Lisias

It's not a fix. It's something that happens and make the problem slightly less worse. Perhaps the information would help you - at least, you would know what does not works. Will do by night, or the weekend in the worst case.

Well… In the expectation of being of (no) use, a bit of info that aims to save you some time. I'm somewhat annoyed by this bug, because I'm stuck with biplanes (and worse ) for some more time on my career, and would be nice for the looks to use Open Cockpit as my planes go metal. So I tinkered a bit on Take Command. This are my conclusions from this tinkering: There's a problem on the line 37 of TakeCommand.cs. public static List<Part> allCommandSeats = new List<Part>(); This part is being populated only once by startup. Looking on the code, I think I found why at line 287: if (HighLogic.LoadedSceneIsEditor && error) { error = false; allCommandSeats.Clear(); } I think it is never being cleaned, as by some reason the "error" is false when you leave "HighLogic.LoadedSceneIsFligh". I think you should be using "||" here. It appears to make sense, as when you launch another "instance" of your vehicle, the pointers are not updated. I changed line 345: // myKerbal = "kerbalEVA (" + kerbal.name + ")"; myKerbal = kerbal.name; And noticed a change: the Kerbals are still not boarding, but they stopped "vanishing". I start the scenario with them doing "EVA" inside the cockpits, and could board them manually. Well, it helped a bit - but I just don't understand what's happening, so I could be poking the Kraken without being aware. =P

Well… My latest one. I'm going cheap as possible on tech and facilities on my career, so I delay any upgrading until I'm really stuck. Trying to send tourists to specific orbit inclinations is not feasible now - not enough avionics. So I'm trying to figure out something to accomplish the mission. The whole history is here and here. My low tech solution for the problem is going Virgin Galactic: my "best" airplane (ha!) would ferry the rocket until the launch coordinates and bearing, climb using the very rocket's engines as boosters (and using its internal fuel tanks, saving the rocket's own) until the launch moment, and then release the rocket and from now the rocket is on its own. Simple - What could possible go wrong? But since I'm somewhat hardened by previous experiences ("what doesn't kills me, makes me stronger"), I choose to put the contraption to be tested by "real" life. I put the whole thing to circumnavigate Kerbin, testing velocity limits, altitude limits and to figure out the best launch profile. Since no one was going to space today, some sigh viewing, PR screenshots and Kerbin scanning were on the order of the day too - I'm still bean counting. (I tried to charge the tourists an extra, no success until the moment. ) But then… "Oh me, oh my, oh dear… Oh doomsday…" (Hard Har Har feelings). Kerbin's circumference is about 3.770km. At the speed I was traveling, it would took 18500 seconds to circumnavigate - or about 5.2 hours. Almost a full day. However, at the inclination I choose to travel (almost polar), it also means that I took the whole voyage by night. I was essentially running from the Sun. So, no nice pictures! Ok, at least I mapped some Kerbin using Scansat's Altimeter Senson, right? no. I forgot to activate it. DAMN. I scratched the mission and will try again tomorrow.

Here. Learn something new. The friction drag is the only part that can be mitigated by materials - but most of the time, the cost on sticking with the present "draggy" material is smaller than the cost of the new material, be that cost in weight, weather resistance, durability or the raw materials cost. Observe that as as the velocity increases, the lift-induced drag ("my" drag) ceases to exist, while the skin induced drag ("your" drag) really kicks in. In the biplanes era, they used fabric because the low speeds of the airplanes of the era didn't justify using heavier materials to mitigate the skin-drag - as the lift-induced drag was the real problem - and having two sets of wings didn't helped too much on the matter. It happens that you are not wrong. What happens too is that I'm not wrong neither. ("together", we are right - welcome to engineering)

