CrashnBurn

LOL, not fail, just a minor oversight. You do great work Kreuzung. I'm sure all appreciate your brilliance and dedication to doing this right. Thanks!

None of the (fixed) solar panels deploy?

Well, I figured "what the hell", Volt...I gave it a try repeatedly hitting the EVA button. Nope, there is no way to EVA from a crew tank, it always says "hatch obstructed" Tested with only a 1-man pod on the tank, with and without legs, then tried a 3-man pod with and without legs...always gives the error and won't let me EVA from the tank. I can enter it just fine. The empty pods mod works fine with EVA as do the stock pods, the crew tank is 100% fail for me. <shrug> I just don't use the crewtank, there are other non-bugged mods that work, so it's a non issue.

As Leon said, you don't need crew on each relay, you just need a relay chain (unmanned) to get to a manned command relay (or Mission control at KSC), if you can't get to the command relay directly. The process is semi-automagical (you still need to point dishes if it's further that 5000km)...if there is a way to connect a chain to get to a command relay, it will happen. Remember line-of-sight is required for a link between relays. A good idea is to put an unmanned "relay rover" with a few dishes and a short range antenna at KSC so you can "point" from KSC to the MUN, Minimus, etc. Put a 5-kerbal (I set it to three kerbals because the crewtank is bugged) command relay on the opposite side of Kerbin from KSC and you'll have pretty good coverage. Add a couple of geosync. sat's and you're good for everywhere (in range) except the far side of the moons.

I've never had it blow up, but I agree that it is useless, you can't EVA a Kerbal out of it. You can go in, but then you are trapped inside with the "hatch obstructed" error. I just deleted the part, I don't need a Kerbal Trap.

You are welcome. Enjoy.

Mechjeb is being patched to V1.9.2 according to the Mechjeb thread. Holpfully will resolve some issues. Meanwhile, I think we're gonna get a new version of RemoteTech, too.

Jeb fears nothing....Chuck Norris fears Jeb. (sorry, had to be said )

You can go to your KSP install directory, PluginData\remotetech\settings.cfg and change RemoteCommand Crew = 5 to RemoteCommand Crew = 1, with a text editor. That's the minimum for a command vessel as JDP said in his post. Your remote vessels don't have a crew requirement.

Ekku, you can copy the decoupler1-2 folder rename it decoupler1-2small, change the name = decoupler1-2small in the part.cfg, and change the rescaleFactor = 0.5 and you will have a new 1m decoupler that is right-clickable to decouple, as well as keeping your stock 2m decoupler part.

Per MrMoog's testing (see his post in the Mechjeb thread here) Mechjeb 1.9.1 is broken when it comes to multiple decoupled parts. Version 1.9 does work better but the WASD controls are reversed (also reversed in 1.9.1). If you're using 1.9.1 Mechjeb with this remote plugin there can be big problems with decoupled debris. I am doing some testing on my own to duplicate MrMoogs work and see how it will impact my deploying a relay network. I'll report back if I find any workarounds.

Yeah, thanks for pointing out the duplication. I didn't realize the forum upgrade had done that, until you said something. It made the original post unclear so I appreciate you letting me know.

Pelf, unfortunately the menu you are showing does not exist on that link. See my screen shot for where it sends me. I assume everyone else posting about it is having the same problem.

Looks pretty cool, I love the Kosmos stuff. Thanks for the update. But the download doesn't work. Just sends us to Google Drive. There is no "file button" to go to download, unfortunately. edit: Semininja, no list of files is showing, just a default Google Drive page. Looks like an advertisement for Google Drives, actually.

JDP to give your 1m parts less wobble you can add: breakingForce = breakingTorque = To the part.cfg file. Default seems to be 22, I use 176 for 2m parts, I'd bet that 45-50 would work for these.

Not sure what size you want to rescale to what other size. But, as an example, from 1m to 2m is rescaleFactor = 2.5

I don't believe so. I believe it was posted that they reduce the amount of fuel used during reduced throttle in two separate places in the code. So they cut fuel use, say, 50%, then cut it 50% again. Just an oversight that has been discovered and will be corrected in .17

Because he specifically asked about the STOCK decouplers, there's no need to be rude.

