Amaroq

GentlemanJack, do you see the "cone" drawn in the Map view? That should give you an idea of the radius you'll get at different distances. Also, what range are you at? If you're testing your connection at moderately short range, then, yes, you're going to have exactly the problem you described. Also at long range, if your Kerbin sats are in a very high orbit (e.g., "I'll just put them out beyond Minmus"), you increase the required cone angle to make a connection to all of them. The huge unfoldable, of course, has the narrowest "cone", which exacerbates any of these issues!

Yes, precisely. So that an RC chute still packed in its case has the 1100 temperature, or whatever, but once deployed the chute material has something much lower so that DREC can burn it up. Of course, that would require some additional special handling to, basically, "cut" the chute on-burn-up, leaving the case (and any spare chutes) intact ... The more I think about it, the more I can see why it hasn't happened yet.

Wiki link confirms that assumption, in fact, you can calculate one from the other: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-major_axis#Astronomy I am very pleased with the idea, here - adjusting the SMA rather than the time to take advantage of the increased precision. I will definitely be applying that when I next launch a RemoteTech constellation. As StainX pointed out, though, there's not much reason to avoid redundancy (using more than 3 craft). Personally, I put my omni-range "repeaters" in stable geosynch orbits, with my interplanetary comsats on a polar orbit, on the theory that there's no way all three of the interplanetary sats are going to be blocked by a moon at the same time.

Heheh -- yeah, my first rescue ever had a hitchhiker underneath a Mk 1-2 pod, sent up with 1 crew thanks to the Crew Manifest mod (at the time). Everything went swimmingly, got everybody hooked up, brought them all back to LKO, descended ... .. and when the chutes unfurled, the hitchhiker fell off the bottom of the Mk 1-2 to a big ker-splat. (Luckily, I'd moved Jeb to from the hitchhiker to the Mk1-2, so he survived, but still.)

Okay, but as this mod tends to explicitly list parts by name, and is focused on the stock parts, I'd be pretty surprised if it interacted with LLL much at all. In fact, reading the source of this, I'd be shocked. Here's a link to what I was thinking of in the LLL thread - Lack Luster Labs, pg 188, maybe the LLL antennae lost their ModuleDataTransmitter in the latest update?

@Random Tank - I think the issue between Lack Luster Labs and Remote Tech 2 is something from the latest LLL release, not from this mod -- please check the LLL thread.

@Tiron - Give him some rep? The asterisk button next to "Blog this post" on any of his posts. @ferram4 - Seriously, why don't you have a "Donate" button yet?

Yeah, if anything, they are too heat resistant, as a partially open drogue chute has the same heat tolerance as the packed-&-closed casing. So, you can set up a drogue chute to partially-deploy at very high altitude, and get its braking effects through the heat of DRE without damaging it.

I do what somnambulist suggests. Works a charm, except, every now and then, the flag gets blown away -- literally, it looks like jetwash or something! So every now and then I have to walk out and replace it. Note that the flag has to be off of the "Runway" biome and into the "shores" biome, or it counts as "a craft on the runway".

Hi - you might ask a moderator to move you over into one of the "Add-ons" sections; you're more likely to get responses from experienced modders there. You may also try the KSP wiki, which has an intro-to-modding section. To answer your quick question, "category=0" is a holdover from a long while ago, yes. And if you're getting into re-categorizing parts (personally, I like my Docking Ports to be "structural" elements), you might be interested in the ModuleManager mod, which lets you specify changes to the .cfg files (as deltas) which mean you can bring the deltas with you when you download the next version of KW, or KSP 0.24.0, or what have you.

Yay! Feature request made good! & thanks for looking into my obscure bug. Another feature request/idea: can you indicate the name of the current biome in the drop-down? E.g., rather than "Available Reports", maybe "Mun : Farside Crater : Low Orbit" (Not sure it will fit, actually.) Very odd observation: if I have a maneuver node planned, when I open a science report through Science Alert, the size of the maneuver node "delta-V" display (next to the NavBall) changes. Not even sure I'd call it a bug .. just caught my eye late last night.

