Cykyrios

Up until the point where you said you used Mechjeb, I was like 'how are we supposed to program or automate stuff without using the ship\'s instruments?'. But now you got someone interested, though using Autohotkey means that we cannot use timewarp (or we have to take it into account in the timing). Still gonna give this a try

New video is up, orbiting through a Munar arch! I also included the persistence file for those of you who want to give it a try (link on YouTube).

My, what happened to this poor Kerbal? Did he explode or something? I don\'t take many screenshots myself, but things like Nova\'s picture are something I\'d definitely want to see again =P

I think the devs block or simply ignore messages from other users, because otherwise their mailbox would be flooded. I do believe though, that your problem is indeed related to the compression issue, which will be fixed in 0.16. Keep up the good work

You should try to add a decoupler right beneath your capsule, so you only have the capsule and parachute left when landing. This will ensure your Kerbals survive. If you really want/need something more for your return stage, then be sure to go slow enough (less than 10 m/s), and even if something explodes, it should only cushion your fall (yeah, Kerbal landing, I know ).

Nice glowing effect you got there! And overall very nice work on those parts, keep up the good work

Well, as long as you don\'t get something like this: then I don\'t call it broken But I must say I never saw an orbit curving like that...

Yup, I knew this one (or rather I had already noticed it), but never remember to actually do it (and I clear my persistence file regularly), so thanks for reminding me of that!

A little update on the situation: in the current version (0.1), the parts have their weight way lower than expected (the rocket is about 20m tall but weighs only around 10 tonnes), which makes its engine a bit too powerful to my liking (landing on the Mun requires about 10% of throttle, and I think landing on Minmus would require to apply throttle in short bursts). I cannot lower its thrust, however, as the rocket is affected by the sticky launchpad for some reason (it doesn\'t seem to happen to other rockets...). The problem is, making parts heavier results in extremely unstable joints while on the ground, as the weight of the rocket tries to tear its parts apart. This is the main reason I wanted a single-part rocket, as I had already encountered this issue. I will pause my work on this rocket at least until 0.16 is out, when I can see how the new scale of the rockets turns out to feel like when flying. Ideally, when Part Modules are fully implemented, I will follow my original plan, which means that a hard landing will probably result in a full rocket explosion.

1. I can\'t answer that, sorry, I haven\'t tried using specular maps yet. 2. I have never used that plugin, but it didn\'t bother me, really. I generally have the nodes in a place with coordinates that are easy to find (a vertex, the middle of an edge, of a surface, etc.). You only have to be careful about the axes as they may have changed after exporting to Unity. 3. Same as your 1st question, but I can say that Emissive/Diffuse is the map that will be applied when the part heats up (the red-to-yellow glow). I should really get into texturing, could help improving my stuff =P

Have you checked, in Unity, that both your GameObject and your part are at the same coordinates? (preferably 0, 0, 0) And can you see any of the nodes even with the part being 'invisible'? My way of doing things is I create the gameobject, move it to 0,0,0 and add the KSP parttools component, import the asset and drag it directly onto the gameobject in the hierarchy so it\'s already at 0,0,0, delete the collider\'s mesh renderer and add a collider mesh instead, and that\'s about it. Be careful NOT to change the scale of your models even if it doesn\'t read 1, as it did kind of make my parts 'invisible': instead, I had a part 100 times too large (scale in Unity was 0.01 after importing). Good luck

The error comes from your part.cfg (as is always the case with this error, I guess). Your module is wrong, it should be either one of the default ones (there\'s a list on the wiki, or you can look at other parts\' part.cfg), or one that you have created yourself by writing a plugin. So here you\'d want to put module = FuelTank and it should work.

Well I have already tried this, and it\'s pretty much the opposite: if there is a force/torque powerful enough to break a joint with default values, increasing the resistance of the joint means that it will start 'sliding' without breaking. For instance, the landing legs are part of the engine, because separating them resulted in too high a weight on landing, and the rocket could bounce several meters... However, a result of this is that the ASAS cannot kill rotation due to roll, as physics are calculated based on a point for each part, which is centered due to the geometry of the rocket. My concern is that the whole part joint is somewhat ineffective in some cases, as it should be able to attach a surface rather than a point. Anyway, I still have not modelled the RCS thrusters, but I can release a first v0.1 so people can test the rocket. Be aware of the problems I mentioned, though. Link is in the first post.

