Temeter

Didn't you read my post? The module manager did load exactly 0 files and plugins, i removed every mod using it's functionality some time ago. Just having the file and mechjeb in the gamedata folder was causing crashes.

To the People having crash's with Mechjeb: Do you use the ModuleManager.2.2.0.dll? It didn't actually do anything for me (i removed the corresponding mods), but the DLL combined with Mechjeb produced 100% crashs after the loading screen. Now the game has started 2x times just fine after removing the DLL.

Cool stuff! There is some issue with the mod, though. I used a rapier with T/W-ratio 1.09 for the first try, and reached 400m/s under 200m (without FAR). Seems like the parts don't produce drag or so.

Wow, i actually wondered if this mod is still getting expanded at all. And now it doesn't only bring 5m as parts, but in the saturn/apollo design at the same time! Thanks for the great work, KW Rocketry has been the one big mod (besides b9) i'm always using and a got ton of fun out of it. I love how despite it's size every single part has it's point and there are close to no redundancy's. Adds so much of versatility to rocket construction. The engine-performance being balanced through price is also clever. Sometimes a rough, cheap, and over the top rocket might be better with kw. No practical feedback, ust wanted to say that.^^ Although: In the VAB, i had the (ksp) mission flag on the SB-4 LFT shining through all parts at one point. Did get fixed after minimizing and reopening the game, so it's probably no issue if other people can't confirm similar stuff happening. It's supposed to work like this, since it's a early stage lifter engine. I think there are files for instant reaction in the download, if you don't like it.

-snip- And we are supposed to cry about things taking time by nature not happening instantly, instead of talking about current issues. Also, the matter is unimportant because you are don't care about the concerns. Ignorancy is always a great argument. Guys, this is getting silly. How about you calm down? Neither conspiracy's, nor overdefensive nonsense will bring us anywhere. Majiir stated he was - like Squad - aware about the matter and that should be more than enough for now.

It's an old and known problem retuning. It has nothing to do with mods (only using KER atm), and I've indeed brought up 5 times the weight without noteworthy issues. As i said, it depends on the craft, sometimes the system is strong enough, sometimes it's to weak. The former case doesn't matter, the latter one has to be fixed.

You could easily abuse that system by fast forwarding. Even when playing serious, the difference in earnings between a mun, jool and duna-mission would be hard to balance. Although the earnings generated from a specific object could be limited. Meaning e.g. the science lab (maybe choosing a specific research at start) would unlock 200 tech ressource, a research or a locked part over the next year. Maybe even asking for special parts over time (pls bring some stack seperators (or the researched part?) to our station to continue research). That would be quite cool. You could make whole stations with used up science modules. Again, hard to balance. How do you stop people from sendig up 20 science labs? Ofc you could limit parallel research to a single lab and bringing requested ressources/parts into space would limit it a bit...

I'd like an obligatory box on the top of a mod page, saying something like "this mod will analyze and upload game-data to a private server". Maybe just calling the site's name in there, like "stats.majiir.net", so it doesn't look as dubious. That's delivering content creators a secure guideline how to do things (avoiding accidental blunders), and removes mistrust from us leecher.^^

I want to add that i finally decided to make this thread, when the issue occured with an 18 ton fuel tank+skipper engine+SAS module. The culprit of asymmetry? A single, 0.2 ton hardpoint. As i said, the first version of the current progressive SAS had the same issue. People wondered if that was intended. The dev-comment was as following: "It doesn't work correctly if it can't keep the course." I mean really, why would you use SAS when you sometimes can't even fly straight through space?

Dammit, explaining stuff in english was never my strength. Added pictures to OP. The SAS does not use enough of the available force. I can perfectly stabilize the ship via keyboard input, but that's the task of the SAS. Especially spaceplanes often tend to change course under time-acceleration.

You're misunderstanding me, this is all about the improved versions. The first (progressive) SAS-rework wasn't aggressive enough, critizised, and changed in the next patch. Everything was fine. With the last update, the system got weaker, to the point where it doesn't reliable holds a ships course, especially combines with short manual inputs. That's the task of SAS. And it does not do what it's supposed to do. Not sure what adding more SAS would change. The issue is that my ship is turning right while accelerating, and the counter-movement via SAS is only half the available power and therefore to weak to stop spinning.

