Amaroq

I'm having a bit of an odd one, I've posted this in the Module Manager thread, but cross-posting here just in case. Mac OS X, KSP 0.23.5., Module Manager 2.0.1., ToolBar 1.7.1, and Padishar's latest 0.6.2.3.x, the following MM config no longer works for me: @PART[*]:HAS[ @MODULE[ModuleCommand] ]:Final { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } When starting a new build in the VAB or SPH, regardless of which cockpit I place first, I don't get the KER button in ToolBar. I'm not missing anything obvious, now, am I?

Yeah, I'm the same. I was actually trying to get my local config set up so that, in career, you started off with the bulky tape drive, and then eventually unlocked "just put this in every ModuleCommand". I've always liked the computer-chip model, though, and I'd love to see it used as something else - or possibly just donated to the community for other mods to adopt. Though I suppose, for backwards compatability, you guys will have to release the parts until a save-breaking KSP build.

Agreed. Even some very simple .cfg's with MM 2.0.1 aren't working properly. Mac OS X, KSP 0.23.5, MM 2.0.1, Toolbar 1.7.1, Kerbal Engineer Redux 0.6.2.3.X (Padishar's 0.23.5-compatible version), and the following config does not work for me: @PART[*]:HAS[ @MODULE[ModuleCommand] ]:Final { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } }

Viperfan, what? I've been using treeloader for my own custom tech-tree .cfg, and that's not my experience at all. The treeloader overrides the TechRequired for any parts specified in the .cfg, but when I add a new mod, it shows up in my tree at the TechRequired location. I don't know if there's a difference between my .cfg and KSPI's, though, as I've not tried Interstellar.

^^ +1 Yet another excellent suggestion, Kasuha.

Yes, please!

No, all I know is that one got removed and one other added.

@Cpt Kipard, viperfan You can use the debug window (Mod-F12) to track what's going on. Squad removed the "Advanced Electronics" node from the tree and the icon from the game for 0.23.5. So, any tree.cfg which tries to reference icon = ADVELECTRICSwill fail to load. Update that icon - to just about any other icon! - and your tree will load again.

That's .. actually a very good idea. I like it! . ... I mean, Rakaydos' idea, not replying to myself, of course.

Earlier I suggested "payload lift capacity" and "payload capacity to Jool" as useful metrics. Using a launchpad weight of 1.6 TWR and a cost to orbit of 4600 dV, and a Jool boost of 0.25g, I get the following: Engine -> LKO LW% -> Jool | JW% ----------------------------------------- LVT-30 | 29t | 0.22 | 244t | 0.28 Skipper | 80t | 0.20 | 686t | 0.26 Mainsail | 169t | 0.18 | 1464t | 0.24 KR-2L | 285t | 0.18 | 2943t | 0.29 LFB-KR1x2 | 282t | 0.23 | 2199t | 0.27 S3-KS 25x5 | 451t | 0.23 | 3518t | 0.27The issue - IMHO - is not that the three new engines can lift more than the mainsail, but that they do so with a better launchpad fraction than the LVT-30. Those numbers don't leave the Mainsail with a particular role, not even that of "launching a 2.5m stack", as the LFB-KR1x2 is a strictly better engine due to its superior ISP, TWR, and Thrust. stupid_chris' proposal brings those numbers down to: Engine -> LKO LW% -> Jool | JW% ----------------------------------------- Mainsail | 169t | 0.18 | 1464t | 0.24 KR-2L | 126t | 0.14 | 1563t | 0.28 LFB-KR1x2 | 192t | 0.19 | 1661t | 0.26 S3-KS 25x5 | 318t | 0.16 | 3194t | 0.25which at least makes the Mainsail more competitive but still leaves the LFB-KR1x2 a strictly-better replacement for similar loads. If you want an interesting choice, the LFB-KR1x2 should slot in somewhere between the Skipper and the Mainsail. Thrust of 1050, ISP(ASL) of 290 and ISP(VAC) of 340 would accomplish that, giving it a 17.845 TWR, and slotting it in as follows: Engine -> LKO LW% -> Jool | JW% ----------------------------------------- Skipper | 80t | 0.20 | 686t | 0.26 LFB-KR1x2 | 123t | 0.19 | 1067t | 0.25 Mainsail | 169t | 0.18 | 1464t | 0.24I'd also gut the S3-KS 25x5's ISP(VAC), to make it very fuel-inefficient if one tries to single-stage-to-Laythe, for example.

I definitely like "plane" as an icon as well. Kasuha .. I can see how you get to that - let "Ship" mean "any Craft on a mission"... but I'm afraid that distinction doesn't work for me. I think of "Ship" as implying "manned craft on a mission", with "Station" as "manned craft in a stable orbit". I'm just looking for the same distinction at the "unmanned" level: "Probe" for "unmanned on a mission" and "Satellite" as "unmanned on a stable orbit".

