerodynamic pressure as that little engine has some serious kick to it. I play with FAR and these parts aren't the most aerodynamic, and with too much dynamic pressure...the last (unposted) picture was of a solid cloud of smoke as the assembly got ripped to pieces. On a side note: this pack includes new science parts, which is pretty neat. For historical record, this is in a 1.0.5 with damn near every other mod installed. All I changed was to remove the changes to the stock tech requirements in the MM config included in the download. Cheers. (also, another mod that might complement this theme is Rusty Star Rockets; it's not quite as cute, but it does have a similar "2nd hand parts, to the mun on the cheap" theme and the parts are quality)

I did a ninja edit right after you posted, this might be relevant to you: I'm looking through it now. Haven't tested the parts yet, but there is a MM config that reorders the career tech tree, including the stock parts that could be an issue. It documents which changes are to the mod and which are to stock, so you could remove the stock ones if it causes problems. I don't know why he didn't just put the TechRequired inside the part configs to begin with...

@Andem fyi the mediafire link still works, I just downloaded "BargainRockets_1-1.zip" You just need to fill in the missing blank that got removed. Please note this is from 0.24 (I'm assuming) and I haven't tested it to see if it actually works with 1.0.5. Just that the download link still does. --Edit-- I'm looking through it now. Haven't tested the parts yet, but there is a MM config that reorders the career tech tree, including the stock parts that could be an issue. It documents which changes are to the mod and which are to stock, so you could remove the stock ones if it causes problems. I don't know why he didn't just put the TechRequired inside the part configs to begin with...

You realize there are half a dozen mods that do something like this (most abandoned, it would seem though)? @Stone Blue you could try RKE_Kanadarm, I have it load just fine in my 1.0.5; requires Infernal Robotics to work. Not to be confused with the Canadarm mod, which I had some issues with. Also, on a slightly unrelated note, I've seen you in this position before...like a lot. I spend a lot of time looking through old mods and you always seem to be the last kerbonaut at the finish line as it were (not trying to be cheeky, honest). One thing that helped me a lot was learning about the Kerbal Stuff torrent. Hope that helps some.