Well… Today, finally my dirty and cheap bean counting backfired. I got overconfident and took some tourist missions that needs me to orbit on a determined inclination without having enough tech level to have the advanced avionics such missions need (no radials, no normals, no waypoints). So… I launched a biplane, make a low pass over the launch pad while finding the bearing using the Lat/Long coordinates and found the needed bearing. Nice, now all I have to do is to manually roll/yaw the rocket while launching before it gets too much velocity. What could possible go wrong? Long story made short, at aproximatelly 1/3 of the ascent I completely loose control of the rocket. Boy, you need to see the tourists faces. In the heat of the moment, I forgot to activate the Automated Screenshots, so only the final moments are here (as uncontrolled rockets were a novelty around here…): Since I'm not paying insurance, killing my customers would be too much expensive and, so, the rocket is somewhat over engineered - I managed to regain control by cutting the throttle until the Inertia Coupling stops to be a factor (yeah, I learnt about it this week, I'm using it for everything! ), then throttled up a bit to a retrograde maneuver and then just used the fuel I have to a controlled descent until the parachutes could be deployed safely. This last part of the mission is routine already, I could land it on terrain and probably without using parachutes if I wanted to. Well… A reasonable Program Manager would invest some Science and Money on tech and facilities, right? Not me. I'm committed to fulfil missions with the lowest tech/facility levels I can. Making/saving lots of money on the process is a beneficial collateral effect (I'm not complaining), but it's not the main objetive. So I remembered the biplane stunt for finding the bearing and decide to go Virgin Galactic: I made a tetra-plane launching vehicle. This huge lady carries a 50 tons rocket, more fuel enough to circumnavigate Kerbin. This is the maiden flight, full loaded, to a semi polar route to test fuel consumption and maximum altitude without and then with rocket assistance, in order to figure out the better flight profile for the launching. The glass cockpit (from Airplane Plus) allow an excellent situation awareness, allowing to monitor engines and the rocket under the pilot's feet. I'm already on the part limit for this combo vessels (255 parts, 140 tons), but I'm trying to squeeze a part or two to put some external cameras for the launch! I'll let her fly until (Kerbin) dawn and then I will edit this with one or two more pictures. (It's way more fun playing the game in the very inverse way as it was intended! ) From now, a night shot with Interior Overlay: POST-EDIT: "Oh me, oh my, oh dear… oh its doomsday…" - as Hardy Har Har woud say. =P Kerbin's circumference is about 3.770km. At the speed I was traveling, it would took 18500 seconds to circumnavigate - or about 5.2 hours. Almost a full day. However, at the inclination I choose to travel (almost polar), it also means that I took the whole voyage by night. I was essentially running from the Sun. So, no nice pictures! Ok, at least I mapped some Kerbin using Scansat's Altimeter Senson, right? no. I forgot to activate it. DAMN. I'll scratch the mission and try again tomorrow.

Is probably due the framerate. The time needed to a blade do a full rotation is less than the time the engine is giving to each frame. Something similar to this:

The passage you quoted is not enough. We need the full log in order to have a clue about the issue (and, even then, it's not guaranteed).

Mine do a lot until I manage to trim the thing. It's a collection of factors: Wheels friction on tarmac when the bearing wheel rises (I use them in the tail a lot to maximize the clearance under the fuselage) Try to rise it on the last moment, just before taking of Sometimes I apply a small pressure over them to keep them on ground for more time Main gears stressing, what deforms them a little and them the craft looses alignment Adjust the spring and dumpers; or Use heavier gears Inertial Coupling, when your tail rudders are not enough to keep the thing on the right bearing (more an issue when the wheels are still rolling on tarmac, but wheel friction is not the only factor with heavy, big aircrafts) Use bigger rudders on the tail.

Complete ignorant here (the hottest fire I can manage to make is from my oven): how feasible would be to use abrasive resistant termal coating? https://www.asbindustries.com/coating-materials/abrasion-resistant-coatings (first thing I thought it's reasonable from the google search - I don't have a clue about the feasibility of the product above for the task).

For the sake of curiosity, what are the specs of your rig?

Wow. You are collecting crashes? Me too! Well, this is a new: a Mono specific crash (usually, mine happens due Unity). I quoted the relevant parts for easy future reference. I don't have any crash information from my side that is remotely similar to this. This happened after a garbage collect (not sure if this is relevant, but I don't thrust Unity's changes on GC - hell, I don't even really thrust the original GC!), and while executing WBIDockingParameters class. @Angel-125 , would be possible to deliver, too, binaries compiled on Debug Mode? This (perhaps) would help to pinpoint the exact point of failure, what would help a lot.

Thanks. I'm failing on understanding your point of view, but that's all - even lawyers I know make mistakes on this matter now and then, so… Yeah, better safe than sorry. I'll follow up as soon as I have any response from them. Feel free to poke me out now and then, so I can poke them back.

As the right to "use" the source code, I understand the right to recompile and eventually fix it - as long as this stays on GitHub, my understanding is that I'm allowed. To exercise the right of "performing" a program in source code, I must have the right to compile it. And once I commit the binary on the GitHub, the act of "redistributing" is being executed by GitHub. Committing my changes on GitHub is part of the "use" of the forked source - the 5th Paragraphs, in my understanding, says this clearly (emphasis is mine): Note that GitHub allows me to commit changes on my fork - it's a GitHub functionality. As long as one do not pretend to be the original copyright holder, and anything he/she does on the code is forwarded in the exact same terms (as he/she can't relicense the original code and it's cumbersome to double license only your changes, besides possible), I really don't understand how the GitHub ToS would be used to prevent anyone of doing this. Ideally, we should talk to GitHub Inc. They wrote the Terms of Use and they are the ones that would, hypothetically, enforce it. May I forward this thread to them for analysis?

