Pezzhippo

I also ran across issues with the current incarnation of Filter Extensions, but A) I concur with FreeThinker, that's something for the FEx folks and B) It would appear simply deleting Filter Extensions outright doesn't seem to have done any harm thus far in my campaign (and restores all the old categories), and KSPI still has its own tab if you really need it :> My question probably ought to be, for clarification as to whether I dun goofed with my aforementioned actions, is Filter Extensions vital, or rather, will my not having it do anything untoward? o:

It is, in fact, the smelter. When I set out to design it, I was struck by a rather mind-boggling question: How on Kerbin do you smelt ore in zero-G or low gravity environments? The answer? Magnets. Conventional blast furnaces need gravity to function the way they do, but here that wasn't an option for something that has to operate in aforementioned places, so the concept I arrived at (and I know this... probably wouldn't work for aluminium >___>) was to contain the molten ore via a magnetic field, and extract the resulting orbs of metal periodically for further processing. My theory was, that any unwanted slag would rise to the surface of the orbs, because the pure metal content would be pushed inwards by the magnetic field. Once cooled, kerbals in the workshop would simply grind the slag "crust" off, leaving ready to use metal.

Small progress report on those (hypothetical) parts I mentioned a few pages back, have the smelter about 80% done, so I figured I'd share some screenies and see what folks think c: Here's the basic sketch I started with (It's linked to a somewhat larger version) I wanted to go for a semi-clean industrial feel that would mesh well with Baha's drills, while still fitting on my sort-of-standardised industrial landers as seen here: This is my current Kethane base over on Ike But I digress! Here's progress so far: I was also particularly proud of how the foil on the ends turned out, so have a screenie of that too! Hope you enjoy, comments, ideas and pointers welcome, expect more to come~ :3!

Wait, so, lets say, hypothetically, I'm making replacement parts for the smelter and workshop, does this mean, in the case of the latter, I absolutely /cannot/ have an unmanned 3D printer/manufactory/workshop? o__O; (I think I may need to go learn how to get airlocks working >__>...)

Indeed! That is absolutely gargantuan! Was it merely a balloon-assisted launch (going by the potent envelopes I can see in the background), or was something more complicated involved? O: Edit: Also Wayfare, the way you've angled your wheels on the smaller craft, how does that affect steering or handling?

So, from what I can gather here so far, is that the way to go with a rover is a good solid wheelbase of a low-profile nature, with some flexibility added to the mix to help compensate for terrain. This latter point, though, does highlight an issue I've been finding with the stock rover wheels, in that their suspension leaves a little to be desired. The newer Ruggedised model in particular, I found, runs in a near-constant bottomed-out state for example. Blue's post regarding Minmus is extremely informative, and I've added a means of anchoring a rover to the surface either by landing gear, or more preferably, low-profile lander legs to my list of things to consider. I'd actually also like to add another point of consideration to this thread in asking: What would, in your opinions, make your lives easier when it comes to designing or operating rovers and why? And indeed, suspension or terrain handling is evidently a key point across the board, but is there anything else absolutely crucial to your general design processes?

Greeting ladies and gents! I'm currently musing over the creation of some parts for the construction of medium-large rovers, but beforehand, I felt it necessary to do a little research and gather the insight of my fellow kerbonauts. Thus, I would like to posit a few questions regarding your personal criteria when designing your own aforementioned medium or large rovers, and get the ball rolling on what I hope to be an educational discussion on the subject. Moving on, I would like to split this topic into two major parts; One concerning rovers for use on worlds with moderate gravity, eg. Duna, and another concerning rovers for use on low-gravity bodies, such as the Mun, or Minmus. So, how would you folks go about designing rovers for these environments? For example, what kind of footprint do your rovers generally posses, how do you cope with various inclines or rough terrain, and how do you go about designing something for a given task, such as Kethane mining, or moving other objects over the surface of a given celestial body? Go nuts, be as detailed as you like, I most certainly look forward to your replies! c:

Aye, that's something I garnered from Razchek's post, but still no joy even with things properly oriented. My config itself looked like this (NODE and ATTACH are interchangeable, I tried both): NODE/ATTACH { name = top transform = Attach01 size = 1.0 method = FIXED_JOINT } NODE/ATTACH { name = bottom transform = Attach02 size = 1.0 method = FIXED_JOINT } NODE/ATTACH { name = srfAttach transform = SrfAttach size = 1.0 method = FIXED_JOINT } I placed these snippets in the config where the old node system used to be located, I'm wondering if that's an issue.

Hola folks~ Been cooking up some parts, and had, up until now, been using the tried and trusted method of defining attachment nodes, but with the release of the .20 PartTools, I figured I'd give the new system a shot. To no success. As many of you may have seen, the new system apparently works by adding these lines to the configs: ATTACH { name = top transformName = myTopTransform } ATTACH { name = srfAttach transformName = mySrfAttachmentTransform } And this provides no results at all. A user by the name of Razchek had apparently come across a solution: The key term in the statement above is how the node is instead defined as 'NODE' as opposed to 'ATTACH', so I gave that a whirl instead, and was thus met with KSP hanging on my part during loading. Replacing NODE with ATTACH loaded the part, but not the attachment points it would seem. So my questions to you chaps are: -Has anyone gotten this working yet? -How did you go about doing so? Thanks for your time, and any help would be greatly appreciated~ c: Update: I've gotten Stack Nodes working, turns out I had the transforms in the wrong place in the hierarchy. NODE is in fact the correct statement to use, rather than ATTACH. The only thing I haven't gotten to work are Surface Attachment Nodes, even using what I assume is the correct syntax, and the correct hierarchy placement, it's not working. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/34555-Anyone-got-the-new-0-20-attachment-nodes-working-yet Going by this thread, I'm of the opinion that the new system is a little broken, thus I'm just gonna stick with the older system, which works without a hitch.