I\'m having the same issue here, anything below 80-90% of thrust and the rocket won\'t leave the ground, slightly more and it zooms into the sky and I have to lower thrust down to 70% (so the engine is too powerful, but still barely enough to leave the ground...). Also, the node_collider has absolutely nothing to do with the visual mesh: you could make it twice as big/small, and even put it a few meters away, it will only change how/where it is displayed relative to the physical body.

I think the issue with the tricoupler comes from physics, and is normal: if you try to turn right, as you have two tanks or whatever at the 'bottom' and only one at the 'top' of your rocket, moving the two will be more difficult, and the rocket will start rotating along an other axis as well. As Vanamonde said, it\'s very unlikely. In my docking video tutorial, I had to edit and delete 2-3 minutes of trying to get the alignment right. I then proceeded to regularly switch between the two ships, keeping ASAS on before each change, and even then the target kept rotating randomly.

There are indeed some 'phantom forces' that make the ships randomly rotate, other than the usual keeping-orientation-relative-to-stars: you can notice it most when you practice docking, as it\'s almost impossible to stay aligned for more than 5 seconds. Some times the target ship spins to the right, others to the left, and along all 3 axes. I don\'t know the cause of these either, but I\'d like to know as well.

We have landed! I still need to tweak a few parameters, and also to model the RCS thrusters (still not sure about those, though), so I edited the linear RCS for the time being. Handling feels ok, but the rocket tumbled a bit upon landing, probably because of its weight.

Depends. If your mesh is low poly enough you can use it as a Mesh Collider in Unity. If you want to make the collider yourself, it will show up in Unity: delete the Mesh Renderer component of your collider and replace it with a Mesh Collider. If you want multiple colliders, you can do the same for each of them.

My plan was to have the rocket a single part to avoid unwanted wobbliness, but seeing as the Part Module stuff isn\'t ready yet for stock parts, I\'m going to make another version separating the mesh into several parts, so it is at least usable. Then, if needed and possible, I\'ll go back to a single-part rocket (I\'d also like to model a simplified interior, but that is extremely low priority atm). I\'ll have to fiddle with the parameters, but you can expect a release by Monday, if all goes well.

Just some docking practice: This was more difficult than actually doing it in orbit

If you want, you can post your .craft file, and I will make a short vid taking this rocket to orbit, so you can get the feeling when and how you can do each step.

Simply changing the scale of a part doesn\'t mean you have to retexture it! It will however look blurry, but you\'ll be looking from farther away anyway, so it won\'t be a problem (but anisotropic filtering might be). But yeah, I\'m not sure about the scale parameter in the part.cfg, but rescaling everything in a 3D software means that all nodes must be changed... can be quite tedious.

Yup, there is: orbit phasing. This works basically like rendezvous, except there is no target vessel. So you can raise/lower your Ap/Pe a few kilometers and wait until you get where you want to be.

Hey, You have F=G(m1*m2)/r² and F=ma, where a is g, so you can write G(m1*m2)/r²=mg, hence g=G(m1*m2)/mr². Since m1=m and m2=M (or the other way around), g=GmM/mr²=GM/r². You can\'t really say that 'g=GM/r^2 is the same as F=G(m1*m2/r^2)' but rather that the former derives from the latter in the case of Earth\'s gravity, and as RevJB said, the force and the acceleration are related by the mass.

You can use MechJeb to get there automatically, and then analyze how it gets your rocket in orbit. But the basics are: - Climb vertically until 10-12km - Begin gravity turn (slowly) and try to get a pitch of 0° before 60km (the atmosphere is so thin at this altitude, that it isn\'t worth pitching up anymore, plus you still have vertical velocity from launch) - Burn heading East (for a 0° inclination) until your Apoapsis reaches 120 km, then let your rocket get there - Start burning shortly before reaching Ap to get your Pe to the same altitude E: Ninja\'d