Waifu Art Thou Romeo

Reported Version: v0.2.1 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: Intel i7 | GPU: RTX 1080 | RAM: 16gb Launching to Eve on T+015y, 028d leads to passing through the Mun's SOI. Plan the trajectory and I cannot see the trajectory within Eve's SOI. The "Entering Eve SOI" marker shows in Kerbol SOI, but Eve SOI shows literally nothing. I have changed patched conic number to each value, no change. Included Attachments: BugExample.zip

Just left the bubble around the solar system. Things get kinda weird out here. Like, my ship stopped following me the second I hit the edge. Onward and outward at 10% the speed of light! So are all the other solar systems gonna be inside or outside of this bubble?

For the people who want it, what would it make easier for you?

I'm curious what experienced modders' opinions are about there being an official module manager. I'm skeptical it will be as good as what the community would make, but I don't have enough experience to say that confidently.

VAL 9000?

UPDATE: ✨no✨ The sun doesn't have a surface, but you can do some wicked slingshot maneuvers since you can go all the way to the core. Shame we can't do interstellar yet. An 80km orbit alone is like 100k m/s UPDATE 2: Tim C. Kerman is currently traveling away from the kerbolar system at 2,000 km/s

When I was done for the day, I just dive-bombed the jet I was flying and the suspenseful pizzicato leading up to the crash made me full-on belly laugh

Same

EDIT: Actually, it seems to only be in-flight, and only if the decoupler and engine are the same stage Large engines are not decoupling using large decouplers. If I use a medium or smaller decoupler, it works. If the large decouplers are separating fuel tanks, it works. If I try to connect a large engine to a large decoupler, it refuses to separate.

Ferb, I know what we're gonna do today.

Orbits are supposed to be stable, right? If they've changed that, this isn't a bug, but I'm in orbit around the Mun right now, and my periapsis keeps decreasing and apoapsis increasing even with no engines firing.

I'm excited for colonies. Being able to have resource management for "unloaded" vehicles is going to be amazing. Hello permanent mining colony!

Does anyone know to what extent non-active vessels will be accessible? For example, I'm building a base in KSP1 right now using Planetary Base Systems and Kerbalism. And I'm able to design something that can maintain power in darkness for weeks, but only by switching over to fuel cells, which can only run for a couple weeks before eating all of the oxygen. So I need some way of automatically switching them off when the solar panels are sufficient, but in KSP1, there doesn't seem to be any way to do that, even using KOS or something since the inactive vessels are SO VERY INACTIVE. I'd be more than happy to use or build mods to do this, but that's going to require mods to be able to do it, y'know? I even get vessels being whatever level of inactive by default, but it'd be nice if mods could declare what aspects of a vessel they need to remain active so that we could build these more intricate systems.

Thrilled we finally have a release date. Even early access means the mods I love can get started faster. 2 major things for modding that I've run into: Please give us better public documentation of part configs. Wheels in particular are an absolute mess to try and work with in KSP1, with certain arcane code snippets in them that only 1 person 5 years ago knew what they meant. *If possible*, can .mu files be as self-contained as possible? A lot of old part mods have been lost to the fact that all that remains of them are the .mu files, which are *heinous* to try and maintain. I get if this isn't feasible, however.

First L4 sat launched from Svobodny! It's not quite stable tho. It falls out of place after about 3 years without station-keeping. How close do you have to be for Earth-L4/L5-moon to be truly stable?

Could someone explain to me what "launch to target LAN" does? I kind of get it, but I'm lost on whose-LAN-relative-to-what. Like, if I set the moon as my target, and I click "launch to target LAN" 0°, then my orbit's LAN around Earth will be ~0° relative to what? Is it the moon itself? Is it the moon's LAN relative to Earth? I'm trying to find a good way to launch to L4 from Svobodny, so I need to get a grasp on this, but I'm really baffled. Unless of course, I'm just using the wrong tool anyway. But it seems like it's the right one, because I want my LAN to point in a specific direction on the moon's orbit (~5 days ahead of my target), but then how do I target a specific place on the moon's orbit?

