Araym

Or option 2.5: make an "ASET Prop 2" directory, with new shiny buttons and any you feel as an improvement, leaving the actual pack (updated) just to let older IVAs to work properly.

Nothing fancy, nothing spectacular: ... 2 days ago, suddenly, without warning, my 1.2.2 Ksp copy (ultra-modded as usual) has stopped to work. I took it as an "Higher Power" in action, to remaind me that it was time to move myself. To 1.3.1. So... ... ... it took a day to download, update, sort and add to KSP all the mod that I'm generally using. Ready to the miniavc deletion and the first start! Wish me luck

My 0.25-0.90 based F-14. Born as stock excluded wing hinges (Infernal Robotics). These picture were just taken as soon I placed in my new pc, bought at january, KSP 1.2.2. Still working flawlessly. It's the first ever things that fly out from an hangar, on a new KSP major upgrade. ... As extra, my new pc started to like a lot more mods than back in those days... ... so I exploited the very same F-14 hull to add more features. This is the last one (new cockpit, BDA added weapons+radome, new flaps... bla bla shiny things), but it is basically the same thing. ... very different from the "boxellated" graphic I had when the design was conceived, but the plane itself is true 90-95% to the original design.

Uhm... I'm not sure about how they store/deploy it but: - Mk2 cargobay (like adviced)??? - service bay??? ... if modded: - any mk1 (the cilinder 1.25m one) cargobay (There were a bunch around)??? - a robotic arm made with Infernal Robotics???

Tiny probe, scientific instrument as you like, some batteries, rectangular structural part with surface attached solar panel (to cover the sides), tiny non tracking solar panel or stock 2x3 ones (if you have no mods) = the little DOVE???

!!! <... Arayms prepares his hound dogs...> They will find you, @Kuzzter... ... you cannot leave this way, for a season break!! MOAAARH!!! WE NEED MOAAARH STORIES!!! NAAAAOH!!! ... ... ... obviously joking; have an hellhuva of a fine Summer!!! <Araym sipping iced lemon tea in the hot mediterranean summer >

THANK YOU! ... found the error at first try, after your hint... (Note for myself: remember always to close any parenthesis opened in a part list )

I made my tons of MM patches in years... ... suddenly, in one of the most large of them, applying patches on loading KSP, it shown 1 error (probably a typo somewhere in this huge chunk of MM patch I designed)... How can I find a log (if there is any) indicating the line not working/the part not upgraded??

... the same for a lot of us, in the summer... I'm sure that Kuzzter will be ready as soon it's possible for him. By the way, @Kuzzter: "♪♫ Don't Stop! Explorin'! ♫♪" <Araym take off singing - very untuned as a dying cat>

I discovered a little issue adding MKS on my game: I'm using from ages TRP-Hire to manage hiring of my kerbals, and now (as I discovered in the TRP-Hire post) MKS borrow some of that code to manage the new kerbal specialization that comes with it. But now I have this mess when I go to hire a new Kerbal, with both mod conflicting in the GUI: ... how could I resolve the problem without loosing the ability of TRP-Hire (mostly the cost to hire a new kerbal fixed by his/her stupidity/courage level, rather than an exponential cost as stock)???

YAY! Parkaboy is back!!! With more comics! And more awesome designs!