Yay! My favorite cockpit, favoriter!!! Thank you, TT!

Same here. Slow enough that it feels very slow -- but fast enough that everything blows up.

^^ Yes! Yes! Yes! This would rule!

@Sirrobert - I've at least once deleted the wrong craft via clicking on a different craft, but (through user error) not having the click register. The (formerly selected) craft remains selected. Then I click delete, & confirm because I think I'm confirming for the craft I just clicked. When this happens, it is of course the longest-running craft in my save-game that has trouble. In fact, its happened to me just often enough that I make sure the first craft in my save is a *flag*, which I can manually edit to put back in if this mistake happens again. So, I don't think a request for "locking" a specific craft is unreasonable -- certainly anybody in a RemoteTech game wants to make sure that they don't delete any of their key communications-network nodes!! ... That said, I find Kerbal Alarm Clock's built-in "auto-save" feature to be sufficient, providing me multiple rolling save-game points, so that at most I go back a couple of minutes if I have an error. So, until "lock" is made "stock", my suggestion to the OP is "install Kerbal Alarm Clock".

ObsessedWithKSP - the obvious solution there is a "hard cap" for that object. Set it up so that, say, 1 year generates all the science it can ... up to you whether you time-warp +1 year, or run other concurrent missions while you wait for it.

For #2, it sounds like what you're really looking for is a mod - and you'd need to make it yourself. The good news is, it should be a simple Module Manager config file - to delete the reaction wheels for any part that also has the command module. Incidentally, to get that to fly well during launch, you may find that you need the FAR mod to get aerodynamic forces to act as stabilization for your craft. If either of those interest you, come on over to the mod forums.

So, xEvilReeperx, I've tracked down the issue -- it appears to be from my own personal modifications, not any offical mod. What I had was a series of ModuleManager configs: !EXPERIMENT_DEFINITION[crewReport] EXPERIMENT_DEFINITION { id=crewReport ... There was nothing obvious in the KSP.log, except that when it got to "flight mode", after instantiating physics, there were a whole series of references to a null object. Changing that over to: !EXPERIMENT_DEFINITION[crewReport]:BEFORE[ScienceAlert] EXPERIMENT_DEFINITION:BEFORE[ScienceAlert] { id=crewReport ...fixed the issue. I'm not precisely sure how you'd handle "somebody deleted the experiment definition node out from under me", or even if you would want to - but there you have it.

@Zeroignite: Yeah, the file format is easy to read and undertand, and editing by text-editor yields the expected results. I tend to use TreeEdit to get the locations of things set up, and then move/add parts, etc, via text editor.

I highly recommend Kerbal Engineer Redux as well - it gives you accurate readings, including orbital inclination, without adding any kind of "changes" to the game play. If you look through that thread, there's a Module Manager configuration for simply adding KER to each command module, rather than having to install a part for it.

As noted in PM, Cilph, here to help in whatever capacity you need.

@Jonnothin - I think this is "as designed". Here's the thinking: 1. When a craft is "on rails", it maintains its last specified oreintation with no rotation. So, if you set a simple Kerbin satellite with a dish and aimed the dish at Jool .. then switched ships .. your dish would only remain aimed at Jool for a very short while, before it was no longer correctly aimed. 2. If we compromised on that, and said that it would always count as "aimed at Jool" while it was on rails, but had to be correctly aimed when you were in the craft, then you'd get the following experience: the corresponding Joolian satellite that you left in orbit has a valid connection .. until the moment you make it the active vessel. Now it doesn't have a connection, and you can't control it to re-establish the connection. 3. Therefore, controlled craft, also, are exempted from the "my physical model must actually be pointing directly at the target" restriction, which is explained in the OP:

Awesome. Fabulous collaboration, you two - and Sarbian, thanks for all your hard work, I know merges aren't always smooth.

^^ Ummm... I thought there was a slider to adjust it -- see the O.P. (At work so I can't check my install to verify that its still there.)

I've always been happy with Aviation Lights if you're looking for "simple" and Lack Luster Labs if you're looking for lots of light-emissive crew quarters