Booots

Is there any way to make a Landertron controller part that has no engines in itself but would fire with all activated engines? I'm imagining a small box on the side of my lander that would use the deorbit/ascent LF/O engine for landing as well without the need for more, specialized engines. This would only work for throttle-able engines since they would need to be activated but throttled down for it to recognize them. Preferably it wouldn't also then dump their fuel after landing because it would just go back to zero throttle. The old throttling code for a gentle landing could be reintroduced for this use case. Ambitiously, the Landertron controller could even detect and account for armed solid fuel engines with the Landertron module and use them too.

I've got a dev build set up and working on my KSP 1.0.4 installation. Just waiting on the models to be fixed and I'll update to 1.0.5 and make sure it still works. I've also added the ability to define new beacon types from part config files. This works by defining the different coefficients and exponents used in the jump cost calculation. Now we aren't limited to just the original 4 types. The IB1 (self-jumping beacon) is a little different from the other three, though, so for now it's the only one that can jump itself. There was some talk a page or so back about interstellar jumping being prohibitively expensive, so now anyone who wants to can define a new beacon that is optimized for super-far distances. I don't play with multiple star systems so I don't know the order of magnitude for the jump distance or I'd do it myself. I am also trying to fix a bug that keeps altering my near beacon's orbit. HyperEdit seems to cause the same bug when I use it to move my vessel instead of jumping so it may have something to do with going on rails and changing orbit. They use the same mechanism as this for altering orbits so I submitted an issue to them (since they're way better than me at modding KSP) and I'll see what fix they use or if it's just me. While I've got the code open, are there any requests for features or bugs to fix?

I opened an issue on Git about nearby vessels shifting their positions after editing the orbit of one to another reference body. Basically, the orbit of the unedited vessel appears unchanged from the tracking station and map view post edit until it is loaded when its orbit and position are suddenly not the same. The ESLD Jump Beacons mod has the same issue after jumping.

I'd be willing to maintain it if someone fixed the models. I've never done any modding for KSP beyond configs and stuff, but I have a pretty strong coding background so I could try to pick it up. I was considering it before because I wanted to add configurability to the jump costs and resource beyond what's hard-coded right now. Also to fix a bug I noticed a while back. I digress, Luxord, if you could do models, I'll do code. As long as there's no license issues with us taking over while TMarkos is away? Can we assume implied consent?

Does anyone know why the beacon models are broken in 1.0.5? I kind of liked the look of them. Is there any way of editing them with what is distributed in the mod?

I've been experiencing a bug while using this mod (in 1.0.4) where, after jumping, the sending beacon's orbit has changed. In the tracking station and map view, the orbit predictions all appear normal. But flying a craft to rendezvous with it, even with a supposedly perfect intercept misses by a matter of tens of kilometers. Even then, map view shows the two craft as in close proximity. Brute force rendezvousing by thrusting straight at it until within physics range or switching to the beacon vessel forces the map view to update with its actual orbit which always seems to be lower. I've tried using the tracking station to switch to the beacon immediately after the jump to make sure it's not a bug with launching or rendezvousing, and this also reveals a degraded orbit as soon as physics loads. This is all with the AMU and HCU activated. Has anyone else experienced this issue? Could it be an unintended side effect of introducing random position error to the jumping vessel?

Sorry, I was unclear. The stakes attach properly at first (X-key to attach, right?), making the KIS attach sound and all. Then, usually after time warp or vessel change with '[' or ']' they exhibit the weird behaviour I saw. They worked fine today, though, so it may have been a glitch caused by all the database reloading I was doing the other time. Don't stress about this one. Set that time aside for being a user instead.

I've been having a problem with survey stakes on Minmus becoming un-attached to the ground, falling over sideways into the ground mesh and exploding. I'm not sure what might be causing this, has anyone else had similar issues? Also, will survey stakes function if attached to things other than the ground? Ie. have stakes on rovers parked in a square around where I want to build.

Do all of these filters have to be in the advanced mode column or can I make one that shows up next to the normal tabs?

Since this mod adds so many parts, most of which, like the rectangular profile ones, are interoperable best with other parts from this mod, is there any chance a custom VAB parts tab could be added like Infernal Robotics and KIS have done? I'm looking into how it would be done, but I'm very new to the KSP API so you might be able to do it better/faster than I.

I'm curious how you managed to add another tab/category in the VAB. Assuming it's not some kind of proprietary secret, can you tell me how to do it? Would it require creating a mod or is it managed somehow through config files? Thanks!

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/47701-0-23-5-Wolf-Pack-Aeronautics-V1-3-Parts-Pack-%28Updated-June-23-2014%29 Granted, that link is broken due to a typing error on his part, but it seem like it should go to the old MSI Infernal Robotics thread which then redirects to this one from its last page as it's closed. It is a convoluted path so I may be wrong.

