sal_vager

As feedback yes, I don't see an issue for fairing separation, searching for "confetti" also draws a blank.

Hi @mwg_test, your graphics driver is old, please update it, you can find the latest driver for your graphics card here.

Hi @Garbonzo, can you please get the output_log.txt from the KSP_Data folder and the dxdiag hardware report from your friends computer and upload them to a file host such as dropbox. We need those to know more about what's going on.

I see this @Plusck. Repeated over and over, then this near the end. But I don't know how it can get like this, I am seeing some weird stuff when you loaded the Gilly drill ship though. How old is Gilly drill ship? I'm wondering if the 1.0.5 changes were enough to break contracts even if vessels from 1.0.4 are used. I have not been able to reproduce this yet though either with your save or mine, I'll ask @Arsonide to take a look, he knows the contract system inside out.

Feedback is not a discussion or opinion on a feature or a policy unless you make it a discussion or opinion @Aperture Science. I can't put this any clearer, if it's added to the tracker there's more chance that it will be changed, this is the system Squad uses and it's for stuff like this.

As I already mentioned, if you want this changed it needs to be on the KSP tracker, it will carry much more weight there than any number of complaint threads or polls here.

Please put the full logs on dropbox Morse, and both the craft file and persistent.sfs from the save folder may help with diagnosing this. Also, the logs above still show you are using addons, you need to test in an unmodded KSP.

Nope, what you need is for engines and other parts to lose their occluded state when the fairing opens, in exactly the same way as they currently do with cargobays. But the only event the fairings check for is their being staged. So by adding a check for the part the fairing is closed around being present in the vessel tree when the craft is reordered, such as when a lander is decoupled, KSP can tell if the fairing is open and remove occlusion on all parts in the "open" faring. This way, players can't activate parts while occluded, but players can remove occlusion by staging a decoupler/separator to remove the part the decoupler was closed around. Then, make a feature request that players should be able to finish a fairing with an open end, with no part closing the fairing it wouldn't occlude its contents and would allow for even more variety. Simple.

Yeah that's definitely a modded install, moved thread! Does it occur in an unmodded install with a new save? Please upload pics and other files to a file host such as dropbox and post the links here. Also, see this thread for info

Hi @Plain_Crazy, I don't know of a mod off-hand but you can rename and reclassify vessels in the tracking center by first clicking the i on the right to open the knowledge base, then clicking the vessels name. This works for all vessels you "own" regardless of them being crewed or not. Reordering vessels and filtering by SoI would require an addon however.

Actually, @musicpenguin still exists, if you can't login you will need to reset your password or I can merge these accounts for you.

Like this? All I can suggest is you check your resolution, or don't use OpenGL mode on Windows KSP because it's not supported.

Stock Soyuz connector ring. The KSP fairing is not the correct part for this use case.

Hi Athougho, the chutes will be destroyed if staged and then exposed to high air speeds or temperatures, you need to wait until the icon turns white again before staging so they are safe inside their container. If you are dropping straight down you may not slow down in time though, so try a parabolic or arcing trajectory instead of going straight up.

Well, as far as solutions go I have asked on the tracker that the removal of the part you close your faring around is used as the trigger for an occlusion check, if it's not reachable in the vessel tree, consider the fairing open and unocclude any parts inside it, unfortunately it's not currently tracked in the save or craft file which part this is. That's what's missing here, there's no event to tell KSP the fairing is open until it is either staged or you are reloading the scene (F5/F9). You still won't be able to activate parts that are stowed, but you would be able to stage a decoupler without staging the fairing, enabling Apollo style separation which is the only use case I've come up with so far.

@Stoney3K, maybe you think I'm a dev? I'm not the one to convince, and while the devs do look here when they have time we have the best chance of them seeing what we want on the KSP tracker. I could only find one other report on the tracker that dealt with fairing issues, no one has left feedback asking for your idea. As for the laws of physics, I'll refer you this post and the notion that safeties exist to prevent unsafe activation, it's not about physics so physics is not a suitable argument.

Hi Aivoh, buoyancySplashPartOriginLerp effects where the splash is when the part hits the water, some parts either don't need this or it is overridden. Unless KSP is crashing at this point you can ignore that warning.

@AlamoVampire, don't scream at me, if you want this changed give me stuff I can put on the tracker to convince the powers that be that this should be changed, and "SOYUZ RANT" isn't suitable.

@zar, probably not as KSP doesn't make a backup, if you have a recent quicksave you could load that.

Hi @GregroxMun, can you show me any instances in 1.0.5 where engines or any other occluded part remain stowed when the fairing is staged? As this is meant to be fixed. Also, I totally understand the sentiment against cramping gameplay options, but this was by design and to help change the minds of the ones who designed this we need to present use cases, that can't be achieved by some other method. I do have to argue this point however ... I'll point you to the interlock, though I'm sure there are other examples of methods to prevent activating machinery in an unsafe state, while some other parts are prevented from functioning for other reasons, such as wings not providing lift as there is no air flow inside a fairing.

Yep, @Giuliano you need to have a license, please see here for details. It's best to have the license in the archive and on this page, I removed your link for now, you can re-add it after adding the license

A friend liked my Sukhoi, and asked me to make a PAK FA, so after looking it up on wikipedia I did ... Craft file.

Hi Mike, there's no setting for this I can find, but if you use shift+enter you will have a smaller spacing. Like this, hope this helps.

I have a thought, it may be air starvation causing one engine to lose thrust. The LLTV/LLRV is not really designed for forward flight and was intended as a vtol test vehicle, so it won't have much airspeed, it turns out this is important in 1.0.5 The intake air resource isn't handled in the same way as 1.0.4 so the intake air gauge was removed as being redundant, the air is now based in intake area, intake angle, your speed and air density at your altitude on the current planet/moon. But when stationary or hovering your airspeed is zero/near zero, so all intakes needed a base speed air value so you could start moving, effectively this is the intake sucking in air. The Juno's maximum air need is 1.402 per second, so two of these need 2.804, it's not a lot so one small circular intake per juno should be enough even when stationary, but a single intake will cause one engine to run at reduced thrust and even flame out. I'm guessing you have a juno in front and behind the CoM which would be why you pitch forwards, but are you using two intakes or maybe a single 1.25m circular intake for the look? The 1.25m intake has the same base speed as the small intake so you'd still need two of them. So to avoid this I think you need extra static intake air to feed the junos, you could clip in a few more small intakes and that should provide enough air even if stationary at full throttle. Here's a pic of what I mean, with one intake I don't have enough static air so one of the junos loses power.

Not seeing the craft will make this difficult. All I can think of is uneven thrust build-up which could happen if you mix jet engine types, for example my attempts to have a Goliath at one end and Wheesleys at the other of a vtol I was building ended in failure, due to the engines spooling up at different rates. I changed the design to a single engine type and was able to make it work. Craft file.