I'm doing a bit of necroing, but basically I'm pretty in the same problem in which it was @Gfurst , because I'm trying to make some propeller engines, and only NOW I found this thread about how to set their performances ( some help, if not too busy, from "sensei" @NathanKell or any Dev that could help me refine my toughts will be greatly apreciated because i was struggling until now ): basically, I know (on paper) that my engin has a given power at sea level (let's say 80%), then it ramps up to its 100% at 3000m, then it fades to the max altitude it can achieve (let's say 9000m), so basically (removing the tangent values, that I'll refine in a curve editor) I could have this as "atmCurve": atmCurve { key = 1 0.8 xxx xxx // 80% at sea level key = 0.62859 1 xxx xxx // 100% at 3000m - I calculate the atmo density with samples in game made by the pressure science part :P key = 0.21539 0.3 xxx xxx // basically having not enough air to push at 9000m key = 0 0 xxx xxx // in space there is no air, then NO thrust } ... then, to complete the setting, I should add: atmChangeFlow = True // standard coding defining an airbreather useVelCurve = True useAtmCurve = True multiFlow = False // the needed change to vary the actual "thrust" (how many HP/kW should the engine have at a given altitude) atmCurve { key = 1 0.8 xxx xxx // 80% at sea level key = 0.62859 1 xxx xxx // 100% at 3000m - I calculate the atmo density with samples in game made by the pressure science part :P key = 0.21539 0.3 xxx xxx // basically having not enough air to push at 9000m key = 0 0 xxx xxx // in space there is no air, then NO thrust } now... how should I use the "velCurve"??? My first thoughts are about a graph about its own "accelleration" up to the "max possible velocity" (... and if I understood correctly, in Mach numbers), until the propellers cannot push further anymore. Starting with a low output from 0 (static), slowly going up (to recreate the propeller need to start to "bite" the air to accellerate, slower than a jet engine) up to the full potential of the blades (from take-off velocity onwards), untill, reached the designed "max speed", it starts to have those "issues" (I'm not an aircraft engineer, but I know that there are various fact that not let a propeller engine/its blades to accellerate past a given designed value) that stops it to gain more velocity... Basically something like (again, just an example... I'll have to figure the exact values in various manners, othar than add the full values to smooth the curve later, changing those "xxx" I added with a proper curve configuration): velCurve { key = 0 0.4 xxx xxx key = 0.2 0.8 xxx xxx key = 0.4 1 xxx xxx key = 0.6 0.2 xxx xxx key = 0.8 0.1 xxx xxx } ... is it someway correct??? REFINING THE CONCEPT: ... I then found (still using the "fuel flow" mechanic before I'll add "mutliFlow = False") that sometime, from a levelled max speed, if my plane (a fighter) goes in a dive, the engine itself, past some velocities, could eventually "flame out" and turn itself "off", rather than keep spinning in "idle mode" (like when variable pitch blades goes "feathering"). How could I change/use "flameoutBar" (and/or eventually "CLAMP"...) as I'm not a genius and I do not have any practical example of them used in stock jet engine, to fine tuning the engine to have a very low thrust, but still being "turned on" (basically keeping the animation of the spinning, rather than the actual mechanics that "flame out" it, turning it off)? What is the "basic-stock" value of "flameoutBar", to have that 7%? 0.07??? Up to now, guessing, I tweaked, lower and lower, the "ignitionThreshold" value in the ModuleEngine, to mitigate that behaviour, but probably I was messing with something not needed. What does this value do actually, in the synthax of a cfg? What is its "basic-stock" value? Then... IntakeAir ratio: how much could be a someway correct value? Having as example some very different engine, in stock, from the BIG value in the larger turbofan like the J-90 Goliath, at 227, to the very small value of the turbo ram jet J-X4 Whiplash, at 8, what could be a balanced value for a "piston engine" (like those in WW2) or for a more modern turboprop (that uses the turbine concept geared to a propeller)? Should an hungry but powerful air cooled, radial engine (like the P&W R-2800 that powered F4U Corsair and P-47 Thunderbolt) have a higher or lower value than a V12, liquid cooled, less powerful but someway more efficient engine, like the Rolls-Royce Merlin (that powered the Spitfire, and in his american builod version, the P-51 Mustang) or that Daimler-Benz DB-601/605 (that powered the Messerschmitt Bf 109)??? After this wall of text, thanks to anyone that could eventually bother to answer, in advance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboy_Bebop It's the main spaceship used in this anime... a GREAT anime with even a better blues/jazz soundtrack *_*