I was looking on the old Wolfpack Aeronautics thread and they say that they've passed everything on to you guys but I can't find the cargo bay in the download here. Does anyone know where I could find a 2.5m cargo bay? Thanks!

... Wait. What? On a constructive note, all of my aerobrakings have overpredicted drag so far. I use a simple retrograde pointing and then watch as my predicted orbit slowly grows larger as I go through the atmosphere. I do have a bunch of things in Universal Storage bays and service bays; are you taking into account occlusion for things like that?

If what I've read on Alcubierre drives is correct (or rather, my understanding of it) two things about this mod make me curious. The first is that gravity gradients should still have an effect on whatever is inside the bubble. Is this why there was talk of an alternate physics model in the works? Can anyone explain a bit more about how that model works? Secondly, in order to create the warp bubble, the exotic matter should have negative mass. Is my KSP likely to crash in the nastiest ways if I MM my way into setting the density of exoticMatter to a small but noticeable negative value? On another subject, does the converter throttle to excess power or does anyone have any experience using it with TAC-LS? I ask because Kerbals need ElectricCharge to survive with that mod and this one consumes a ton. Great concept, and I look forward to unlocking it and playing with it soon!

There's a "Science Bay" that's just an empty wedge, IIRC. Someone mentioned it a ways back, but if a battery wedge were added, I'd be in favour of using that also. Hint hint.

Do the survey stations still gain mass as the build progresses? I understand that was done so that people couldn't 99% build something, fly it with invisible mass and then complete it elsewhere, but I found it doesn't make sense for survey stations on the ground. It often leads to bases tipping over towards the survey station when building massive objects (like bigger surface bases). Although this could be written off as poor base design on my part, now that survey stations must be landed to build, does it make sense for the mass to either be added to something stable (like the survey stakes) or not worry about conserving the mass since the object is being built on the ground? Giving the mass to the stakes would also make them impossible to move by kerbal once the build has begun, which I think makes sense since in reality there would be a pile of parts on the ground that would then also have to move. It would also make surface bases that much more likely to survive massive builds without crushing themselves which is the point of using the ground and launch clamps to support the new vessel. Otherwise, great work as always! I'm really happy you chose to use stock and Kethane side-by-side and let the user choose their preferred resource system without needing compatibility mods or settings changes. Will the necessary changes likely be difficult to get the Baha drills to work with the new extraction module or can we simply copy the module section in the config?

I'm just getting into life support and so far I really like TAC-LS. Using EL, I typically colonize moons in short order and used to imagine them to be self-sustaining but now I have to ensure that they actually are. I've seen biomass for food (and plan on getting it once it's updated), but are there any good mods for extracting water and oxygen or carbon dioxide from the atmospheres/crust/oceans of other planets and moons? Preferably using the new stock resource system if there are any in development for that. Thanks! EDIT: Or asteroids too!

What about getting in touch with one of the devs to see if they can reveal any of how they calculate aero? Given that some of them are modders themselves, they might be sympathetic. If not, they'll face our collective outcry because this is one of my must-have mods.

I'm excited to use this in with the new stock re-entry effects, so I hope this gets updated soon.

Are you planning on migrating to the stock resource system with 1.0 or are you going to stick it out with Kethane?

I posted about this a few pages back, but I think it got missed. Though I don't have logs to back me up, I can confirm that if you use select root at any point while designing the craft, EL does the buggy placement for survey builds with that craft. The only way to fix it is to completely rebuild the craft from scratch without using select root.

Shhh. Don't tell taniwha I said this, but you can also change the build efficiency multiplier in the workshop .cfg. But for reasonability's sake, it's pretty good as-is. Just use timewarp to jump to the end of the build or go fly another spaceship for a while.

I think I may have found a bug with surveyed builds in 0.90. I designed a completely stock rocket but when I clicked 'finalize build' the rocket spawned slanted at some strange angle and under the surface (with ensuing explosions). Trying several more times led to it spawning almost horizontally and displaced in random directions at various distances. Renaming the vessel before building didn't help and nor did replacing all of the parts one by one. Curiously, what did fix it was building the rocket from scratch. Thinking of possible causes led me to think of only one difference between the two craft: on the first one I had used the root part re-flow in the VAB to change the root part and then back again. This bug has happened on two different vessels now with the same fix and they also had in common that root part re-flow was used during the first iteration design. Could this affect the surveyed build system somehow? On a related note, I've experienced joint-breaking twists in the launch stabilizers on build if I've angled the entire vessel using the root part. Besides "don't tilt the vessel," is there any advice you can offer? Thanks!

Hi! This is a great mod! I'm super excited to build cool buggies and was just wondering if any progress has been made on the crew hatch issue? Thanks!