Tilion

Hey folks, just been messing about in KSP recently (I blame DasValdez and the other KSP streamers who've got me re-invigorated for the inevitable crash-fest that is me playing over-modded KSP on my old & knackered machine) and I finally decided to start posting a few things, though as I explain in [thread=107879]my concurrent 'Rocket Builders' thread[/thread], I may be slow to do so. Anyway, to the reason for this post, I present to you: Seradyne Space Systems Tau-class Advanced KMU (Kerbal Maneuvering Unit) 1-Kerbal EVA Work Craft | 2.6Km/s DeltaV | KAS Gear Storage A versatile KSP craft based on the Mk2 Drone Core that fits neatly in a Mk3 Cargo Bay. The perfect long-range in-system workhorse for your Kerbals, it has a hefty DeltaV allowance, carries four KAS containers as standard and acts as a tug/equipment carrier when docked with probes, small craft or custom cargo modules. Required mods: KAS, Flag Decals. DOWNLOAD from KerbalX Please note that this is a sub-assembly, rooted at the docking port ready for insertion as payload in whatever craft you create. So, whaddaya think, folks? I've found it to be exceedingly handy for carting KAS enabled supplies around and less troublesome than some of the smaller MMU's I've made/tried in the past, and frankly that Mk2 Drone Core was just begging to be used for something like this... Now, could I have done it without the Flag Decal - yes, but I kinda like the mod and this is the first of my craft I'm putting up here all under the 'Seradyne Space Systems' banner, so I wanted just a hint of self-promotion! Now, of course, if you don't like the decal mod (KAS is kinda the raison d'etre for this craft anyway) it's simple enough that with the supplied pics you'll quickly be able to build it yourself (there's a small RCS tank in the middle of the cluster - that's the only non-visible part). Now the only remaining question is: Is it manouvering, manouevering, maneuvring or something entirely different?

I'd changed SOI a couple of minutes back and warped towards my next node, IIRC, yes - I'd just switched back from map mode when I got 'blanked'.

Yep Heimdall, this is the same thing alright, with a few variations perhaps. Don't know why I didn't see your earlier post, but it just didn't 'twig' for me as being the same issue (but then I've been particularly derpy on the forums today). As I said at the start of my post I'm not even really looking for official support on this - it's just 'one of those things', thankfully I wasn't desperately far into that particular playthrough so I didn't lose anything too amazing... I'd likely feel rather aggrieved otherwise. I'll take another crack at the save files, renaming an old one as you suggest. The adage is to save often, backup those saves frequently and don't overstress your system I suppose. That said, I'm loving KSP as much as ever and will put up with errant oddities like this while likely still stretching things to the memory limit with a plethora of mods...

We might not be able to get support - I'm not sure if I'm even asking for help (my pc is barely running KSP with the modicum of mods I have installed so I know things will go wrong now & again), but I thought I should at least try to document such weirdness seeing as it just happened to me too. Though I didn't get pictures of everything the few below should give some idea of the situation... I'd be interested to know if anyone else has had similar issues and any way round them, of course. The Blankety-Blankness: a disappearing ship in KSP that takes the rest of the universe with it... Well, I'm just coming in for a Munar circularisation burn when all a sudden, my craft is flung who knows where, all Buck Rodgers like... The views are blank, nothing visible in any camera mode, IVA (externally blank - the internals were there with similarly wonky readouts), EVA (though thankfully my sacrificial offering managed to cling to the non-existent hatch and haul himself back into the safety of the invisi-pod) or on the now-blank map. Also the navball is conspicuous by its blankness. According to the info window I'm now on a Kerbol escape trajectory... I knew I was pushing my trusty ol' laptop to the limit mod-wise but it seems I've lost an entire career now as yup, you guessed it - KSC is blank too. Restarted it a few times but that entire career (from any worthwhile point) is kaput, just loads up BLANK from quicksaves, regular saves or the main persistence save. Yes, I know there's a few out-of-date mods listed on the JSGME picture, but they're not enabled - everything I've got active is up to date to the best of my knowledge and was working fine for several hours even though I'm stuck running 32-bit with 3gb memory allocated. There were no error files as the game didn't crash and only the scene stuff was missing (couldn't check KSC's scenes as there wasn't anywhere to click to go to tracking/vab/sph etc.), buttons were present throughout and functional (albeit providing no / nonsensical info) so I could still exit out to the menus. So, any ideas folks? Help seadart & I or at least, commiserate!

