Fendrin

The smaller versions are not that science point expensive. Please note that the latest version depends on the CommunityTechTree, future versions will change that again. The first one can be unlocked after 2 parents, both worth 300. That is around the half of the CTT. One of the next releases will introduce more smaller versions, those can be used even earlier then.

New release, comes with scaled up versions of all 3 original sizes, supporting Size3 Bulkhead Profiles. SpaceShip²Yard €nterprises' SpaceDock 3L (61.7 x 47.6 x 32.1) - It fits still in the VAB but close.

@taniwha, using rescaleFactor in my parts now. That works fine for every stack node but not for the LaunchPos one. Scaling up is fine, the distance to the part only grows but scaling down kills the SpaceDock by spawning in the innards.

Well, regarding the IXS SpaceDocks, they are pretty not made for IXS. Most IXS WarpShips would feature the disc like command module at the front and one of the large thrusters at the rear of the ship. The docking port would most likely be in that black spot at the main hull, radial attached. A SpaceDock designed for that vessel would have at least some nodes which allow the easy attaching of a docking port fitting the main hull one. That was my initial motivation to manipulate their cfg files. The new OffworldShipYard SpaceDocks have that stack node but they still have the airlock like structure at the wrong place. Kerbals still need to EVA from a IXS to enter the SpaceDock. Maybe some more digging into ConnectedLivingSpace allows to restrict the transfer of Kerbals between certain stack nodes only, solving that problem. Okay, my point is that those SpaceDocks are quite nice and useful for a lot of purposes and in combination with a lot of mods like Interstellar or the future series. But they are not quite IXS specific and thus I think they belong into their own mod. A proper IXS SpaceDock might be open on both ends and have the Kerbal passable structures build into the sides. I wouldn't make spacedock a suggested mode for ixswarphips until the ConnectedLivingSpace issue is fixed. Maybe even wait longer until there are new meshes and artwork for a more suited version around. I would remove the current ones from ixswarpships at some time in the future and mark them "deprecated" until then, like it is done in other mods I have seen.

Yes, sure. But I wonder if it won't cause problems. Vessels using the IXS version won't load anymore without them?

Hmmm, I still haven't figured out how to embed pictures. It is just a SpaceDock, comes in 3 different sizes. When the Extraplanetary Launchpads mod is installed as well it can be used to build vessels in orbit.

SpaceDock in different sizes, usable as orbital shipyard. Content: 6 different sized SpaceDock parts, based on 3 different meshes Combined with a lot of USI and Future Technologies parts. @RoverDude's new Konstruction mod parts fit nicely. Credit: This mod is using the meshes and artwork from @Stevie_D's IXS Enterprise. Upstream: The current IXS WarpShip mod features the pure structural parts this mod derives from. License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public Development Thread New Replace the regular one with the modified KIS.dll to enable the KISPickup feature. Kerbal Engineer building with the SpaceDock, use the "g" and "h" shortkeys. Download v0.2.1 SpaceDock is not on SPACEDOCK CKAN Revision Control Change-log Relationships Dependencies CommunityTechTree Recommended mods Extraplanetary Launchpads Suggested mods Konstruction KAS/KIS USI-Core Supported mods Connected Living Space Tips Building Needs Extraplanetary Launchpads Be careful to build only vessels which fit inside the SpaceDock... Building vessels with attached launch clamps conjures the Space Kraken. Attach some containers with RocketParts to use the vessel build feature. Attach some inventory containers to store parts. Bring up all kinds of docking ports. Known Issues The twin nodes on the port and starboard don't allow the passing of Kerbals yet. The light can't be turned off. The light does not consume any charge. The Dock looks like it could be deployed but there is no animation yet. Only new vessels can be build, there is no way to maintain already existing ones easily. Related

http://imgur.com/a/pxpLA The plane is indeed placed in a wrong direction. I still have to learn how to embed images here. edit: Regarding the Launchpad, is it possible to specify maximal dimensions for the vehicle that is to be produced? In case of the SpaceDock it makes a lot of sense to limit at least the height to the dimension of the Dock itself.

Yes, thank you. I found me spelling it wrongly in the cfg file. Sorry for wasting your time. It is called "LaunchPos" and I put "LaunchNode" in there. I will test how SPH vehicles spawn.