Ah, found the guide, had to open the thread on Chrome, Firefox apparently wasn't liking it ;P Now! Let the madness begin! (And many thanks for such an awesome mod :3)

For some reason I can't see this guide of which you speak o-o Am I just derping?

A long time ago... In a Forum far, far away... It's godawful, I know (please, someone out-do me here ;P) It just had to be done :3 Loving these tracks, I would say my one gripe though, is while they do have good torque, on even the slightest Kerbin incline, the Mk3s in particular just tank (if you'll excuse the pun) and can't climb at the pace I would have expected of tracks, but oddities like this are to be expected from a first release, exceptional work regardless ;D

Mentlegen! Behold! Finally got one of these working with FAR installed ;D I figured pics from the desert would look more authentic (and I ought to add that it'll make it into the desert on its fuel tank, but to get to the location in subsequent pics, I had to hack fuel ) Thus!- Circling the Temple Then swooping in to buzz the pyramids :3

Aha, I had just come to the same conclusion :3 Got an idea going, but thus far, it's proven to be extremely engine-heavy, and won't fly for too long before nosing down and crashing, but here's a hastily snapped pic I got seconds before hitting water: Despite the aforementioned heaviness, the whole thing is otherwise surprisingly stable, and I feel like I'm getting somewhere with this ;D As a side note, I happen to be doing this with FAR installed, so things ought to get more interesting yet~

I... am totally giving this a go, as we speak, in fact, but I have a question for those of you chaps who've gotten these running. In regards to KAS, how did you go about connecting the pod to the engines? I've tried doing it in one go, with lackluster results, so my current plan is to use a rover crane and kerbals to assemble the thing on a gantry placed on the runway. Any insight would be wonderful c:

Yes and no, I would think. Indeed, if you were to orbit this point, it would be fairly similar to doing the same at an actual Lagrange Point, where the object is not truly stationary, but rather, oscillates around the point. The downside to such a method, though, is that you would have an artificial SOI as opposed to the conflicting gravitational forces between two bodies that forms real world points. From a gaming/technical perspective also, I would foresee there being issues if a craft were to pass too close to the center of this new SOI. The other planets and moons have surfaces that prevent you from reaching the center of their SOIs, but if we look at Jool, we can already see that the laws of physics tend to break down rapidly the further you dive towards its core. And lastly, one has to remember how many bodies there are in the system. Using the proposed method, you would need to add 5 Lagrange points per pair of interacting bodies. To use Jool as an example again, that would mean setting up 5 points for each of its moons, totaling 25 points for those, and another 5 for the Jool-Kerbol relationship. You can see this would mean a lot more work for SQUAD ;3 Sad as it is, unless KSP adopts multi-body physics, Lagrange Points are likely to only be a novel dream.

Unfortunately so, I too would have liked to put something in Kerbin's L4 or L5 points. As it stands, celestial bodies only have Spheres of Influence (SOI) with craft alternating between them when traveling.

Right on both accounts, it was inspired by the Aigaion, which was one of my favourite fights from the series, enemy fighter squadrons included ;D It /does/ still have that cargo bay, you could possibly jettison a smaller craft vertically from it then fly it from there o: If you manage it, please do post pics~ :3

I recently just tried out Ferram Aerospace, and the improvements were unbelievable. So I said to myself; "Pezz, what's the most unusual wing profile you know of and can you make it work?". Thus, the Kergaion was born! (Small Album Here, more images coming~ http://imgur.com/a/Tfr8L#0 ) Craft File: http://www./download/h14osqu39tystah/P1112_Kergaion_Mk1.craft It turns out to be... relatively stable, but MechJeb is suggested, and will fly just under Mach 3 at also just under 20Km. Also to note, it won't work without Ferram Aerospace, it's /really/ heavy xD For those wondering why there's a cargo bay installed, the main fuselage was originally part of a failed SABRE-powered SSTO, if you decide to play with the Craft File, it's not a hugely necessary part, in that I doubt it would upset balance if it were replaced c: Mods Used: Ferram Aerospace - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/20451-0-20-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-9-4-Aerodynamics-Fixes-For-Planes-Rockets B9 Aerospace - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/25241-0-20-2-B9-Aerospace-Pack-R3-New-pods-IVAs-engines-fuselages-structures MechJeb - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/12384-PART-0-20-Anatid-Robotics-MuMech-MechJeb-Autopilot-v2-0-8 Comments, critique, alterations of the craft welcome (bonus points if you can guess where my inspiration came from >u>), and for those who do give it a go, hope you enjoy