lucusloc

I didn't know the cheat menu could do that. Thanks!

Hi, before I start complaining I want to say I love the mod and I really do appreciate the work you guys put into expanding the game. That said, I want to not a very frustrating behavior of this mod. I just had a space camp that was supposed to run for 40 days. The station I was running the camp on is a working station, with lots of changes all the time. it was that lats few days of the camp, when I saw an EVA report pop up that I did not have. I popped my pilot out to grab the report, and the space camp timer was reset. Apparently that was the only pilot on the station at the time. Instead of just pausing the camp while the pilot was out, the contract was entirely reset, so now I have to wait another 40 days for it to complete. This ruined my schedule, as I had a space bus returning from the mun to pick up the camp and return them home (I try to stack missions as much as possible). Now I will be force to fly another mission in 40 days, and the bus mission i was running will only be half as efficient as it could have been, moving it from a profit generating run to a not so profit generating run (granted I still get to use the equipment it dropped off, but I was planning on fully covering the cost with the space camp reward). So two things: Can we have the game simply pause the timer when a requirement is not met, instead of resetting to 0? and is there a way to edit the save to change the timer back to where it is supposed to be? Edit: I found some settings that may be what I want: CONTRACT { guid = 550f2703-24ae-4b63-89be-83282574fc1e type = ConfiguredContract prestige = 1 seed = 1943887268 state = Active viewed = Read agent = Kerbal Space Tourism deadlineType = None expiryType = Floating ignoresWeight = True values = 1585080,0,0,101112,0,0,25,62,1649006.23818754,64112.3981875113,0,0 subtype = Tourism_SpaceCamp title = Hold a space camp description = Mortimer is constantly complaining about the cost of hiring new astronauts. Rather than wasting our funds on training recruits, or picking up whichever Kerbals happen to be need of rescue from low Kerbin orbit, we should set up a space camp, and train paid tourists to join the space program! Bring the tourists and some instructors to a long term training facility in orbit, and when they come home we'll see which ones are good candidates for joining the space program. synopsis = Bring 15 tourists into a long term orbital training facility. Some will join our space program when they return. completedMessage = This was a great success, we've got a new pilot (Melgan Kerman), engineer (Samlyn Kerman) and scientist (Kerberta Kerman) ready for future missions! hash = 123732545 targetBody = Kerbin . . . . .lots of config stuff. . . PARAM { name = VesselParameterGroup id = VesselParameterGroup state = Incomplete values = 0,0,0,0,0 ContractIdentifier = Tourism.Tourism_SpaceCamp title = Bring the candidates into orbit notes = completedMessage = duration = 864000 completionTime = 1725937.4283862468 trackedVessel = 455cef71-97f7-41c3-bacb-0e177eaf2c49 dissassociateVesselsOnContractFailure = True dissassociateVesselsOnContractCompletion = False . . . . Lots more config stuff. . . PARAM { name = ParameterDelegate`1 id = Duration: 40 days optional = True state = Incomplete disableOnStateChange = False values = 0,0,0,0,0 ContractIdentifier = Tourism.Tourism_SpaceCamp title = Time Remaining: 37 days, 01:51:39 notes = completedMessage = } The problem is I don't know how this all relates to each other, for example, i see about a billion blocks of stuff like this: VESSEL_STATS { vessel = b6836316-670c-4768-bb1c-d32b11c14fea state = Complete strength = STRONG completionTime = 65803.174486258824 and I do not know if that will get recalculated if I change the mission duration times. I also do not know if the hashes include mission times, and so would have to be recalculated to be valid. It would be great if I could just change a few values to turn the mission timer down to a few days or so, but I would need to know which values I would need to change by hand and which ones will get recalculated when I reload the save. Any help would be appreciated.

Wheels have more jobs to do than struts. Just look at all the rover wheels. Landing legs are simple, and while there is room for a larger set, that could be said of most of the stock parts. The plans get shorted with engine size more than the rockets do, for example (I really want a 2.5m turbojet). I you want bigger parts look to mods.

The funny thing is I think all these issues steam from the physics engine. You want to be careful about lowering their impact tolerances in case they get stuck in something and pop. I think letting them survive an orbital impact is a more preferable scenario then having them pop every time they accidentally clip a part. The first scenario can only really be caused by a conscious player action, whereas the second scenario can be caused by just having a part too close to the hatch. As for the reentry burn itself, if you have such a gentile reentry angle most parts will survive just fine, not just the kerbal. You set up a long cool aero-break, and making it more aggressive will make reentry in general more difficult. That is a hard line to balance. The only real solution is to make kerbals more dense, so they do not break as effectively, and carry more speed deeper into the atmo. Making kerbals more dense would also help with the EVA dv, since I believe their dv is calculated from their propellant reserve, mass and ISP. If you give them less MP you limit how long they can EVA, and since we have no real way to rescue a stranded kerbal (they cannot grab each other, or implement tethers) erroring on the side of too much is a gameplay decision to make up for that fact I think. So yeah, while you could theoretically fix it in stock doing so would probably have a significant negative impact (i.e. more difficult, with greater impact from bugs) on gameplay in other areas. It is better to leave EVA self rescue as a player choice than to remove it and make people frustrated with the unintended side effects.