Yes. Welcome to KSP The flag is a simple .PNG, 256 x 160 pixels in size. If you're looking for a good paint program, I suggest the Gnu Image Manipulation Program, GIMP, which you can learn more about at http://www.gimp.org/. Its pretty easy to get started with. Note that you can open your screen shots in GIMP, and either resize them or crop them to get "in game" assets for your flag. Once you have a flag, make a directory in your game folder like: /Program Files/KSP/GameData/Eyekonn/Flags and put your flag .PNG into that folder. You'll be set!

Welcome to the forums, ZDW. Have you checked out the wiki yet? All the information you could want to know about science, including the altitudes for each celestial body, and what altitudes a given experiment works on are available at: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Science

For inspiration purposes: My three ideas would be: 1. Maybe that radial part at the top (back-right), the white box + diagonal thing behind it would give a really clear indicator which direction is forward. 2. Something that serves as a visual base for a mastcam, kinda like a small white octagon .. could be kinda funny if it included a painted arrow "this way front" .. something we'd see in the SPH, but wouldn't be visible if we stacked other pieces over it 3. A straight-up suite of rover "chassis", maybe three or five different sizes / aspect ratios, each functioning as a "Probe", probably heavier than space probes but carrying much more electrical charge.

Man, and I just learned how to set trim, too!

1. Lift capacity --> maximum size of payload this engine can lift to LKO with a set initial TWR (e.g., 1.2 for FAR, 1.6 for stock) 2. Lift payload fraction --> payload / launchpad weight 3. Jool transfer capacity --> size of payload this engine can deliver to Jool orbit from LKO with a set initial TWR (e.g., 0.25, 0.1) 4. Jool transfer fraction --> #3 / #3's launch weight 5. Mun transfer capacity --> payload from LKO to LMO 6. Mun transfer fraction --> #5 / #5's launch weight. Complex, but decently achievable.

I like the way that the Tracking Center and Map View are coming along. However, I'd like to see an additional craft type: Satellite - For the new player, this may be irrelevant. However, for those of us with multiple mods such as RemoteTech and MapSat, we wind up with a fair number of stable-orbit unmanned craft. These aren't rightly "Probes", and in a crowded system such as Kerbin can wind up being the dominant type of craft. It would be very handy to be able to distinguish them from probes-ready-to-launch-to-other-planets with a single click in the Tracking Station.

Not strictly true -- I've been playing around with a tech tree with added nodes on my local machine. Nowhere near release-quality yet, but its definitely do-able.

I think you could simplify this a bit -- it would be nice to have the old KSC located somewhere else on Kerbin. It would be nice to have a few more airports in flight range, too.

@RubberDucky - Thank you thank you thank you! This is my favorite of all the "purely visual" mods. It always bugged me that I couldn't see the planets from Kerbin's surface, now I can watch Duna rise while flying a jet or driving a rover. @Benjpalmer - Did you make sure to get the 0.23.5 update to Blizzy's toolbar?

I wonder if the issue Zardiz and goldenpeach are having has to do with the new strength of nodes -- e.g., if the previous versions of those rockets / flight plans were flexing more, and therefore giving more time for SAS, gimbal, and drag to straighten the rocket out, while with the new rigid nodes, the deflection causes the entire rocket to turn more instantaneously, leaving less time for correction. At any rate, @Zardiz, starting your gravity turn at 5km is much too late - it sounds like you are trying to make a "sharp" turn, and the drag forces are sending you tumbling. (Trust me, I have lots of experience at tumbling my F.A.R. rockets!) .. you can actually start the turn, say, the initial 5-10 degrees of it, almost as soon as you're clear of your launch clamps, and keep (slowly) nosing over through the entire flight, never exceeding about 10-degrees off of the existing ground-speed "prograde" marker.

+1 I was actually thinking about this in general, as I use a fair amount of mods, some of which take up more screen real-estate than the default UI, I wind up with a choice of either having the mods' windows over top of the default UI, or sacrificing screen real estate by having the mods' windows "inboard" of the default UI. For example, if I want to see my Kerbals' expressions, I don't want to place a mods' window over top of them. However, if the mod-window is both taller and wider than they are, placing it closer to the center means giving up more of the screen than if I could somehow place the mod's window in the corner, with the Kerbals either above it or to the left of it.

Flag at half-mast ++ Any other notice taken, --

From my experience with Unity, I suspect that remnant of CPU usage is Unity and not something KSP-specific. Even though the game is paused, Unity still does its rendering (mouse pointer, static scene) processes.

I'd +1 a different suggestion -- simply add a text-driven "sort" field to the part.cfg. The advantage to this is that then we can intersperse stock and mod parts, as well as kick out sort orders of different types via ModuleManager.