I am one of the (a LOT of) first buyers of KSP. I think I started "officially" with 0.17 (even if I remember, probably, something like 0.14 or 0.15 too), after I had met the game on youtube and I had fun with "the basics of space flying" with the 0.13 (or everything it was at the time) free version. So I'm falling on the part of our comunity that had A LOT of hope for a very basic game well FAR AWAY from the complexity it has now in 1.2.2, on the verge to be updated again in the next release of 1.3, so I'm going to fall in that category of fellow kerbonauts that (under SQUAD promise) "will receive not only the (core) game update for free, but also any further expansions for free" (so you could point me that any I could add after this point is made by someone that should not need to open again the wallet to receive more contents that later buyers should pay)... ... BUT, even if the game itself probably will need some polishment here and there (expecting some stock part revamp in the future and some functionality added out of any DLC scheme) I'M SINCERELLY BE READY to PAY for more stuff! BECAUSE I'm not more in my "prime", and after being accustomed to the "real life" needs of companies (a.k.a: they need money to run their business) I could tell that "expansions" (or "DLC", as known now) are and will be the only way to extend the life of ONE of the most longeve game I still playing after FIVE YEARS. I'm so proud to be a "kerbonauts" that I went to buy (just for the sake to "funding" SQUAD) even (at least for me) the (a bit-a lot bugged) "Kerbalizer". Those that invested in KSP are not doing it for "charity"... Those that works for Squad are not doing it for "free"... I could see the problems from those that have not a constant revenue, but will like to have the announced (but not yet finalized) options from the fist DLC as "stock"... I also see the complains about "what SQUAD announced as DLC is now easily achieved with some free mods", but this is not the same: I saw tons of interesting concepts being difficoult implemented by mods, but very easily done once stock (my first example was the kraken-driven first mods that tried to add "docking", generally killing tons of space assemblies, rather the smoothness achieved once "docking" was made in the core game)... KSP is probably one of the few (if not the only) game that will grant to me ton of fun even if "tomorrow" SQUAD could announce that will close any further development of the game (I hope a far away "tomorrow"). I'm probably naive enough in my thoughts to have been, in fact, one of the "early buyer" of a product very far to be complete (I wish that for any complaining guy, he should be reverted to 0.17 for at least a couple of hours or REAL game, to feel what it was KSP back in its early state, when aside a couple of cilinder labelled as "fuel tanks", there was basically nothing: no tweakable to fine tuning part positioning, no nodes for manouvers, no docking, no kerbals to walk away from crafts) just to HELP a very promising concept to bloom in a full fledged game (yes... there are still things I expect to be added on stock to consider it really "complete" -TWR/dV tables, for example-, but this actual situation is FAR MORE COMPLETE than any experienced FIVE YEARS AGO!!!) Even if with the upcoming "language localization", probably some sales will go up again, I suspect that KSP is not bringing the same amount of cash to SQAUD as it was, just to say, around 0.90 or early 1.XXX releases, so what is it needed to keep SQUAD afloat to further spend time and resources on the future? Obviously add contents as payed "expansions/DLCs/whatever-you-could-call-them". It's obviously a market stategy long ABUSED by a lot of companies (basic games in which you could do very litlle, without, and then you have a decent one, instead, if you put more money in it) but, as NOW (data from the official KSP store) how BAD PRICEY could them be, with a basic game costing 18€ now? 5 euros??? 10??? I'm OFFICIALLY asking to SQUAD to leave in ANY CASE OPEN the "buy the DLC" option (at least in their KSP-Store, if it could be problematic to have it done on Steam/other selling platforms) even if I'll receive the "download it" option for free because... well... I'm naive and romantic (and old: beying old enough helps to be "naive" and "romantic", sometime), and I'll probably wanna (re-)FUND SQUAD itself of the FUN they are keeping me, still after 5 years (and with a LOT of time in the future) buying it ANYWAY. Because, even if some features/bugs need to be still addressed, even if I expect some polishment in the future (stock rocket parts revamp, for example????) I'm actually MORE THAN HAPPY to be one of their customers. Even (or EVEN MORE) if they are actually going to keep me the "promise" to bring to me "infinite free content upgrades" just like they promised LONG AGO. LONG LIFE TO KSP LONG LIFE TO SQUAD ... and...