There is a "LaunchNode" in the mu file specified. It seems to point into the wrong direction. I can load the mu file into Blender using your plugin. But I can't export it, I run into the fog problem and Blender is completely new and just huge to me. So even if exporting would work I am not able to change the vector of the node yet. Thus I gladly accept your help with modifying the file. It is at https://github.com/bartblommaerts/warpship/blob/master/Installation/GameData/WarpShip/Parts/Spacedock_Small/Spacedock_Small.mu. I am not firm with gimp and artwork but I am good at coding and scripting. There is also a bigger and an even bigger version of the SpaceDock, all with their own mu files. I guess a scripted solution could handle all 3 files in one approach. edit: Got it working properly. Sorry for wasting your time. It was called "LaunchPos" and addressing it correctly did the trick. Thanks for your help :-)

Yes, I have found the documentation, it just does not help me a lot. It seems that there are no files available other than the ".mu" one. I guess that means I can't fix that part to work with this mod, right?

Hello, while adding Launchpad capabilities to a part I wonder how to use the "SpawnTransform" field properly. "SpawnHeightOffset" is not enough, the ship is facing in the wrong direction. SpawnTransform seems to be of type string? Is it the id of some node?

"Void" thruster is somewhat broken, it gives 250kN more thrust than the "Lightning" but uses only: "Propellants: - Electric Charge: 0.013/sec. Max." (copied from the editor's tooltip) compared to the Lightning's consume of 1087.697 charge per second. Maybe the Tokamak issue was not reported yet simply because no one used the Lightning (which also consumes Xenon gas) and the "Void" just never demands more than the 6%. To give the example ship's reactor some load, the "Void" thruster was replaced by a "Lightning". This does not increase the output of the Tokamak. Thus the load is not the problem. The deep freeze hibernation chambers drain a fixed amount of charge for a freeze. To simplify coding the Tokamak could use the same mechanism, drain a certain amount of charge from the ship's reserves, abort starting when it runs out. Not exactly the same but not far away either. edit: The PPR plasma reactor pair seems to behave odd as well. The smaller one outputs 90 charge a second using one plasma. So the small container (500 plasma) contains enough energy to feed its own containment field for only a few hours. edit2: The main hull's solar panels are blocking each other. It seems to me that if one of the solar panels is blocked the other one at the opposite site of the hull stops producing charge as well. Splitting the hull and the cargo truss into separate parts is a possible solution.

Yes, and he is nearly not stupid at all.

Hello, can't get the Tokamak in the main hull to run properly. It is producing charge but never more than 6,78% load. That is using the example ship that comes with the mod. Anything I don't know?

Hello @RealGecko, I like to code an expansion for KIS/KAS and I wonder if this mod could save me a lot of work. The idea is that a Kerbal (most likely an engineer) on EVA can ask others to join and help with heavy parts. So the right click menu of a part in reach when on EVA is supposed to offer the extra button for calling the nearest Kerbals within range of the part until they are enough to lift it. I guess the situation is quite similar, need to move vessels while they are not the active one controlled by the player. Although Kerbals don't steer the same way as rovers do (missing the wheel control) BonVoyage seems to be not that far away. Have you ever thought about BonVoyage controlling Kerbals? Maybe a future version could even make them walk to the next rover and use it if that fits in the route.

Thank you :-) Well, the situation in which it annoys me the most is base building. Destroying what shall become the base is not an option. In that scenario the "debris" is produced by an engineer dismounting the parts and storing them on the ground before reassembly.

When I first sent a probe (hard landing) to Duna the contract system offered me a lot of Duna related contracts afterwards. Accepted a bunch of them and launched another (unmanned) mission to Duna at the next launch window. When arriving at Duna everything went wrong. One contract wanted testing a headshield above the planet. The wiki mentions Duna can be approached by air braking and so the contract seemed to fit into a sounding mission planing. But the parameters of that test contract were so artificial that I had no chance to fulfill it with my craft and be at the right speed in the altitude range. The contract was both, stupid and very not beginner friendly. Another one wanted to put a satellite in a specific orbit around Duna. Of course that orbit was so different to the one I arrived at that I had no chance for that as well. Again, not the best contract for the first few flights to Duna. The second part testing related contract was stupid and failed as well, don't remember the details anymore... The Ike flyby contract was actually a good one. Ike is so near and huge that you can't miss him. But that contract vanished somehow. Maybe it was me messing with some contract related mods. So the only thing I could do was a "gather some science from the surface" contract. Although I had brought in a nice but small rover. But he ended in the middle of nowhere nothing to do but driving several days to the next biome. My point is the whole contract system while being a nice start is not polished enough to give me a good gaming experience. The new player is not guided enough. At least one handcrafted Duna contract with some words about launch window and planet constellations, a rough estimation about the needed deltaV. It should also encourage a sounding mission planning, not introduce silly goals which make it more difficult. When there is a goal that makes it more difficult it needs to be optional, make some sense, give a reward that is balanced and be very verbose about the extra difficulties involved (with extra deltaV if needed). Later in the game you learn to judge better which contracts are suited for you or don't make much sense at all. Still I end up mostly doing 3 different type of missions: Fulfill mostly silly contracts for gathering money Spend that money on missions for gathering science Missions I actually want to do, after more money and science gathering to pay them