Please delete [thread=92420]this thread[/thread] - I was a derp. Oooh, done very promptly. Ta muchly!

Peak'd Cap Challenge: Land and balance a small lander atop the highest mountain in the near-KSC range. Can use a rocket or plane to deliver the lander with your choice/combo of chutes/powered landing. Only rule - no VTOL delivery vehicle!

I don't know how deep I'd want to go into some of these things, but a Recovery Facility should certainly be on the list of key additions once money and rep come into play - here you will be able to store all recovered craft, recondition them or break them down to their components (putting the parts or the craft into another tab of available parts for future VAB/SPH use) or donate them to a museum for increased rep.

Well, tetryds, thanks for the feedback - I was just looking for a way to quantify Snuggler's idea in relation to the science & such. Tying each point boost to specific easily-correlated gains seemed the best way. Re. the Fame thing (I'm gonna live forever, I'm gonna learn how to fly - high!). We're not IRL here, we're the KSP: a planet-hogging, species-defining, all-encompassing endeavour. The lil' guys are bound to be a tad more well-known than Earth's astronauts, but I do see your point. Maybe what the Fame 'skill' needs is a very slow degradation while stuck in the astronaut centre, so unless your Kerbal has that 'title-equivalent' permanent boost from say, 'First Kerbal Munar Surface EVA' or similar (or is one of our orange-suited heroes) then all their accomplishments are, eventually, for nought...

Yep, in general, this is the best compromise so far - assuming the guys would actually want to implement something like this... To put my own twist on & maybe refine Snuggler's system, I would suggest having just a 0-10 skill level (Jeb of course, cranked up to 11) being far simpler to both operate and comprehend (re. the skill level to effect ratio): All Kerbals may have pre-existing aptitudes giving an extra +1 to +4 per field, only two fields may be raised to the +3/+4 level. Only the original trio and certain mission specialists start with higher ranked abilities. Further skill gain can only be accomplished by experience. Flight - All Kerbals bar mission specialists would start with Flight 1 (could of course, be higher with aptitude) which is enough to operate craft (never a change or penalty to craft) but at level 1 they would still suffer G-LOC easily - the consequence of which (other than hilarious new animation) would be an inability to do any science from that vessel until they've recovered. Beyond the G-LOC effect, a mission/contract may require something like 'Pilot must have >= Flight 5', Skill gain e.g.: 'Returned to Kerbin from High Orbit: Flight +1', 'Spent One Day in Space: Flight +1' Planetary Science - Kerbals may start with 0 skill in this field, each point provides 2% increase in planetary science output - whether recovered or transmitted, capped at 40% bonus (two level 10 Planetary Scientists). Skill gain e.g.: 'Taken 5 Surface Samples: P.Sci +1', 'Performed EVA in Extrakerbestrial Biome: P.Sci +1', 'Provided Extrakerbestrial High Atmosphere Crew Report: P.Sci +1' Space Science - Kerbals may start with 0 skill in this field, each point provides 2% increase in space science output - whether recovered or transmitted, capped at 40% bonus (two level 10 Space Scientists). Skill gain e.g.: 'Performed 1 Hour Orbital EVA: S.Sci +1', 'Processed 10 Scientific Reports: S.Sci +1','Cleaned 5 Science Instruments; S.Sci +1' Engineering - Kerbals may start with 0 skill in this field and Engineering 1 is required to perform repair functions; each point provides 2% increase in crew report output. 2% reduction in transmitting cost to both sci. loss & electric charge (due to better resource/equipment management), capped at 40% bonus (two level 10 Engineers). Skill gain e.g.: 'Performed First EVA Repair: Eng. +1', 'Transmitted 30 Reports: Eng. +1' Fame - Kerbals may start with 0 'skill' in this field, each point provides 2% increase in mission reputation (in addition to all the great intangibles Capt. Snuggler mentioned for 'Coolness'). Capped at 50% (launching massive ships with loads of Kerbals aboard IS inherently gonna be more reknowned, even if only in 2% increments). 'Skill' gain e.g.: 'Performed First Ever Orbital Flight: Fame +2', 'Safely Returned from First Ever Mun Landing: +5' As you can tell from my envisaged skill gains, several of these things (primarily Fame!) would ding when you recover the Kerbal's craft, though the science stuff is aimed more for slowly developing skills during missions. Mission Specialists I would change up a bit from the Capt.'s definition, though keeping their appearance in-game linked to a particular mission/contract objective. Each one would have to be uniquely configured for the mission, of course, but as a general rule I would give them 0 Flight skill as standard, unless they specifically required it (e.g.: Report on Jool's atmosphere during aerocapture) - they aren't there to do the flying. You could build whatever variant of MS you can envisage within these parameters depending on the mission and they would only really come into play for their presence at a key mission checkpoint (as in the example), without which the mission fails. As an added bonus, an MS's skills still benefit other phases of the mission, though I would not allow them to gain experience. ?!?...Sorry 'bout the big gaps - there's only a single line space between things when I edit...?!?