I am one of the (LOT) first buyers of KSP. I think I started "officially" with 0.17, after I had met the game on youtube and I had fun with "the basics of space flying" with the 0.13 (or everything it was at the time) free version. So I'm falling on the part of our comunity that had A LOT of hope for a very basic game well FAR AWAY from the complexity it has now in 1.2.2, on the verge to be updated again in the next release of 1.3, so I'm going to fall in that category of fellow kerbonauts that (under SQUAD promise) "will receive not only the (core) game update for free, but also any further expansions for free" (so you could point me that any I could add after this point is made by someone that should not need to open again the wallet to receive more contents that later buyers should pay)... ... BUT, even if the game itself probably will need some polishment here and there (expecting some stock part revamp in the future and some functionality added out of any DLC scheme) I'M SINCERELLY BE READY to PAY for more stuff! BECAUSE I'm not more in my "prime", and after being accustomed to the "real life" needs of companies (a.k.a: they need money to run their business) I could tell that "expansions" (or "DLC", as known now) are and will be the only way to extend the life of ONE of the most longeve game I still playing after FIVE YEARS. I'm so proud to be a "kerbonauts" that I went to buy (just for the sake to "funding" SQUAD) even (at least for me) the (a bit-a lot bugged) "Kerbalizer". Those that invested in KSP are not doing it for "charity"... Those that works for Squad are not doing it for "free"... I could see the problems from those that have not a constant revenue, but will like to have the announced (but not yet finalized) options from the fist DLC as "stock"... I also see the complains about "what SQUAD announced as DLC is now easily achieved with some free mods", but this is not the same: I saw tons of interesting concepts being difficoult implemented by mods, but very easily done once stock (my first example was the kraken-driven first mods that tried to add "docking", generally killing tons of space assemblies, rather the smoothness achieved once "docking" was made in the core game)... KSP is probably one of the few (if not the only) game that will grant to me ton of fun even if "tomorrow" SQUAD could announce that will close any further development of the game (I hope a far away "tomorrow"). I'm probably naive enough in my thoughts to have been, in fact, one of the "early buyer" of a product very far to be complete (I wish that for any complaining guy, he should be reverted to 0.17 for at least a couple of hours or REAL game, to feel what it was KSP back in its early state, when aside a couple of cilinder labelled as "fuel tanks", there was basically nothing: no tweakable to fine tuning part positioning, no nodes for manouvers, no docking, no kerbals to walk away from crafts) just to HELP a very promising concept to bloom in a full fledged game (yes... there are still things I expect to be added on stock to consider it really "complete" -TWR/dV tables, for example-, but this actual situation is FAR MORE COMPLETE than any experienced FIVE YEARS AGO!!!) Even if with the upcoming "language localization", probably some sales will go up again, I suspect that KSP is not bringing the same amount of cash to SQAUD as it was, just to say, around 0.90 or early 1.XXX releases, so what is it needed to keep SQUAD afloat to further spend time and resources on the future? Obviously add contents as payed "expansions/DLCs/whatever-you-could-call-them". It's obviously a market stategy long ABUSED by a lot of companies (basic games in which you could do very litlle, without, and then you have a decent one, instead, if you put more money in it) but, as NOW (data from the official KSP store) how BAD PRICEY could them be, with a basic game costing 18€ now? 5 euros??? 10??? I'm OFFICIALLY asking to SQUAD to leave in ANY CASE OPEN the "buy the DLC" option (at least in their KSP-Store, if it could be problematic to have it done on Steam/other selling platforms) even if I'll receive the "download it" option for free because... well... I'm naive and romantic (and old: beying old enough helps to be "naive" and "romantic", sometime), and I'll probably wanna (re-)FUND SQUAD itself of the FUN they are keeping me, still after 5 years (and with a LOT of time in the future) buying it ANYWAY. Because, even if some features/bugs need to be still addressed, even if I expect some polishment in the future (stock rocket parts revamp, for example????) I'm actually MORE THAN HAPPY to be one of their customers. Even (or EVEN MORE) if they are actually going to keep me the "promise" to bring to me "infinite free content upgrades" just like they promised LONG AGO. LONG LIFE TO KSP LONG LIFE TO SQUAD ... and...

