Crimeo

Hi, I am on windows 10 home, I download ckan.exe from the newest release (ikaros) and run it, and it just brings up a blank run shell with a blinking cursor which simply sits there and does nothing at all? Edit: yes I do have .net 4.5, and I also tried running it as administrator, no dice. Edit 2: When I go all the way back to Eddington release, and delete my CKAN folder, that one works and installs CKAN, but if I allow it to update within CKAN to Ikaros, it again closes CKAN and replaces it with an empty blinking run prompt. I will see if Eddington does what I need anyway for now.

I have textures available for procedural parts, but 100% of them are just variants of brushed metal...??? Nothing else. What am I missing?

Hi, I am trying to find the IVA shown in the first photo on the front page, but...? Not a big plane guy, but the pod I would use all the time. I was about to make that same thing myself. Where is it in the download?

ammonia means a part in game that holds "ammonia" "liquid ammonia" is a different set of letters than "ammonia" and as far as the game is concerned, may as well be "elephants" Kerbalism should ship with "big tanks" and some other tanks that hold "ammonia" as a resource. However, you're almost certainly going to get a ton of errors in general besides this trying to use two different life support mods. Since they suppress things about one another, possibly including the chemical plant processes, etc? Just use one of them. Also, screenshots.

The size of the tank seems to scale in my game when I'm using this (I am using your config, with a few tweaks). The larger engines use, say, 8 hypergolics, but the tank just holds like 24 or 32 or something instead. Which is actually very good, even if it was unintentional by you, lol. The fact that it uses more means that each ignition is HEAVIER in resources, which actually encourages you to use the tweak menu to tweak down your ignition resource to only what you think you'll need, which is good gameplay!

Musk lost all credibility to me as an expert on anything tunnel related after his insane plan to try and build a 400 mile long vacuum death trap tunnel... Fool me once... He should stick to vehicles, he seems pretty competent at various vehicles.

Okay so yes I did not explain well enough. "C" is (Still) more weird than other keys, but not the only problem: Outside the probe control room: Keyboard acts like normal, all keys disabled when entering any window that captures the keyboard (mechjeb, or kos, for example, not specific to one mod). EXCEPT for "c" which even outside of the probe room, still brings me into the probe room when hitting it, even in a capturing window. I just now confirmed that that is still happening in version 1.2.2.6. Inside the probe control room: Gets much worse. The entire keyboard never gets captured by any window similar to mechjeb. All keys do their normal things at all times. space will stage, numbers will fire AGs, arrow keys will move the view around in the background IVA, "T" will toggle SAS, etc. etc. even while trying to type in commands to another mod in its own window. Replication: No idea what to tell you, it just happens whenever I open any window that would normally capture the keyboard. Nothing triggers it, it's always the case from the start. Everything to do with probe control room doesn't get captured (anything inside it, and the activation for it while outside of it), everything else does (all other keys besides C outside the room) I can try to start stripping down to vanilla and building up different sets of windowed mods to debug, when I get time. Edit: also, no, not props, because problem is identical to what was happening with the probe control room back before I started working on my own IVA at all. So it's either not prop related, or it's specifically the ASET 40x20 or ASET 60x30 multifunction display props, common to both IVA before and after. Possible, but still unlikely because I also use those same 2 props in various manned IVAs without any issues.

So I've been working on an improved IVA for this, but it's got all kinds of bizarre bugs. Like... staging and stage lock for no apparent reason don't work in probe control room -- exact same prop works in a manned control pod on same vessel, keyboard spacebar works (as if simply unlocked to begin with), but not probe control staging or stage unlock. Just stays locked. Plenty of EC, radio connection (spacebar wouldn't work without these anyway). SAS randomly sometimes doesn't let me push anything but stabilize, even in orbit mode, other times it does. Other times it just switches my mode without asking. Works just fine in manned IVA, smooth as silk. Several props don't seem to load again no idea why, but ONLY in that one IVA, everywhere else they work fine. I would have guessed this was just a mistake in placing the prop in a wall or something by accident, but it happened on several prop types (aborts, certain kinds of rotaries), consistently to the type, and like half a dozen of them. Having trouble remembering which exactly, I replaced several with other versions of themselves, like rotary switch with tumbler, etc. Stage lock was one, too, actually. Covered didn't work, tumbler did. Covered works just fine in all other manned IVAs. The probe IVA is also still not giving up keyboard focus -- you didn't write that in the changelog, but you said "above issues fixed" earlier, so dunno if you got to it or not yet. But yeah the KOS terminal or mechjeb or whatever should block ALL keystrokes from doing anything, it does in normal camera, and in manned iVA, but not probe IVA. Result = typing in "100" for mechjeb ascent for example will activate action groups 1 and 10, etc. IVA config so far if helpful: https://pastebin.com/D4NrCLe1 (requires ASET, ASET avionics, and flightsystems redux) also photo for fun! (And yes I know flight directors aren't pilots... I don't know how to edit the textures where the nametags are. Also I'm pretty sure "probe mission control rooms" like this don't even exist...?)