Yeah, it's great to have built in but certainly needs a user-customisable folder structure, accessible from in-game if possible... Hopefully there'll be some movement on that in a future update.

I was very happy to get 721 science for my first Mun landing (close orbit with EVA's over several biomes, landing with several sample pickups)- and Jeb's still sitting there waiting to travel further when I can develop a rover & bag more points all of which were gained via transmission. Wondering what the total tally might be before he gets home! Jeb's got a wait on his hands now though - that heap of points has taken me towards building an interplanetary surveyor probe - it might not do the grand tour in one go but it'll be decent, once again departing from my actually preferred 'sample return' style and sticking with transmitting repeated readings till I have 90% or so of the full return value.

Each module can only hold one experiment's set of results, so when you're doing a decent tour of the system and want to get the highest value research back home for all the science points, multiple modules is the only way to go - I wish I'd added another capsule for all the higher-value EVA reports before I'd finished too but I just transmitted the crew stuff! Full tour of science above Kerbin, round the Mun and just filled the last container as I re-entered (missed the high-alt. atmospheric test as I focused on the launch). P.S.: I don't show the splashdown, 'cos, well - I was rather focused on keeping it all level (it does tip a bit, but I could detach the cockpit at the last moment if needed) anyhoo, it came down straight at 4.7m/s nice & survivable; the only reason it wasn't over land is it's quite early in the tech tree so minimal control going on anyway - plus I WAS coming in rather hot from a Mun gravity assist/flyby off a Kerbin Polar orbit.

I didn't trust those energy-hogging antennas, that's what I did. Get me data back on the ground (or in the water) and leave the guys yattering away on the radio with crew reports! I needed a viable way to return plenty of data from all round the system, so, I built myself a science drop-pod and really had my eyes opened as to the best way to do an orbital geo-survey: <iframe class="imgur-album" src="http://imgur.com/a/xATEt/embed" frameborder="0" height="550" width="100%"></iframe>

Behold The Krakening! Yep, looks like a titchy little Kerbal-born octopus evolved into our well-beloved spaceborne scourge. Though how we've had so many problems before we had the science tech to even send it up to the big black is still a mystery. I will admit I didn't initially twig the octopus/kraken link - I was expecting the poor little blighter to transform into a certain goo we're all about to become too familiar with - I've heard it gets EVERYWHERE...

Love this! I've previously done lots of .cfg editing to make my own all-in-one service modules and used fairing factory to get a range of custom BPC's (shame proc. fairings can't manage 'em yet) which I've .cfg edited to be able to soak up / deflect the heat from my multitude of escape systems, but I'll be the first to admit I'm hopeless and helpless at the modelling/texturing side of things so I'm very pleased to get a hold of this - you can be sure it'll get quite a lot of use from me. Hope you can come up with something similar for the 1.25m capsule - currently I'm going with a 'Recovery Unit' which is just the capsule/port/docking lights/ladder/chutes (+ sciencey bits soon, no doubt) and they're attached to the main combined pusher LES/SM I call a 'LEOSMP': Launch Escape, Orbital Support & Manoeuvering Pack Tiny Decoupler Z-200 Battery RTG 2x Round-8 Toroidal Fuel Tanks Oscar-B Fuel Tank FL-R25 RCS 8x Cubic Octagonal Struts & Bits of SpaceTape 4x RCS Thrusters 4x OX-4L 1x6 Solar Panels 4x Communotron 16 16x Sepratron Escape/Retro-Re-entry Motors 8x Linear RCS Thrusters Rockomax 48-7S Engine

I'll be pretty happy with whatever they come up with next, however: I'm most looking forward to how the full resource system will develop with it's own parts, tech tree sections and how the need for science in the particular biomes could be used to discover & unlock the resource system's various aspects. I think that would be a great move as it all ties together and provides even greater emphasis for R&D. Yes, I want all the other stuff too, naturally.