Is there a reason for switching into the vessel being a single stack separator? I have not seen that suggestion before yet, maybe I miss some configuration option or there is a second pair of keyboard actions? In most cases players would only want to switch into a vessel that either houses at least one Kerbal (or is a Kerbal on EVA itself) or has a working drone core on-board. Switching to every single part laying around a ground base that is in construction is very annoying. Using a mod like "Vessel Switcher" makes picking individual Kerbals more easy, still its selection list is cluttered with uncontrollable parts as well.

Played with the mod in the VAB a bit. Now I need to share some thoughts. It is nice to see the different shapes fitting at the same place. This way you can build a dome with 2 hulls, the hexagonal one is slightly more huge. Sadly you can only do so using the bigger ground plate and there is no way to stack more than 2 of them. I would have loved to have an outer double hull dome with another smaller double hull one in the middle. Copying the airlock and the tunnel directories and adjusting the files a little gave me versions only half the size. They are still wide enough to support 2 Kerbals walking side by side and fit a bit better in the smaller domes, where the original airlock is a bit over-sized. The airlock could have its 2 mount points on both sides. A bit more error prune but that way you can use a single airlock to connect domes without the need to use the move tool upon one of them. Also enables the possibility to intersect a long stack of tunnels. The mount point at the bottom of the tunnels is surely meant to hold the rail of a monorail train connecting domes being a bit too far away to walk. Also a transport band for shorter distances. I guess there is no point in placing pressurized structures under a dome. Although the room under the dome is to be used as efficient as possible. Thus a company producing the domes could also deliver buildings/structures fitting inside. Those parts would be cheaper, less heavy and dedicate more room to their main purpose since they lack any life support facilities. They are usually not launched into space in one piece but assembled at the place of the base. The floor part's texture already intersects 4 triangular sections around the 4 mount points. Thus a building would be shaped like the 1/8 part of a sphere. The buildings matching to the bigger domes have a roof (with mount point) in the dimensions of the smaller dome building's floor. So you can stack different type of buildings. When there is a third and even bigger dome size in the future it can then feature 3 floor buildings. Regarding the floor panel part and huge bases, a lifting jack like rack for attaching. Used to adjust the panel to be perpendicular and adjusting the height to compensate non flat terrain to a certain degree. A floor panel on a not so gravity rich body with a decent structure build onto might use 3 radial attached of them. On the other hand might additional mount points on the downside of the floor panel connect them.

Nice to hear. What kind of contracts are generated? I try my hand on writing some additional contracts for OuterPlanets like a voyager like flyby tour and some Cassini/Huygens like missions. Still assuming that those are not autogenerated and that there is no other contract pack providing some.

The wheels of the PackRat are displayed in gray, I guess this is what happens when the texture is missing. And every time I use them they get blocked and the voyage is over, sooner or later. Mounting the small version of the Malemute Wheels (although they overlap with the PackRat parts) works much better. Malemute and the Karibou parts appear in a new "Rovers" section in the editor's palette, but I miss the PackRat here. Anyway, had a lot of fun with the Malemute, keep up the good work :-)

Wondering if the outer planets are later in the game targeted by the career mode's contract system. After looking inside the outer planet mod I have already learned that it does not come with any contract definitions. Are there any mods out there which add more contracts depending on the presence of the outer planet one? Or is the stock game generating some contracts for them automatically?

Okay, I tried with a fresh KSP installation and only SVT 1.42 and its dependencies installed. Thus it's not an issue between different Kopernicus mods. There is indeed an exception thrown and made it into the logs. The KSP log: https://gist.github.com/fendrin/e831b5d5872aa3c68de0eb13da44c627 The log for Vall: https://gist.github.com/fendrin/c6574f0aed6bbd21e24924637bd2988e And for Pol: https://gist.github.com/fendrin/98e98b61f684bab1d9e3cd15e5c653f9