Sorry, but you are incorrect. From the text of the link I provided (the Terms of Service of the GitHub repository): In a nutshell: if you fork the thing, compile it and make a new release on the GitHub, you are fine. If you forked it into somewhere else, you need the additional licensing terms. As long as you want to use GitHub to host your code, you are giving GitHub and their users the rights that the link I mentioned states.

Not that it's important by now, but I think it worths to mention: the licenses presented in the original fork are not contradictory - and the ambiguity is superficial. By the Vienna Agreement (WIPO), every copyrightable work is already "All Rights Reserved". It's the default, and it's redundant to state that. The code is GPL3, what grants additional rights to the licensee. In the even the GPL become "null and void", the original licensing terms (All Rights Reserved") are applied and it's how it works for everybody no matter what. It's simple like that, the original author just decided to be verbose on it. However, every public repository on GitHub grants to GitHub Inc additional rights, being them: to fork and to redistribute whatever is committed on the repo. And GitHub grants us these same rights - so, as long as you keep the repository on GitHub, the "All Rights Reserved" is not that "all rights" as it appears. Off course, this argument assumes that the original copyright holder effectively have all the rights on the published material - if the guy are in copyright infringement himself, the infringement 'taints' all the food chain.

This happens because IFS knows squat about (new) custom welded parts, and the Welding Tool by itself knows squat about IFS' module data. They basically ignore each other. This appears to be a interesting feature to have - I agree, IFS is essentially omnipresent on my setups. I have this problem myself, and it's the reason I'm trying to fix some issues on a personal (non official) fork. There're some options to trim the CoM and the weight of the new part, did you tried that? Not sure if I understood. Can you make a screen shot of the problem? It's the same problem as IFS. See above.

Weird enough… Yes. Colliders are expensive features on KSP, and (at least is what I understood from the code) the welding tries to create a new collider that would be a compromise between the area took by the parts and efficiency. Obviously, such heuristics are prone to failure.

By the same reason (some of) we want Kerbalism, RSS, Galileo, Karbonite and others. Yeah, it will be complicated. Yeah, there're good chances that this would ending up kaput. But the same could be told by some sucessful mods, so… Yeah, good luck - I wish success to the endeavour.

Well, it appears that being a cheap bean-counting stand-up guy is really my vocation. :-) Not happy by recovering all rocket parts, I'm managing to land the damned candle near KSC and maximizing the value. One day I will manage to land the thing on the launch pad! (I had splashed down @ -2.5m/s vertical speed - I could land her without loosing engines!) Note: The escape tower can be used to decelerate the descent to allow safe parachute deploying if I have to abort the ascent and land/splash her with full tanks! (do not use after deploying the parachutes, they don't react very well to fire…)

THIS is rocket science!

Attend an aerobatics show. You will se some there! (this is the famous Curtiss Pitts). The drag came from the aerodynamic forces that make the thing fly - it's not related to the material the wing is made of. As badly as the usual single wings, as @steve_v answered here:

Firespitter is my favorite, but it has some small issues with KER and some other mods (the guy properly modeled a propeller engine - pun intended - and so mods relying on stock, mass reaction engines, gasps). If by some reason this is a problem (rarely are), try KAX. Both are working on 1.4.x series, I'm using them normally.

I think you have a very interesting opportunity here. Go the Microsoft way, "Embrace and Extend"! If possible, allow your plugin to publish the craft into Workshop too, but filling up the dependencies correctly - and add a nice link to Kerbal-X on the Workshop's craft description. Some precautions need to be taken, as if this stunt "sticks" this can raise your site's hits and, so, costs. But *this* would add value to Kerbal-X users that also want to go Steam's Workshop. The Workshop is here to stay, the best measure you can take is make your plugin a must have in order to use that.

That said, frankly… I understand that it's the first version of the feature, that they have their hands full at the moment, but... The current Workshop feature is pale, almost pathetic when compared to Kerbal-X plugin. (sorry being blunt, but frankly - bitter medicines are best to be taken in one big gulp). They should had limited the feature to stock only crafts, and then worked out a decent parts database so the plugin can figure out correctly what is being used. Simply shoving up all my GameData listing as dependency is not enough, and to tell you the true, will do more harm than good. IMHO, as they had gone Agile (as it appears), they should really go Agile. The first version of anything is always a MVP (Minimum Viable Product): steam users that don't thrust Kerbal-X or do not want to be bored by installing mods will not need it anyway, and users that use mods will have a bad time handling dependencies without Kerbal-X. So… I think they tainted a good feature by delivering more than was really needed, and insufficiently implemented. Nothing new, really. It's exactly that way everywhere. People do what people do.

If you know Kerbal-X and know how to install their excellent mod (and are willing to take the burden to keep things working as KSP and other mods change versions), there' no reason to use anything else for Crafts. If you are on Steam and don't want to mess with these things, there's no reason to do not use Workshop. Different people, different users, different solutions: one size doesn't fits all. As long Squad don't shut doors on our face, I don't mind they opening new ones.