Thanks for the Rockomax Headstart - works great at the heart of a medium lift lower stage / heavy lift upper stage or used as a nearly-all-in-one refueller (just add docking ports, radial engines & RCS thrusters... Can't wait until I can make custom parts for all my common lifters / refuellers, should cut down on the strain for my ol' PC!

Very much anticipating the plugin coming along - this is great stuff! In the meantime, if you are releasing more welds, howsabout a very useful one? I call it the Rockomax 'Headstart': Everything you need at the the top of a reasonable, expandable core stage. Ready to add payload specific adapter/decoupler and extra fuel/engines. Maybe, welded by UbioZur? Remote Guidance Unit, Reaction Wheel/SAS, Battery, RCS Tank, 2 Jumbo Tanks. Do an alternate with the regular tanks and perhaps, if you're using the bits of KSPX that haven't gone stock yet, the slimmer RCS tank instead of the big'un?

Yes! Yes! A thousand times Yes! God knows how long this has been an issue - it keeps getting raised now and again, hopefully something will be done. The most annoying part is if you line the 1-2 up with the rest of your craft then the entire thing's wonky (or all your ladders/secondary command pods are!). I know it'd be save & craft-file-breaking to just replace it right away but please Squad - introduce another version of the pod that's properly aligned then phase the old one out in the future.

My craft are usually named either for its mission if a one-off or 'special' - stuff like 'KWX' for a weather sat, 'HabLab' for my first space station, 'Assay Explorer' for a Joolian Grand Tour IP mothership; there'll usually be the odd acronym thrown in like the 'DSN OLRIC Array' (Deep Space Network Orbital Long-Range Interplanetary Communications Array). Speaking of acronyms, my most recently named station is 'VAPORS' - the Very Accessible Perikee Orbital Refuelling Station - I nearly had to properly engage the grey matter for that one - for a moment. Then I've got the full programs & projects - they usually follow classic naming conventions such as the third flight of a Vanguard Orbiter on a Scout Rocket will be 'Vanguard VS-3' - if there's a problem I might need to launch a repeat mission as 'Vanguard VS-3A'. Some programs cover a wide range of craft, in these cases they have a second prefix character to denote the sub-program/strand - key among those for me is my 'Project Reach' which covers probe development and has six key, early-game classes of probe to be developed: R='Reach' Flyby Probe & Impactor / Rx='Explorer' Science Probe / Ri='Imager' Probe / Rs= 'Settler' Soft Lander / Rp='Pilgrim' Interplanetary Probe / Rw='Wanderer' Rover - from those I just add the launcher's letter and mission number, though the last three more advanced types each are named for their sub-program so we have 'Reach RS-4', 'Reach RxS-6', 'Reach RiS-3', 'Settler RsS-9', 'Pilgrim RpS-1' and 'Wanderer RwS-2'. My lifter options are a bit of a mess, naming wise, coming up with new options and optimising things; but I try to have some method to the madness, keeping to the Stage I, II, III etc. format but with different named sub-assemblies as needed: 'Scout III-R4S' is a Scout lower/mid stage with 4 SRB's on radial decouplers, 'Scout II-A8' is a lower stage with 8 extra tanks & engines permanently attached. Planes and SSTO's similarly get either individual or program-based names. When I need to come up with a new version of an actual orbiter/lander/spaceplane though I tend to either go with adding a numeral for a basic alteration, or adding a descriptive acronym such as 'Pronto CXRV' / 'Pronto CERV-II' -Crew Transfer & Resupply Vessel / Crew Emergency Rescue Vehicle, Type 2. As you can see, most names are in English (or at least something close to it) but the ones I've named are from my post-update/lost-save 'reboot the solar system' mission program which I go through, trying to improve, every time a game-breaking version update happens (or whenever I want to restart on familiar ground). There's a great list of names from mythologies/ancient languages and especially bird names, of course, waiting for me ready for those next craft, programs & missions I want to take on - though matching things up is often a strangely trying task!