Hey thanks, the ore collection rate was the bit i was missing. Next question: What is the highest ore rate on the mun? From my scans the bet I can find is just shy of 6%. 4% ore is way more common though so lets try that: .04/20 = .002, *25 = .05, *10 (drills) = .5 (for optimum processing efficiency). 10 (drills) * 15 (drill power) + 30 (Converter power) = 180 Fuels Cell arrays generate 18 power, so you need 10. Fuel output = L .45, Ox .55 Fuel consumption = L .2025, Ox .2475 Net Gain on 4% ore = L .2475, Ox .3025 Of course 10 drills is a lot of drills. If you can find 5% concentration you only need 8 drills, and at 6% you only need 7 (well, 6 and a third, so you will have extra ore with 7). With less drills you of course need less Fuel Cells, so your net gains obviously go up. Either way that *25 boost is absolutely necessary. Looks like all my fuel processing tugs are going to be manned. Thanks for the help!

I tried to find an answer to this, but google failed me. Does anyone know if it possible to make a fuel cell powered harvester, and if so what ratio of drills to fuel cells I would need to make it run with no other power input? I would be willing to use a few RTGs if it gave me a positive fuel flow at nigh on the mun. Is there a percentage of ore that is needed to make this work, or is it impossible to do for any sane craft?

By all accounts, about 1. If it is small.

I think almost everyone would say that the people on the ISS live in orbit around earth, not on earth. Same as a mars orbital colony would not live on mars, but in orbit around mars. Also, most people do not equate where you get your resources with where you live. They are two separate concepts. I live in my home, not the supermarket. Similarly, the definition of "living somewhere" for most people I know seems to be "staying in that location for a few months", not necessarily "where I call home". I think you definition of "living somewhere" is solidly in the minority. Most people use terms like "home" and "dependent on" to describe the other concepts you mention. "I live on the ISS, but my home is earth, on which I depend."

I disagree. The game should never have a "final" challenge to complete. We should always be able to make more and bigger challenges for ourselves to strive for. I do agree that we should be able to establish permanent bases though, but I would not accept them as a way to "complete" the game (so no tracking to some kind of "100% completion" metric. Just a "you have bases here, here and here, and each has this or that capability with so many kerbals stationed there. . . ).

For the edification of the op: Oberth effect. It is better to go to orbit first. This assumes you are following an ascent profile that does the majority of the burn horizontally, which would have left you in orbit if you cut short anyway. If you do not follow the proper profile, and you burn for altitude instead of speed you will be less efficient. Basically, you burn for orbit, but time you launch so that you can go launch->orbit->transfer burn all in one go, so you could argue you skipped the orbit stage.

I kinda stopped building stations when I could not get them as large as I wanted. It gets old after spending 30 min after rendezvous to actually dock the part because of lag, only to relies that the next part will be impossible to dock because of the lag. Maybe KSP Interstellar will give me reason to build small stations again, but anything less than 3 docked parts I consider a satellite, not a station.

yes, the look like KSP I science modules.

Thanks for that, I think i got it sorted. there was some references to Lazor tech in the logs right before the null pointer exception, and so I removed that mod (only had it for the cameras, and those were not working in .23 anyway), and that seems to have sorted the switching between vessels issues. now all I have is the strange duplicate vessel causing random explosions, but if I understand correct that is a random bug in the base game? or is that somehow also related to RT2? I am rapidly running out of mods that have a custom plugin (I think I am down to bobcat, mechjeb [not used on my comsats, so not applicable right?] and RT2) so hopefully that makes troubleshooting easier.

no one has any info on my issue above? anything like it been reported before?

I got the 1.3.3 fix 2 DLL and am still having a problem. I have a cluster with antenna on each probe. When I decouple a probe and fly out of physics range, then use the map to switch back to the main craft (also a remote probe core) the background goes away, the navball goes blank and all values (altitude, speed etc.) are NaN. This is reproducible every time. I have the save if necessary (I believe the only other mods on the vessel are KW rocketry, but may also have B9 batteries on board. I forget which part goes to which mod. kerbal alarm is also installed, as are other mods, but i dont think any of the others are active while this is happening). here is the last part of the logs:

A tiny surface mount antenna that repels the kraken and keeps my ships from exploding randomly. Works with vanilla and all mods.

No one mentioned the 1812 Overture? Pomp, ceremony and exploding rockets, Plus the opening is long enough to let my rockets load before the cannons kick in.

I have run into the launch clap problem. Usually thy hold my ships just fine, but sometimes they just drop them on the pad for no reason when it loads. Is there a good way to fix this?

I'm not trying to come off as harsh, but why should squad go through the effort? If you want to play hardcore do so, if not then don't. It is up to you to decide what is a simulated test launch and what is real. If you think that you do not have enough self control to stick with a decision and not change you mind mid flight about what is "simulated" and what is "real" that is not squads problem, that is yours. Now what is really needed is a way to test builds without having to go through all the trouble of a launch, like testing the RCS on my satellites, but that is less about keeping myself honest with myself and more about saving myself a 2 minute launch only to find that the RCS placement is off balance. I can test a launch system by hitting "launch" but I cannot test 0g without going through a launch. We need a "test in 0g" button.

Hi all, coming back to the game after a long hiatus, which of course means that I have a lot of news and such to catch up on. I was playing career mode (!) last night and was wondering a few things. 1. What is the most efficient way to get thorough the tree? Best I could figure on my own was to go down the science/electronics path as fast as possible to get all the science gear as fast as I could (more experiments per mission), and only get structural stuff as necessary. 2. (Related to 1) I think I saw it mentioned that using different parts and recovering craft also gives more science points, but I don't see that mentioned on the wiki yet, anyone have any info? 3. With the new biomes and such, is there any plan to add an official mapper to the game? It seems like it is becoming more and more necessary, and it seems like it should be integrated into the science gathering aspect. 4. On that note, how is modding working with the new mode? Can I make parts that generate science, and incorporate them into the tech tree? Sorry for all the questions (that most people who are up to date probably already know and discuss to death) but there is a ton of new info and I am still trying to get caught up. These forums produce a lot of content to weed through.