Lisias

I usually deploy my games on ~/Applications . I can run the programs with full R/W accesses to the DLLs (don't ask, but KSP don't load on a R/O filesystem! the DLL must be writable by the running user), and Apple don't bothers me on security issues.

I'm fixed (yet another) Add'On, made the thing work as it was originally intended and packed the thing for testing. It borked beautifully on the test bed, besides working fine on the dev installment. (sigh) I will save you the details, but after an entire afternoon of troubleshooting, I realized that I plain forgot to run the deploy script, so the the new DLL was not being deployed, and the test bed had a forgotten older DLL that wasn't being overwritten as I intended it to be. Working late night on weekdays before going to bed is a risky business.

KSP-RO's fork fixed a glitch with some really heavy vessels losing the PRELAUNCH status while still clamped - apparently this happens when the vessel goes to rails and then back. I didn't managed to reproduced it on the Meiru's code (merged on my fork) - he revamped the Clamps code, perhaps he just got rid of the very possibility of the issue, instead of fixing it when it happens (moar testing needed! ). But one thing that MeiruMeiru's code does better is that it's faster. You can build bigger vessels, or run it on potato machines, and still be playable. If you have perfromance issues on the "classic" KJR, try my fork to see what you get.

About Earthrise, I found this. Very, very good documentary, with the very people that did it.

Thx for the log! I didn't found anything wrong related to KJR, but noticed that the latests TweakScale withdrew itself from some parts due known (serious) problems: [WRN 23:23:59.925] [TweakScale] Removing TweakScale support for CAIRF. [ERR 23:23:59.925] [TweakScale] Part CAIRF didn't passed the sanity check due using FSbuoyancy module - see issue #9 https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/9. I also found a lot of missing props (that thingies that we put inside cockpits): [....] [LOG 23:23:48.311] Cannot find InternalProp 'LifeSupportMonitor' [LOG 23:23:48.311] Cannot find InternalProp 'ASET_RotationCtrl_V2' [....] You probably would want to read the Near Future Thread to find what you need to add these props to your KSP. — — — Since this is not (apparently) related to KJR, may I ask you to send me such logs in private messages? So people willing to know about KJR would not be bored reading about things unrelated!

It's not relevant for the spaghetification, but you may want to use KSP-AVC (and delete all MiniAVC.dll from your GameData) due a lot of these: [LOG 10:42:33.045] MiniAVC -> System.IO.IOException: Sharing violation on path C:\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\000_USITools\MiniAVC.xml at System.IO.FileStream..ctor (System.String path, FileMode mode, FileAccess access, FileShare share, Int32 bufferSize, Boolean anonymous, FileOptions options) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at System.IO.FileStream..ctor (System.String path, FileMode mode) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at MiniAVC.AddonSettings.Load (System.String rootPath) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at MiniAVC.AddonLibrary.ProcessAddonPopulation (System.Object state) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 I suspect MiniAVC is missing some updates for you. — — POST — EDIT — — *THIS* is relevante for the spaghetification! There's no KJR (not mine nor anyone else!) on your GameData! Mod DLLs found: Stock assembly: Assembly-CSharp v0.0.0.0 KSPe v2.1.0.6 Firespitter v7.3.6867.18541 ModuleManager v3.1.0.0 ModuleManager v3.1.1.0 ModuleManager v4.0.1.0 KSPAPIExtensions v2.1.0.6 MiniAVC v1.0.3.2 USITools v1.0.0.0 CCK v4.0.0.0 / v4.0.0.0 for KSP 1.5.0 DMModuleScienceAnimateGeneric v0.20.0.0 InterstellarFuelSwitch v3.6.18.3 MiniAVC v1.0.3.2 Scale_Redist v1.0.0.0 KIS v1.17.6967.42198 / v1.17 for KSP 1.6+ KSPDev_Utils.1.1 v1.1.6967.2347 / v1.1 for KSP v1.6+ MiniAVC v1.2.0.7 MechJeb2 v2.5.1.0 / v / v2.8.1.0 MiniAVC v1.2.0.6 BackgroundResources v1.5.0.0 MiniAVC v1.2.0.6 RetractableLiftingSurface v0.1.5.5 / v1.0.0.0 CLSInterfaces v1.2.0.0 ShipManifest v5.2.1.0 SmokeScreen v2.8.0.0 MiniAVC v1.0.3.2 TacLifeSupport v0.13.11.0 / v0.13.11 MiniAVC v1.2.0.6 ToadicusTools v0.22.3.3 MiniAVC v1.2.0.6 TweakableDeployablePanels v0.1.26.0 TweakableDockingNode v0.1.26.0 TweakableEVA v0.1.26.0 TweakableFuelPumps v0.1.26.0 TweakableGimbals v0.1.26.0 TweakableIntakes v0.1.26.0 TweakableParachutes v0.1.26.0 TweakableReactionWheels v0.1.26.0 TweakableSAS v0.1.26.0 Scale v2.4.0.7 Scale_Redist v1.0.0.0