Hmm, I too find having a standard action group setup very useful. Equally I find that I have to have, for the sake of the challenge, the enjoyment & realism, a fairly complex abort system which inevitably takes up several of the action groups (I've long been averse to spamming the spacebar). So, to properly sort out the action groups, it can be quite a challenge arranging everything; rarely I'll have to swap minor things around, but my basic system is: Backspace: Abort Mode I - shutdown main engines - decouple where needed - activate Escape Stage engine(s) - fire core/upper stage retros 1: Rocket: Abort Mode II or SSTO: Switch between Jet & Rocket Engines / SABRE Modes inc. Intakes Toggle 2: Rocket: Abort Mode III or SSTO: Toggle Jets & Intakes 3: Rocket: Abort Mode IV or SSTO: Toggle Rockets 4: Toggle Reaction Controls (Wheels & Thrusters) 5: Toggle Electric Generator / Retract Solar Panels / SSTO Air Brakes / Extra Mod Function 6: Toggle Cargo Doors & Bay Lights / Docking Covers & Docking Lights / Secondary Lighting 7: Toggle Access (Ladders/Secondary Gear) 8: Toggle Systems (solar panels/science instruments/comms/scanners/detectors) 9: Separate from Escape Stage 0: Parachutes This setup is quite flexible and can usually leave at least one group free somewhere. Groups 1-3 alternatives are mutually exclusive but are not usually activated once on-orbit, 9 & 0 are only used on/after re-entry and everything in 4-8 is designed to prevent critical overlaps even with multiple types of craft interconnected to a space station/IP stage - and though you likely wouldn't want to in most cases, they can be toggled at will without undue harm to docked systems. SSTO's rarely need more than a single abort mode as the worst case scenarios happen at vastly reduced thrust/acceleration differential rates (compared to say, a mainsail asparagus stack separating, driving up through a mid-stage & ramming a capsule). Abort Modes are heavily modelled after Apollo: Mode I provides abort from Pad/Runway and for LKO craft, a backup, emergency de-orbit capability; it is also the only SSTO mode, functioning through the full flight envelope while for standard rockets it can be relied upon until around 250 m/s. Modes II-IV are for higher velocity aborts and usually involve extra stages and/or attitude alteration - Stage IV is invariably AOA/ATO using the craft's Service Module Engine/Orbital Maneuvering System (with some optimisation on smaller craft, the SM is often the Escape Stage with sepratrons for the initial boost and the main SME/OMS for attitude correction and powered landing). I can have problems with the occasional jet-equipped shuttle/reusable rocket designs, but usually it's just a compromise between groups 1-3, the number of abort modes and an extra bit of much loathed spacebar-spam staging. One of the things you've got in your setup, orangexception, that's quite different than mine, is the 'Disable Reaction Control'. Personally I can't afford the room for such when there's a perfectly good toggle, though I understand the need to shut down certain of a docked/separated craft's wheels & thrusters to rebalance the craft, I normally do such things manually or assign them to group 5 if need be (as it's rare that a craft has a toggle-able generator on-board and retract panels is only used on atmospheric landers) - though I do like your methodology! I find the best way to avoid the destabilising effects of docking that you accomplish with this action group/rule is to toggle off the system in the final moment before you anticipate the connection will be made when on a 0.1m/s lined-up final and coasting in. The other thing you've got that I completely ignore is the engine gimballing - I don't know whether it's because I've rarely had any problems with such (or if I have, then the way I redesign/setup my craft - usually just the core stage has gimballing left on and I lock the other engines before launch) but I've always managed any gimbal locking manually - maybe that says something about how old & naff my computer is, hence incapable of handling designs with such a multitude of engines that need in-flight gimbal state changes enough to warrant an action group! The rest of my action groups are pretty self explanatory, sure, there's some times when you don't want everything switched on at once in those groups, but it's a simple task to prioritise based on the main mission of the craft in question and to make the rest of it manual. The last two groups are once more evidence of my need to cut down on spacebar mashing when I was testing a bunch of abort systems - it has the great bonus of always being a very safe and speedy abort sequence (drastically cuts down on Kerbal deaths vs mashing through the stages and hoping your stage separates and your chutes will deploy in time during low altitude/pad aborts) and they're quite vital given the multitude of abort modes I use - as full separation & chute activation directly on abort (if you've got any serious velocity behind you) is one of the surest ways to demolish your otherwise safe escape system and kill your Kerbals. Wow - that's more than enough from me, apparently this is a 'Quick Reply' I'm about to post... God only knows what a long'un would be! I've droned on for far too long, I fear. Anyhoo - the best of luck & much continued success for your well-organised rules/action group system, orangexception!