You can already send the reports (for less science, since nobody analyzed it...) in stock KSP. You can't get the full amount, but of course you can't, because learning the most from rocks requires a geologist to examine them in detail, thus requiring you to get them to KSC or to a skylab. As noted above, the mod kerbalism lets you transfer samples to probe cores in the same ship, so you can move stuff from the sampling devices, to the core, then launch the core back into orbit to meet up with a mother ship. You're unlikely to find a mod that just does this, because it doesn't make sense in universe. However, as above, kerbalism will allow it to wok via a launch of just the probe (you can leave the heavy rover behind) for 100%

Yup!

I believe Kottabos did actually have other mods, for purposes of showing it would block modded parts, but it was only 1 or 2 of them, and random ones that are unlikely to be the culprit.

I'm confused. You seem to be saying you want to send samples to orbit, but without actually sending anything physically back to orbit. If so, that doesn't make any sense -- they're samples, physical things like rocks and stuff, they have to be physically carried to somewhere with a lab to analyze, that's the point. There probably aren't any mods that allow you to teleport physical samples, because that's weird and sort of defeats the purpose. If you don't mean that, and I misunderstood, and you ARE able to get the samples to orbit, but just want to bring them back or analyze them on a different ship, then use kerbalism, linked above, which implements a system that allows you to move samples around between probe cores in a single ship--so you can send them up into orbit in a small ascending stage (no need to bring whole rover--science is in the probe core itself), DOCK, then move science, undock, and proceed going home with the mothership, or use a manned lab in the mothership to analyze or whatever.

1) This is all handled by the default game (attitude and action group firing like deploying stuff) 2) This would clash with the stock game and one of the most popular existing mods, which have rules about vessel connectivity that are general across the game already (and there's only one radio frequency, effectively). In other words, if your satellite is in low orbit, and as a player you already have relay satellites in line of sight anywhere, you'll already have signal, not just when it's over a PARTICULAR ground station. And it would be rather weird to have it not work like that. Perhaps you could have a mod that introduces a concept of civilian contractors in general, who have their own private radio frequencies, to justify why it isn't normally connected. That would actually be much cooler than the original satellite mod, and something I think would get more interest. There was a group making a mod that was to have separate network channels, but I forget the name of the thread, anyone? 3) Easy to do but fairly boring in-game, would take the form of one of millions of fairly generic "science" experiments for science points, most likely, or fulfilling a contract. Also, this implies the existence of high-res versions of what the ground looks like being available somewhere as a file, if you expect players to actually be able to view a zoomed in photo, which generally is not the case for planets in KSP. 4) Same issues as 2. ("5") The original just "adding parts" part of the mod: Also easy to do if you have models already, but somewhat boring. Just one more among hundreds of models to visually spice things up, otherwise it would not be much different than current experience, so you'd get relatively low interest levels compared to something more gameplay-oriented, like the private networks mod above. The exception is if you have VERY talented modelers and texturers to make things that are utterly beautiful and still in the art style of the game, if so parts alone will generate interest. Also, do any people at your company play KSP regularly? Has a lot to do with how much you would be able to really practically speed up mod making, outside of parts by providing models.

Can't you make your own categories stock?

I realize engines are obviously more valuable than a few meters of tank, but are not necessarily obviously more valuable than a few meters of tank PLUS the opportunity benefit of not spending money on robot barges, fancy avionics in the first stage, and landing hardware.

Gray static is better, but still super boring to look at. Have you seen the mod probe control room? IIRC it doesn't do anything special whenbit loses connection, but it DOES definitely turn off every screen if you run out EC. If you ask the current developer about doing the same for lost connection, it may be doable. Warp by the way I just realized you could make not matter by just turning off UI with F2, so you don't get the notifications or see it top left.

I wouldn't wait half an hour, I'd just go to the tracking station. If you actually intend to stay on the normal screen for ANY reason, including scripted burns, this becomes a terrible mod for you. Why subject yourself to bleeding eyes? It mqkes sense outside of the context of kos/rt/etc only IMO

KIS / KAS is not really "hardcore" it's just a thing that lets you do convenience fixes, occasionally. It's also going to be almost necessary to go along with extraplanetary launchpads. I can hardly conceive of one working without the other -- You constantly end up building accidentally without one of the resources you need, for example, or just hit the buttons wrong, and need to pump in some xenon or whatever, and without KIS, you'd have to ridiculously design EVERY spaceship to have a docking port and a way to be accessed by a rover tanker on site to fix that, or else you're just going to be totally screwed on like... your fourth launch probably.with a giant rocket that you can't put anywhere. Etc. etc. You definitely want USI life support + extraplanetary launchpads + KIS/KAS at a minimum, I'd say. Yes extraplanetary launchpads. Ground construction I would say does NOT fit your description of a "colonization mod" in the normal sense, in that you cannot build anything unless you bring a big box of parts fresh, every time, from KSC. EPL does let you build things in isolation on a colony. (It doesn't use ore, it uses a different resource, but it's also eaily found and you could modify the configs to use ore potentially anyway). USI (just USI life support NOT all the rest of the USI stuff) fits your life support request of just being two or three things you need (space to stretch your legs, and "supplies" if I recall, and greenhouses that recycle it, only a few parts). And KIS/KAS is an ANTI-frustration mod, not the other way around,by letting you fix small things that will go wrong on far away colonies, without just simply failing your entire mission for stupid reasons. For example, if your pilot could get outside, but your scientist was stuck in a pod because the hatch was obscured by a solar panel -- do you just abort and go home for 5 years? Or do you use KIS to simply move the damn panel 5 inches to the left? ---------------- I'd also suggest Deep Freeze, which makes the requirements for life support much more bearable for long journeys, but could go easily without.