... when I reached first time space (KSP 0.13) and a stable orbit... ... when then I returned the capsule back... ... when, thanks to some mod, then with the initial and basic stock part provided back, I built a "somewhat plane", to use the basic airstrip KSC was provided of... ... when first managed to reach the Mun, and I actually returned to Kerbin safe... ... when I actually LANDED on the Mun, not only orbited it, and returned back... ... when SQUAD added Minmus, and I repeated the feature to land and return... ... when some mod started to add some "docking" (even if the Kraken was always happy to eat my creations right after dock) (KSP 0.15~0.17??? more or less) and I have to learn how to rendevouz in space... ... when I made my first SpacePlane... ... when "docking ports" became stock and I did my first, stable, rendevouz and docking, in a Gemini-alike style... ... when I did an Apollo 11-alike replica mission, complete of plotting a free return trajectory, lander extraction from fairings, landed few meters away from Neil Amstrong Memorial on the Mun and completed the Mun orbit rendevouz and return... ... when I made my first space station... ... when I started to add more mods, and parts, and make some basic replicas of real life missions/rockets/planes or absurde, impossible, contraptions and sci-fi looking crafts... ... when planets were added and more craft were sent all around... ... when I visited all the anomalies on every planet/moon... ... when I FOUND (even if briefly) the "Magic Boulder" that orbited around Ike... (... like the previous point, inspired by some Scott Manley videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJBSea-3DHs ... it was KSP 0.18... we are talking about 2012!!! Oh GOD how much fast time runs!!! ) ... when mining was added, thus exploration was worth of something, designating some basic refueling network around Kerbol system... ... when CAREER was made stock and money capitalization became a new aspect of managing launches... ... when I reverse enginered and built on my own a Shuttle comparable in power to the best stock one I ever played (Inigma's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIHyXsgdqHE)... ... when I glide landed back my reversed engineered Shuttle to KSC, perfectly on the runway... ... when (shameless advertisements??? naaahh... it's actually a long lost project of mine) I had Kuzzter -sensei (You know his comics, don't you? Because if not you are really an alien ) pop up in my short lived "comic" thread with apreciation words... ... when I helped (just to have them playable fast as possible) CobaltWolf to check/bug-test his NASA-alike replicas parts, to build the main rockets that come from NASA early years up to the Saturn V... ... when I made a (modded) replica of the MIR and built it, in space, like the real one... ... when I made in the same way the ISS... ... when now I'm trying to find a balancement for various different mods, to resume a new "comic season" of Kerbal adventures (or practically restart it from scratches)... ... when... DUNNO: i never ended to amuse myself, repeating, from time to time, an esclamation of "OOOOHHHH: this is a new pinnacle for my kerbalkind". KSP is like "life": you'll never stop learning. ... TO BOLDLY GO WHERE NO KERBALS (at least in my saves) WENT BEFORE... (NOTE: probably not all of them in perfect chronological order... you have to excuse a poor old guy that still play KSP since... uhm... ages ago )