Hi! Love your vids and your particular 'can't-wait' impementation of career mode... I've not got the PC to do videos myself, and I'm not too bothered about challenging myself with financial limitations; that said, I don't mind watching others who do, or offering up some mission suggestions. I've just gone through my Vanguard Program yesterday, 20 flights or so that were my own take on Project Mercury and I found the rapid-cycle and development of a couple of common launch vehicles (and following the rough historic details too) to be very entertaining. That's just one program within my massive 'Mission List' to be done for 0.17. I'll include a small portion of the list below and give you a few prices for some of the more interesting (or at least, useful) ones: I'd recommend the following: KeoSat Keopositioning Services Offers 125k Kerbucks to develop a multiple-satellite launcher vehicle and deploy 4 Keosynchronous KPS Sats (40k bonus for equal separation of satellites). Kerbin Meteorological Office Offers 30k Kerbucks to launch the their Kerbin Ice Cap Examiner ICE satellite into a northern Tundra orbit. They will provide the ICE Sat. Astrophysical Academy of Kerbin Offers 400k Kerbucks for the development & delivery of 'Herald' Space Weather Observation & Warning Satellites to 0.9KAU and 1.1KAU orbits, (just in front of and behind Kerbin's orbit, sun facing). Standing Offer from Keep Kerbin Kleen Kampaign: 5k regardless of mission for each spent stage to be de-orbited, impacted or sent into Kerbol / out of the system. If those don't suit, by way of recommendation, the Kethane mod opens up a whole realm of new mission profiles & possible fun-to-be-had! My own Kethane missions (bar the first) are off-the-page on this partial list... Well, hope they help, or the list gives you an idea or two - I'll be watching!

Well, Hi! Assuming you don't mean you want to send up a fleet of very Kerbal SpaceTrawlers to whisk all that lovely orbital scrap back down to the blue & green... You could just edit your persistence file, delete all those VESSEL's that are debris and reduce the number of listed ongoing flights to the right amount and you're set to start cluttering the place up again - or planning and over-tinkering with your designs & mods to ensure you can de-orbit at least 60-70% of whatever you put up in the future! Eco-friendly launches, working out how to get rid of your spent stages etc. is just another of the joys of KSP, just don't tell folks about that little launchpad incident with the Nuclear Engines we blew up last week...

Saving & naming partial builds in VAB/SPH is my key desire for 0.18 or a.s.a.p. after (as much as I can't wait for even more planets and all the other IVA/resources/docking/missions). We can already develop payloads - just build your lander or satellite - but we can't yet take that saved design and stick it on a launch stage, or vice versa - we have to build it all anew (especially galling if you've come up with a doozy of a launcher and have to keep rebuilding it for a host of different payloads). This would save so many people a lot of time so there's little re-hashing and rebuilding needed (and folks can get on with the exploration!) - to be able to develop stages, launch vehicles and payloads seperately and load them up, forming them into a single craft which, when it separates still has the names associated with the saved stage - which is handy from gameplay terms and might also help clear up the tracking view and persistence files.

Here's My Entry (and my first post too..) "Taking yet another 'Giant Leap'... R.I.P. Neil Armstrong. May you find Tranquility again." This is my Pronto Lander (original design came about for a Crew Emergency Rescue Vehicle which just worked great - hence 'Pronto' being this family of ships/bases). The triple-engines-on-struts design is suitable for landing on all 0.16 celestial bodies and probably will fare equally well in 0.17+ with minor changes. First line of craft that I've been exceedingly happy with both looks and performance-wise. The bonus that it's wide enough that there's never a risk of tipping over on anything like a reasonable slope cannot be understated when you haven't nailed hundreds of Mun & Minmus landings - and is peace of mind even if you have, I'd imagine.