Yes. Unzip the ZIP into your KSP_ROOT and things will go to their place (ie, <ZIP>/GameData/<Plugin> into <KSP>/GameData/<Plugin> and <ZIP>/PluginData/<Plugin> into <KSP>/PluginData/<Plugin> - when existent).

Once you find the time and the mood, yes please. I'm compiling a database of the most common problems and borks on KSP, and those logs will be very handy to it. It's time for some serious DevOps tools here.

So I need the new log to see what else is broken. Computer programs are a Castle of Cards - you need every one on the place, or things will not work as expected.

You see, KSPe is a marvelous tool. But it lacks safeties. Publish the whole log somewhere. KSPe appears to had freaked out due something, and this something can be anywhere on the log file. I need the full log to see what's happening. Until the moment, every single occurrence of that is due some DLL failed to be loaded, breaking something inside Mono's VM data structures for Reflection, and KSPe borking while trying to use Reflection for something. The only way, until the moment, to fix this is to satisfy every DLL dependency, or delete the ones that cannot be loaded from the GameData.

Do you remember that? What do you say about this:

If you want to use my fork, you need to read this post: If you/your friend are using KSP 1.4.x and prefer something more orthodox, you only need KSP-RO's download. Unziping files into the GameData is not hard, but how to do it depends on the O.S. your are using. There're tons of tutorials on the Net about this subject.

Do you want some popcorns? I made some. Agreed. However, hard players usually wants to be recognized as such - it's the reason, for example, that some mainstream games remove badges or the ability to publish highscores when you use a "cheat" (note the quotes), and segregate highscores by dificulty level. Some games even mock you if you select an easy mode ("Don't hurt me" on Doom, oh boy, had my friends knew… hehe). Some kind of middle ground is needed, IMHO. On the other hand, there're players that for a reason or another are denied the use of joysticks, motor coordination (don't look on me! ) or just can't install Add'Ons (as console players). And these guys had also spend some money on the game. Using again the Doom metaphor, the "Don't hurt me, please" and the "Nightmare!" skill levels are not mutually exclusive - you can have both, and expand your paying users a bit. And if such auto-pilot would teach the user about the steps it's doing to land the craft, you will have nice learning tool.

The most recent appears to be KSP-RO's fork. But it's locked down to 1.4.x versions. This is ferram4's original code recompiled to 1.4, and I think there's some fixes by now. it has a fix about clamped vessels shifting from PRELAUNCH by a physics glitch. I think the second most recent is mine (you need to install this too). This ones has a lot (really lot) of fixes did by meirumeiru merged (that may or may not include the above mentioned one, I need to check -[just checked, that problem, if it has even happened on this fork, had been tackled down differently), and some improvements from yours truly. And I successfully tested this on every KSP version I tried it since 1.2.2 inclusive.

It may work as long you don't use any of the revamped parts, much less the new ones. Last time I checked, it would work only for parts that would run on 1.3.1. (on 1.4.0, new things started to introduced to KSP, so it's theoretically possible that Ubioweld will bork on a 1.4 compatible part)

Do you remember when they told us that in Real Life we don't just strap parts together to make an airplane? Well, someone tell that to these guys! (gp to 10:00 ) (excellent documentary by the way, it worths to see it wholly).