You're talking about the design of things to carry LARGER payloads. This discussion is about designs for things to carry SMALLER payloads. Because the falcon heavy already does not recover its first stage when lifting its heaviest payload. It crashes it like normal. It only does the recovery thing when carrying less than maximum payload. So the alternative approach (changing tank size) would be changing it to be smaller, not larger. The options you're talking about of strapping more versions of it to the side thus do not apply: the main reason for that is to have space on the bottom for more engines to lift that extra fuel (versus one bigger tank scales up in volume faster than surface area), but when we are talking about slightly reducing the size, that's not a problem or consideration, really. You can just straight up make it smaller and it should work (pending avionics adjustments, which again are an issue either way). The manufacturing to do so is almost necessarily cheaper. It's pretty much inconceivable as far as I'm concerned that a 90% length version of the same exact thing is ever going to be harder to make than a completely unrelated new product (like a robot boat). Thus, it comes down to "is the extra size saved + recovery effort not spent more or less expensive than the first stage"?? And that one is much less intuitively obvious. Thus, was just asking if there's math.

Hi, I can import fine, but the export button is visible, yet grayed out (can export to dae etc., but mu is grayed out only)? All I did was import a mu file, delete a coffee cup, and dag some cameras around, so I'm pretty confident I didn't add any unsupported things, etc. since I didn't add anything at all, or change any properties. Why is it not letting me export?

I'd wager quite a lot that the manufacturing complexity of producing [30m long tanks + 35 meter long tanks + 40m long tanks] is a hell of a lot simpler than the manufacturing complexity of producing [30m long tanks + autonomous robot boats + landing legs + fins + a redundant set of avionics probably not of the same type as in the upper stage]... could be wrong, but would never believe this off-the-cuff without math to back it up.

They're just on sleds on tracks, dude. I don't see why adding 3 meters to any of those fundamentally changes the concept of the assembly line, that's a pretty out-there statement. Assembly lines have parameters that can change allllll the time. The same machine makes 15 kinds of chain with slightly different settings, turning a few screws, etc. And this one is similarly pretty clearly from the photo already modular, you can see the same sleds being used for completely different parts on the lower left, in the same room, on the same rails. Let alone different sized parts. Though you can also already see tube sections of completely different lengths on the same sleds on the same rails in the same room (bottom vs. top half of image). It seems very very unlikely that this room here cannot accomodate a tube of the same sort but 3 meters longer or shorter. Or if it can't, it could have been made to without being much different than it is now. And just like high end sports cars, these sort of assembly lines are by nature a bit "boutique" anyway, with hands-on manual labor used to double check things, etc. Not the same as a toothpick assembly line. See all the ladders and stuff next to the parts, for example.

Yeah, but why would you expect the center of mass to change particularly more meaningfully due to a 10% longer stage versus the amount it changes with 10% more mass of fuel still left in it? One is a small change to drag/gimbaling, one is a small change to mass, they should both have probably roughly similarly difficult to correct for impacts on the avionics. As in, every launch is different if the stage is always a different length OR if the stage has different amounts of fuel left at different points in the launch. Either way changes everything. Manufacturing: Mayyybe... I'm not at all just a priori convinced that the manufacturing cost of having, say, 4 different tank lengths is "obviously" less than the manufacturing cost of adding grid fins, legs, and building a fleet of autonomous robot boats that also require manufacturing... Maybe, but that brings us back to a "where's the math, if anywhere?" question, not just an "obvious" answer.

The structural and aerodynamic load, avionics, center of mass, etc.ALSO change if you're only burning 90% of your fuel, similarly to changing that 10% by stretching or shrinking, and then having the shell fly on a completely different trajectory and do a completely different thing (land on boat, land on pad, splash down, etc.). So those really don't seem very convincing arguments to me. You're going to have to recalibrate all that stuff, and I'm sure it's difficult and expensive and all, but you have to do it with BOTH strategies anyway. I.e. a tank decoupling with fuel still left in it will fly differently and require all that different engineering regardless than a tank decoupling empty. If one system is able to adapt fluidly to those different situations on the fly for mission profiles with the one tank, then it should have been able to with slightly different sized tanks too.

Because you're getting magical information for free. It's not really that obtrusive, because obviously, you wouldn't hang out on that screen for an hour, you'd leave immediately because there's nothing to do, it's just not letting you "cheat" in terms of realism via omniscience. @OP: Is pretty unlikely to work well / would be a ton of extra work, because you'd have to override every single body's default altitude restrictions (otherwise you'd be gaining info about altitude based on when the warp slows or speeds down or up). Since there's nothing to do there anyway, I'd suggest just disabling time warp as a better option.