JDP, this appears to have been a false alarm, here's what happened: I already had those ships and rovers on the Mun. I quit KSP, deleted the old .32 .dll and parts folders, then installed the new .33 .dll and parts folders. The first startup of KSP showed the errors. I cycled through all of the vessels and disconnected/reconnected all of the comms links from the 5-man relay. After about ten minutes of attempting to get a comms connection by moving the manned ships, switching focus, etc., I posted the bug report. However, what I didn't do was try to restart KSP a second time. Once I shut down the game again and restarted it, all of the connections came up properly. I don't have any clue why it wouldn't connect on the first start up, but maybe you will know/understand what would cause that. Thanks for a fun Mod, I really enjoy the challenge it presents. As far as the 5-man requirement, I just think it's unrealistic, but then the ranges of the antennae are also very much shorter than reality. Both add challenge which is fun, but honestly, they will have to be changed or the mod becomes unusable (without editing the config) for the planned upcoming interplanetary travel where millions or billions of kilometers will have to be crossed. I know the config file can be adjusted, but remember that not everyone is comfortable editing files. That's why people download parts.cfg files rather than do the edits themselves. I'll keep the five kerbal requirement for a while just for the fun of it, and will edit a new long-range antenna and command module for my solar missions and future planetary missions. My thoughts are to make a heavier command part for long-range comms, and/or a upscaled antenna with more weight/drag. I don't have the skills to do a reskin, but the functional changes can obviously be done with .cfg edits. I'd love to see power requirements, but with the current mess caused by so many competing power mods, I can understand why you wouldn't add that yet. Sorry for the false bug report and again, thanks for a very fun mod.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31295[/ATTACH]Looks like some bugs crept into .33. I have Mun base with an omni antenna and 5 crew (3 in the pod and two in the crewtank), about 50 meters away I have a second base with an omni antenna and one crew. There are also 3 rovers with a short range and a long range omni antenna all within 181 meters. The second base shows "out of radio contact" and all of the rovers show "out of radio contact" All of the rovers and the one-man base are red in the Comms status of the 5-man base. Image is of 5 man relay in foreground with 1-man relay and three rovers in background. I'm a bit confused by this update. Why would it take 5 men to remotely control a rover? It's a single-player game....anything that happens is controllable by a single person. The distances are already bizarrely short by several orders of magnitude based on reality, why would they be made even shorter? Let me know if I can provide any troubleshooting info/files. Would be glad to help.

Altitude really makes little difference to accuracy of MJ for Mun landings. I usually use a 50Km circular orbit, at that altitude MJ misses, by a very wide margin, 100% of the time with a low TWR. I've tried higher and lower altitudes with the same results. I just land manually if I have a low TWR or build with a bit larger engine, then MJ works fine, regardless of orbital altitude. My feeling is that this has gotten worse in 1.9.1, but I didn't do any testing to verify that.

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/15491-16-Fix-for-weak-large-decouplers-plus-reduced-wobble I posted fixs for the stock large decouplers a while ago. They're in the above thread. The problem is that the parts sizes were scaled up but the strength was left at 22 (default I believe). I scaled up the breakingForce and breakingTorque to 176, not super strong for a 2m part, but well balanced I believe.

LOL @ togfox....same here. If I know I'm going in with a low TWR, Mechjeb will align the orbit then I can land manually. I think it's easier to land with a low thrust engine on the Mun, stops me from bouncing so much.

I've had the same thing happen, every time I've tried to use this mod. None of my maps "in game" last long, they always wind up looking as you posted...although the .csv files are ok.

Jontu, I agree, Mechjeb seems to assume a certain minimum TWR for landing. If you try to land with a low-powered engine on the Mun it will start the burn at the wrong time and land 70-100 Km off target along the line of the orbit (usually East-West). Add a little more thrust capability, as you discovered, and Mechjeb will put you on-target every time.