Real Life propellers also have adjustable pitch and and real life engines has fuel/air mixture. All of this is abstracted on KSP. Performance props adjusts the throttle in order to keep the engine on the best fuel/power rated RPM. The props are then pitched to get the needed thrust given that RPM. The fuel/air mixture lever is adjusted so you don't inject more fuel than is possible to burn given the current altitude' air pressure and oxygen availability, and so avoid wasting fuel by throwing it away with the exhaust. Throttle is not the same as Thrust. Stock KSP models Thrust, and the rest is simulated by other means (as drag). You need Firespitter if you want something more similar to real-life - but even Firespitter don't have propellers with adjustable pitch neither engines with fuel/air mixture levers. That lever on the Glide? It sets Thrust, not the engine's throttle! Kitty is a TurboProp, not a Piston engine. It's a completely different engine, that must be simulated differently than Piston engines! And the thing was modeled by another guy, so he could had choose to simulate the engine limitations by other means. Give a look on this video, it will explain how a turboprop works! POST EDIT: The A7 is a turboprop too! So a direct comparison to the Kitty is adequated, my apologies! I made a throughly research on stock engines and compared them to what apparently were the real-life equivalent, and apparently KSP engines are modeled to be equivalent to the thrust of the RL counterpart. The J404 appears to be the Kerbal equivalent of the F404 RL Jet Engine. And they both have 85kN of static thrust. This is the engine used by the F18 Hornet (it takes two) The Cessna Citation uses two 18.2 kN jet engines. Kitty is a small TurboProp, and it has 65kN of trust? Sounds excessive to me. The A7 definitely looks good to me. I just checked again some material, and (Re)learnt that kN is usually the "net thrust" of the engine (engine power * drag * prop efficiency), while the raw power is given in kW. While by definition 1kW == 1kN, we can't just take the raw power of the engine and use it as thrust! Remember, KSP models engine THRUST, not power. Kitty is just too small of an engine and with too small of a propeller to give you 64kN of THRUST. Yep. Will not be fixed because it's not broken! (couldn't resist. ). I just checked, that cockpit is called Clyde, and it's from SXT. And the front mount is non-stock, it have a 1.175 bulkhead while the A7 is a stock 1.250m. But you still have options! Check this images (click on them to go to the slide with the caption): (link) (link)

On the wings. I think it's a AirplanePlus part. And Craft Manager told me I used a SXT part on the thing. FAR is somewhat far from my grasp! #tumdumtss I didn't tested this thing with anything else, I just strapped some parts while looking on a Caravan picture and this thing ended up flying by luck . I'm sure there're a lot of improvements that can be made. There's a download link for the craft here: http://ksp.lisias.net/showcase/add-ons/KAX/parts/engines/A7-AeroSport/Thrust-Curve-Demo/screenshot35#main-img

I'm spending 90% of my time developing/fixing/testing Add'Ons on the last six months. I completely understand your pain.

Yep. Welcome to the Piston Engines. It's almost like that on real life. The problem is the Power Curve. Your thrust goes down as your airspeed goes up (not to mention altitude), so no really maters how many engines you put on the vessel, as it reaches a critical speed, the thrust decays enough to prevent further acceleration. Junos have another Power Curve, more resilient to airspeed. But in the end, they also chokes: you can'r get any faster than 800m/s using Junos. Give a peek on the Fastest Juno-powered aircraft Thread, there're good information there. Additionally, remember that Propellers are anything but fancy rotating wings, and as such, they induces parasitic drag. It's the reason propelled engines have a higher drag than jets with the same size. Exactly as it happens on real life. On real-life, things works slightly different, mas since KSP is not an Emulator that aims to mimic the target, but a Simulator where only the ending results really matters, this is good enough.