It's about 4 months that I'm after some "WW2 fighter replicas" for a modded KSP install: - first took days to find references and build the basic parts (wings with B9 procedural wings, fueled, to resemble the tank in the wings... then finding the good parts for the fuselage and cabins...) - then it took weeks to guess why in my series (for example) a "slow" turnfighter like a Mitsubishi A6M Zero flew faster than a P-51 Mustang... - then i decided to download Unity and KSP curve generator to check the engine curves... - then i researched some performance of the engines and planes in real life... - then I needed to figure out how transplant them, someway, in KSP... - then I had to uniform some engine from different mods... - then I had to figure the pressure atmosphere to fix the atmosphere curves (running an hovering rocket wint infinite fuel cheat on with a science barometer part to take readings) of Kerbin at different altitude: it led to a chart that span from sea level to 30km altitude, with increment viarable from 100m (up to 1000m), then 250m(up to 10000m), then 500 (up to 20000m) and then 1000m up to 30000m... - then the speed curve (using mach velocities): the above method doubled, to use mechjeb ability to calculate the speed of sound at the same altitude... - then.......... I'm still tweaking engines up to now, from the whole time 1.2 and minor patch was up, at the point I could maybe be ready JUST to have them fly for the release of KSP 1.3... and basically then having NOTHING to do with them, as I do not use weapons to make them fight (Kerbals are pacifist in my install) and I'll have them just sit in the SPH forever...... (Side note: my brother, not a player but just one that shared his time to watch me playing, keeps repeating to me "... but that game become just a game of planes: it was much pretty when you launched all those rockets and space stations...") ... that is an example to "my creation experiences" X°D Overall, being playing since... uhm... dunno... KSP 0.13 (??? AT LEAST... I remember that version for sure), it's probably the situation of a "veteran" already arrived to explore everything, searching to create a "personal perfect KSP" to start then the "ultimate career", or basically, like @Aaron Also my OLD behaviour of an eternal peter pan grown in the '80s with a whole tons of LEGO (I made my parents spend tons of money in almost all the main LEGO Space sets... and my flags clearly shown that...), now using what I see as the "evolution" of them. Not building for anything useful, but just for the fullfilments of building itself...

Sorta of my problem too (or a working TCA or a working MKS), so i tried a quick fix: simply changed the AT-Utils dll bound in TCA to "000_AT_Utils2.dll". Now BOTH mods are working, so probably the one used to code TCA is definitely different from the latest used in MKS (and using only one of them enable only the mod that is compatible)

Not really a bug, but mostly a question from an user: ... is it possible to make move the arrow selector that open up the menu, near the mission time/date? It's a bit annoying that occlude some stock interface (mostly, in map mode, the selection icon to change the comm-path and other stuff related in other visuals).

Probably not using the latest release (but updating, so it could be already addressed), I just wanna ask a question: ... is it possible to make the failure glowing "disappear", when the game GUI is turned off as the same disappear the green "selection" glowing? It's definitely an help during gameplay, but if at the same time in case of a clean screenshot having a part of a craft painted in red is... uhm... not looking good...

To activate the mod: 1- Set, in game, the visual to "FREE CAMERA" 2- Press TAB button on your keyboard: the game will warn you that the Improved Chase Camera Mod is active (same font/position of the warning about which visual are you using at the moment) ... et voilà: mod activated, your camera, from now on, will follow the prograde direction, and flying the plane is natural and intuitive. To deactivate the mod, press again TAB... You can move the camera around, with the mod activated, and the visual you could choose will stay locked on the prograde direction (the same behaviour like when, automatically, it puts you "behind" the plane)... If you moved around the camera and you wanna come back in the "behind the plane" visual, deactivate (first time to press TAB) and activate again (again pressing TAB) and you will be brought back to the "behind the plane" visual... Enjoy. P.s: OH... YEA! Use THIS version of the mod, in 1.2.xxx KSP Those in the opening post are outdated, this is the only one working in the latest KSP releases

I was looking for the very same problem, but the model lacks of a proper "intake" transform to be actual functioning as a proper intake. Adding just the code above does nothing at all... ... as a side request, then: could it be possible to add a 4 bladed Spitfire engine, to create the Merlin powered variant (the proper WW2 Spitfire) and not only the 5 bladed, post-war, Griffon ones? Maybe, rather than a new engine, just a switchable mesh for Firespitter (like those other engine that have more variants)

Range Safety Team's motto: "When a rocket launch go wrong, fire at it another rocket!!!" AMAZING IDEA, @Kuzzter

WELCOME BACK!!! *_* ... and now let's go to read chapter 51

It works ALSO in 1.2.2... ... well... ... YOU ARE MY NEW HERO!