Read the links on the first post in this thread

These are probably silly noob questions, but I promise I searched for the answers. Are there Lagrange points in the Kerbin-Mun system? Everything I could find talked about RSS, but nothing about Kerbin-Mun points. I don't even know if the mass ratio is sufficient between them. Okay, I found that there at least USED to be Kerbin-Mun Lagrange points, so I'll assume they're still around. What reference frame do I use and what direction do I fire my thrusters when I get to them to achieve orbit. I brute forced it a couple times in RSS, but I wanna understand in a more principled way. Obviously there isn't an L4-inertial reference frame I can select, so I thought I should use Kerbin-inertial so I could point along the direction of the Mun's orbit, but after an hour of tweaking knobs, I haven't even seen evidence that the L4 exists. Is there a tutorial somewhere that I missed in my searching? Okay, I think I get it now. So the process for the L4/L5 points is to start in Kerbin-inertial and get your apoapsis to about where you think the Lagrange point is. Then, still in Kerbin-inertial, make a maneuver node to circularize your orbit. If your guess was good, you should have something that looks like an erratic circle. Switching to the Mun-Kerbin-Orbit reveals a kidney bean shape. If your guess wasn't good, keep moving both maneuvers around in time until you succeed. This works, but is it the Right way? EDIT: Okay, I think I'm finally internalizing this. So what's cool about L4/L5 isn't that you're orbiting the Lagrange point, it's that orbiting the Lagrange point can make patched conics be an Actually Pretty Good Approximation. No station keeping, no worrying about Jupiter, just vibes. Is that about right?

Sorry, I wasn't clear. It flies fine in stock (heavily using the tricks you described). It's the real design I'm not convinced about, and FAR (and especially Realism Overhaul) seems to agree with me. Yeah, no question this is an extremely hacky way to update these mods. Thank you for the explanation. I think that might be another nail in the coffin of the one I've been working on. In reparenting all the parts in the models, I don't see a way around constant exports/imports to make sure everything ends up in the right places

So THAT'S where all those extra kilobytes were coming from! Noted, thank you. And no, I never found a more effective way than that. I've been taking a long break, but I think I figured out the workflow. Wheels are just so goofy in this game that it's been hard to get myself working on it. Not to mention that I'm no longer convinced the ship I'm interested in even CAN fly, regardless of how good of a computer they put on it. The CoP is just SO FAR ahead of the CoM. I don't think the Skylon design will ever work without hacks.

Yeah, that's the way I've been handling this as well. It is incredibly frustrating when it comes to orienting nodes, but the rest is somewhat tolerable. And me either, sorry. I've just been using the animations provided by whoever originally created the models I'm working on.

I deserve very little credit. Kipard built this, and several other people have maintained it. I'm just reparenting the components and writing some configs And probably these were built with the Unity method On closer inspection, it looks like I cannot use the Unity method anyway, since I only have the .mu files and not the original models. EDIT: Just in case anyone passes by and wants to solve my animation problem: I have found the source but not the explanation. If I have the light module in the config, retraction absolutely will not work. I have no idea why.

Would you expect the animations to not function at all or just be weird? The issue I'm running into is that I can trigger any animation I want it if I set it to the spotlight animation in the config, but I can't trigger it from the deployment section (I'm working on retractable wheels) And fwiw I'm probably just going to switch to Kerbal Foundries anyway since it's so much better documented than stock, in which case I don't think I need to mess with the models anymore. But I will likely switch to Unity for doing this from here out, cause this was way more frustrating and hacky than it needed to be Lastly, to be clear, I have gotten around the issues from the top post, it was just a horrible headache to do, due to Blender not correctly showing the positions of re-parented parts

Yes. Still running into problems, but I can at least successfully edit parts other people have made and load those parts into KSP doing this. I have not attempted making anything from scratch, though it looks like you can. But for all I know, this could be why I'm having so much trouble getting the animations to work, though I don't think so.

You can and I have been doing so. It's just been a nightmare to do, due to the problems mentioned above. I have linked the tool that lets you do so above. I might switch to other way if it will make reparenting everything easier.