90m/s ? Is more os less what a Cesna Caravan does. and this engine appears to fit in this class of airplanes. This is pretty decent, I say. I made a quick&dirty Caravan alike and managed to take off at 30m/s and climb at ~10m/s at 64m/s airspeed. Pretty decent, really. Your main enemy here is not the drag, at that low speeds weight is main your problem than anything else. And speed is your enemy when using low powered, low RPM engines with twin small blades. This happens because there're a limit in which the propellers can spin (the tips can't break the sound barrier, or things stop to work), and the fast the airplane is flying, smaller is the difference between the airspeed and the speed the propellers can give you - so, smaller the effective thrust. You can check this by flying level at, let's say, 1200m high. Then cutting your engine to zero, and when your airplane looses enough speed to start to dive, give pull power. At my "Karavan", this engine gave me 21.5kN of thrust until about 82m/s, when then the thrust started to drop. I managed to get about 20.5 or 20.4 kN of thrust as I get near to 90m/s, and it gets below 19kN while diving and reaching near 95 m/s. So, really, your enemy is not the drag (it's there, but it's not the main issue). It's the power curve over airspeed.

This is my (current) installments' shortcuts on my desktop: The first row is my "serious" gaming. I have a dedicated installment for each game style (or role playing), almost a KSP for savegeame. And they are not all on the same KSP version, I have a gane on 1.4.1 (yet), some on 1.4.5, one for 1.4.3 (the KAX Challenge) and Company are being migrated to 1.6.1 as time allows (I'm personally code reviewing each add-on I'm installing on it). The second row are for Test Beds for my Development needs (Official or Unofficial). These are the KSP versions I aiming to support directly. The third row is for Test Beds to be used on older add-ons' versions, when I find something weird on a current one and find the need to test a older version on his natural habitat. It's also useful to play "what if" on some add'ons, I realized KJR/L work on 1.2.2 by clicking on that very icon on the screen (yeah, the smoking gun!). The last row is for games I play (now and then - or never ) and are under Stream's control. Right now, I have about 1500 hours of playing on Steam, that were registered before the times I decided to use this setup. Right now? With the awful amount of time I use to testing things? You can bet your mouse I have about 5.000 hours by now -it's usual I leave KSP running by the night executing a scripted mission to test things. It was this way I detected the Add'Ons that are leading KSP to a CTD sooner or later (5 hours of running, sometimes). And, YES, there are more than one. And yes, appears to be a bug on Unity. I completely understand you. By the nature of my profession, I had to spend some serious money some time ago - I bought a MacMini (the very least expensive machine that could do the job). This thingy is a glamorous and expensive potato on KSP. I'm building a gaming rig using parts found in the trash (almost, I'm buying cheap server parts being disposed for recycling), and I managed to build a very decent and powerful machine this way. Then I decided to "play safe" and bough a GPU card somewhere that non a flea market. The GPU's cooler died, and now I looking for GPU parts on the flea market. Meanwhile, i'm getting 6 FPS (downwind) on that glamorous and expensive potato. (sigh) Do you know something weird? I'm getting pretty good performance on my MacPotato using 1.4.1 . Obviously, since that installment is used only as test bed, and for add'ons I reviewed/fixed myself,. this can be misleading. But yet, that thing appears to be running a bit faster than 1.6.1 when using the very set of add'ons (as long there're no exceptions being thrown everywhere - I suspect that was the reason for my bad times on 1.4.1, everybody were rushing to "support" 1.4.1 and plain ignored - or worst, empty try-catched the exceptions. Handling exceptions is a very expensive task). Being a convicted felon on the subject , I feel you. I'm loosing my temper now and then too, and sometimes I end up shooting a friend. There're some (few but active) fellow kerbonauts that think it's this community's best interest to…. aggressively enforce… their own views about some things. Since their modus operandi are virtually identical to the ones that are really trying to help you (or reaching you for help), sometimes I just react sideways. This forum is not special on this, it's happening everywhere to tell you the true (Facebook's communities are specially nasty around here), but since this forum is currently the one I care most, it's also the one where these things are also getting harder on my nerves. In the end, I'm trying to cope with that by deliberately answering things at least at couple hours after reading, sometimes watching this aa motivacional in the mean time:

What I did? What I am doing!

Kerbal Space Program was beaten to the market by the Swiss!! http://www.oocities.org/asymmetrics/bvzerst.htm