Roytronix

Wondering if this is a bug or feature - the Ranger Agricultural Module can't be boosted with efficiency parts in version 1.3.0.0 of MKS. I'm running KSP 1.8 so that all my mods work, maybe that has something to do with it? I took a peek in the configs and it looks like the Ranger module is missing the "EfficiencyTag" line in the Agroponics module. The Tundra 2.5m Agri module has the following in the .cfg: MODULE { name = USI_ConverterSwapOption ConverterName = Agroponics StartActionName = Start Agroponics StopActionName = Stop Agroponics UseSpecialistBonus = true ExperienceEffect = BotanySkill EfficiencyTag = Greenhouse INPUT_RESOURCE {... While the Ranger module has: MODULE { name = USI_ConverterSwapOption ConverterName = Agroponics StartActionName = Start Agroponics StopActionName = Stop Agroponics UseSpecialistBonus = true ExperienceEffect = BotanySkill INPUT_RESOURCE {... Is this intentional?

So is dodging missiles more a function of AI settings or plane design? Cause I can sometimes dodge a whole wall of AIM-120s, but other times, I can't even dodge one.

Now THAT was an intense battle. Mein Gott. Speaking of battles, the Joestar IV has been tested extensively and can consistently beat a squad of Battlewings 3v3. It's time to submit it to the competition! @inigma and @Draconiator (and anyone else that wants to have a go at it), here's the KerbalX link: https://kerbalx.com/Roytronix/Joestar-IV

Finally getting this combat-ready. Behold, the Joestar IV. I've done a few test battles, and it can take on a squad of Duos no problem. I'll probably submit it later today.

Same here. Seems like every small tweak to the AI or wings makes a huge difference in competition.

Okay, got it. Thank you so much! No u r hax

Ohhh, that's what the grey area is. I was under the impression that the Lab Module would fill it up. I checked my Science Archives, and - lo and behold - there was a record for a previously transmitted experiment from a SC-9001 over Minmus. I'm a little confused, though: what does the dark green area mean? Jimmies are untickled, now that I understand what's going on. I don't like it when I don't understand something (hence, I avoid quantum mechanics). More manned missions coming right up!! My expectations for 0.23 were different than what I got. I expected 0.23 to emphasize sending a probe before a manned mission, but the reason that's done in the real world is to evaluate the feasibility of a landing site - something that really doesn't need to be done...yet.

I'm aware of this feature, but this specific experiment (i.e. SC-9001 in Space Above Minmus) has only been performed by this probe. While I've used the SC-9001 before on the Mun, I don't see why it would affect an experiment over Minmus. So what's the point of having any transmission devices on my probe at all? If I can't get any science from, say, a Duna probe without returning it, why have probes at all? I don't mean to sound like I'm angry at you (I'm not), but that certainly doesn't sound like what SQUAD wants KSP to be like. Either way, this feature bug result of my own incompetence zero transmission value thing really tickles my jimmies.

Hey forum, 0.23 is great, but I'm running into what I hope is a mistake on my part. I've got a small probe with a SC-9001 experiment on it over Minmus. I can record the data fine, but when I go to transmit, the dialog tells me that the transmission will have no science value. It's not a glitch. If I transmit, I receive no science back at KSC. Note the 0% transmission value. Note the log: "+0.0 science added". There's a Communotron 16 (antenna) and a DTS-M1 (first dish on the tech tree) onboard. Any idea what I'm doing wrong?

So I've finally got my command module from Duna back in Kerbin orbit. I start my deorbit burn, only to realize that it would bring me down on the dark side of Kerbin. Not wanting the recovery forces to have to wait until morning, I aborted my burn and loaded a quicksave. When the scene loaded, I was in a circular orbit around Duna, three days before my meticulously planned Kerbin transfer window. Ugh. Any other stories of quicksave being a total dipstick?

Welcome! Good luck on your various explosions excursions and whatnot!

Firstly, to avoid confusion, I believe Dethyr means that the CoL is rotated (i.e. along the yaw axis) slightly to the left, or port. If you look closely at the third screenshot, you can see the rear arm of the CoL is just to the right of the + formed by the CoM marker: Secondly...what in the name of Jebediah. I see no reason for that to happen, unless you're not using symmetry (which I assume you are). Does this affect how your planes fly? Any of them skew off? Thirdly, It really shouldn't make any difference. If the CoT on a vertical rocket is slightly rotated the same way, it still goes through the CoM. Ergo, it flies straight. Likewise, the CoL just needs to go through* the CoM, regardless of rotation on the yaw axis (note that the yaw axis here would be the roll axis in the vertical example I gave). *I'm aware that the CoL shouldn't go through the CoM at first; it should be slightly behind. I said "through the CoM" to make my point.

First, you need to space the space. Then, it's a simple matter of spaceing the space until it spaces. Finally, add space to taste. CLICK HERE FOR SPACE HOWTOS

Great work! It's funny. I had a dream about KSP, and this looks almost exactly the same as the base in my dream.

So I started a new game on FTL and decided to name the ship "The Kerbin". My crew were named Bill, Jebediah, and Bob. Here's what happened: Session 1: Bill asphyxiated, Jeb killed by intruders, and ship destroyed in first sector. Session 2: Shields upgraded to second level to prevent ship discombobulation. Entire crew killed by Mantis intruders in second sector. Session 3: Ship caught in solar flare. Crew burnt to death in sector 1. Needless to say, I have retired the ship name "The Kerbin" and will never again name my crew after the Kerbonauts. Doing so seems to cause my mission to go Full Kerbal.

Yay thank you A truly Kerbal solution.

Nope.

PS This should be classified as answered. Does a mod have to do that, or can I?

I thought about that, but I don't want to use the Poodle because I finally got a rover design that can be carried underneath the LM! Also, these engines are more powerful and more fuel-efficient than the smaller radial-mounts. So yeah, finally got a working design. Thanks for all the ideas, help, and suggestions! I'll post some pics soon.

Okay. Here's what the rover looks like attached to the LM in the VAB: On the launch pad. Rover release, aaaand... This happens. As you can see, the rover is too small for a docking port, and even if it was, it would just land on its side or nose and be useless. Should I consider a slight redesign to allow the rover to drop from the bottom of the LM?

Excellent ideas, but my rover design doesn't allow me to put the rover underneath the LM. Yeah, I've tried that. It lifts off OK, but when I detach the rover, it lands upside-down and I can't right it.

Hey Forum, I've got an issue. I'm trying to land a small, lightweight rover on the Mun, Apollo style. The rover is just some structural pieces with some small rover wheels, an RTG, and a kerbal seat on it. What I can't figure out is how to get the darn thing to the Munar surface. My current design has a 3-kerbal CSM and a 2-kerbal lander module. The idea is to slap the rover on the LM, but I can't figure out where to put the thing. I considered placing it between the LM and the CSM or below the LM, but then I worry about the structural stresses of launch. The alternative is to put it on the very top of the whole thing, but the rover has no docking port on it. In fact, it only has one attachment point (the flat part of an OKTO strut). I've tried just sticking it on the side of the LM, but that throws my Centre of Mass way off. Besides, when I detached it on Kerbin during a test, it fell on its side and I couldn't right it. Is the problem in the design of my rover, or am I overlooking some stupidly simple solution? Any help is appreciated! On a side note, I couldn't find a tutorial on designing/landing rovers. If there isn't one already, someone should write it. (If there is, please direct me to it.) Thanks! P.S. I'll put up some pics when I get home.

In physics, all I think is "Oh my God this is so simple. Can we please get to Orbital Mechanics so I can ace it?"