To clarify, I'm talking aoubt the System activated with T. Not the modules itself, they are plenty powerful. Seems like 0.24 brought an old issue back, afair from around 0.22. The first implementation of the new ASAS (post-UPDOWNLEFTRIGHTLEFTDOWNBOOM-era) wasn't aggressive enough. Engine vectoring could balance out ships to some degree, but generally imbalanced weight distribution would shift the heading, while manual control was more than able to spin your ship around. If you don't know the effect: You can easily reproduce it with a craft with small fuel tank, a gimballocked engine/aerospike, and the stabilizer sas modul. Then put one of the bigger radial rcs-tanks on one side of the ship and look how it behaves in space. When flying straight, the ship has trouble keeping a stable course and swaying around. Then manually move the rocket for a short time, and the SAS often completely loose it's ability to stabilize the rocket after releasing controls. In the beginning, I had some smaller ships with weaker gimbal/SAS (but manually more than powerful enough), where i had to constantly readjust orientation during a burn. Similarly space planes feel notably less stable, and often can't deal e.g. with slight instability or short physical judder. It's especially bad when using time-acceleration during flight. Did Squad comment on trying to change SAS? Because atm it's unnecessary unpractical, especially on long plane-flights, for time-acceleration and less symmetric ships. I'd really like to see a revert to a working state, or - even better - the option to manually set the agressiveness of SAS. Different ships work optimal under different SAS-settings, but to strong reactions are usually better than weak ones. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To explain it better, pictures: There are basically two symptoms on the example craft: 1. SAS alone can't ceep a craft straight despite having more than enough force. 2. Short command inputs cause the SAS to be even less reliable for the rest of the burn/flight (or until 'resetting' SAS).

Btw: Guys, keep calm. It's pretty obvious Majiir did it to help modders, that server even costs money. Yeah, i'm not really seeing much of a issue behind the system itself. Majiir did a lot of cool stuff for the community (and this tracker could also be helpful), so imo no point in being overly suspicious either. It's basically just that it potentially tracks data without consent. Including it in your own mod-directory also makes it really hard to find out about the plugin. I might trust Majiir, but everyone else could just hide the thing and don't write about it in the mod thread, fearing people would ignore a mod using a tracker. Not that healthy needing to be suspicious. I'd like to see a requirement to set the config to opt-in when including it into a mod.

That's not even my point, the sentence was ment in the context of the previous one. Children and casual players won't necessarily understand the implications or know what to look out for, easily missing the stuff. Opt-out is relying on that. Also, your statement about privacy only shows that you don't know how this kind of system works. Logging is easy to do, you don't just send anonymous information into the internet without possibility of tracking. That's why e.g. Squad asks about collecting data, even if it might be anonymous.

I don't see an issue in the standalone mod, people won't just download something without knowing it's function. The mod page is imo pretty clear. Including it in your own mod is a bigger question. Most users probably don't know what this kind of plugin means and just dump it into gamedata. Should be ok if the modders are clearly pointing out the function and implementation of that tracker. And with clear i mean big bold letters on top of the page, not the fine print on the end of the changelog. I'd be a bit worried some modders will do the latter and just defend themselves with 'but i wrote it in the description, it's their fault'. There are a lot of children and even casual players playing KSP. I'd rather see an opt-in for mod-inclusion function, or an ingame message asking your for anonymous info's, like KSP itself does. You should never send data without being asked before. Basically this: Downloading the standalone is a statement that you want to send data. Downloading a mod with it included is not. Personally, i really don't like this part: This is basically relying on people ignoring the plugin. I find this very dishonest, there is a reason people don't like to share data, and this kind of method is one of the reasons.

The SAS is definitly working worse than before. On some vehicle's, I constantly need to readjust my course, and there is a lot of really strange instability with spaceplanes.

Thanks, that's what i assumed. Strangely enough, i got a flameout in a flight after posting, while i still got 0.13 air left. Might have been some angular cutoof or so, the plane was strangely instable from time to time. Tbh, i'm more afraid of accidently activating to many stages, it almost never happens by accident. A bit of an overkill pressing space 3 times in a row.

Seems like they made a small change to the way oxygen for jet-engines is displayed. As it seems, Engines now flame out when the intake air is displayed as 0, which is a huge improvement when using spaceplanes. Might again be an older change, though, i just started relying on mechjeb because the old functionality was so counterintuitive. edit: Nevermind, this time my engines flamed out at 0.13. Strange, they worked the last time until 0.1. Oo

Oh yeah, i did a lot of these combo's. Test a decoupler during flight on kerbin. Test a decoupler in orbit around kerbin. Test a decoupler in high orbit around mun. Test a decoupler in low orbit around mun. Test the lv1-something engine in a escape trajectory from mun. If it didn't became apparent: My client's aren't very imaginative and have a rather strange bias towards decouplers...

Ah, wondered why the poodle suddenly looked like a very decent engine outside the vectoring. I think you're right about the Lv909, that was an older change.

Skipper is only 3 tons now. Was brought inline with nasa engines, although their strength is still balance by huge cost. LV-909 afair wasn't 390 isp either?

Strange, i just downloaded it.

When it downloads, it goes fast. 4mbps.

Nice work, downloading.

Might do that. To bad there are always so many cheap games during the big sales.^^