MDBenson

I agree, it's no great loss, I never use it, I always use the TMA version as I'm usually doing 'modern' flights.

Great news, BobCat. I look forward to the new version of these craft, they. Soyuz and Proton are already the most used launchers I have in KSP. I've even created heavier versions of Proton (using Soviet-style strap-on liquid boosters from NovaPunch) for lifting big cargo and cargo + crew flights. Also, the Soviet pack has taught me a lot about Soviet space programs and craft, stuff I didn't know before playing KSP with your craft. Many thanks and keep up the good work

I found the same, without the dockport part fitted it flies perfectly. With the dockport fitted it falls over. I removed one ModuleParachute entry from the dockport part.cfg and it's *better* but not perfect. I could just adjust my gravity turn I suppose but it seems When I have more time I will install the American Pack on a stock 0.22 install and see what it does. I really need to do a Fraps video of it. It might be something else I have installed that's screwing with it, I dunno. I was testing using LazTek's Falcon 9 v1.1 yesterday and a ProcFairings interstage under the Orion. Only other mod was a AR202 glued on the Orion pod... SURELY that wasn't what was throwing it off centre?? BobCat: The Neptune panel looks AWESEOME - do your panels support placing extra cameras like the ALCOR pod has?

*screams like a little girl* WOW! Awesome Hoowweever I do have some other things. I have been playing with the American Pack and found a couple of issues: The Orion capsule has poor flight characteristics and causes some rockets to fall over in the gravity turn. Some brief testing has shown it as being an issue with having 2 stock ModuleParachute configurations. Take the drogue chute out of the configuration and hey-presto the issue goes away. Much better 1 and 2-chute configurations can be done via StupidChris's RealParachute plugin now anyway. You might want to look in to that for a future version of Orion? For now I chopped it down to 1 chute (mains, obviously) and it seems fine. Also, the Orion circular solar panels are messed up, the surface attachment point is way off where the actually attaching point of the array is. When I try to attach them to the Orion service module they are buried way inside it instead of attaching to the outside. Tried them on a normal stock fuel tank and the same happens. You might want to try re-getting the ones from Yogui's new 3-size pack he released for 0.22. Other than that I am loving all this new stuff, the IVA in the Orion pod is really cool EDIT: Also, the main engine of the Orion service module is not in balance. When applying thrust it has a significant 'twang' in the +ve pitch direction. Makes node manoeuvres very difficult. EDIT: It's no the service module, again something wit the pod is twitchy or out of balance? I replaced the service module with some other parts (stretchy tank + LazTek Merlin 1D Vacuum engine) and it did the same 'twang' under thrust. Something is very unbalanced in the pod or dockport. If I use SAS and throttle it drifts constantly as if I am holding the W key (nose down). I AM using ferram's JointReinforcement plugin. Would that be the problem?? Nope.

I thought that as soon as I looked at it I *think* hatch mode is for EVA?

Awesome news, I'm looking forward to it happening.

Nice! Nice!! I like these pictures.

Until Flex-Rack appears, I'll be hacking up config files for this using the mountable stowage boxes and mounting racks in KAS as temporary models. I lnow people spit on config hacking using other people's models but I have zero 3D skills, I just like hacking text configs, so I'll wait for someone to do the models and throw my configs at them for inclusion

WOW. Just... wow. Interiors for the modules, even if they were somewhat simplified from the actual ISS ones, would be awesome. Keep up the good work! Is anyone working on updating the existing ISS modules to 0.22 spec with the new reactionwheels and science/science tree support? If this is a simple config edit matter I can have a go at tit althought I'm not sure about the science stuff. I haven't played with that much yet. I'd like to though so what say I gve it a shot? I can maybe assign 6 experiments to Columbus, 6 to the Japanese Module, 6 to the JLM and a few to the other modules (maybe crew exercise/fitness tests?) so you can conduct ISS science while onboard.

This only fixes it in the first stage, not the second (Centaur) and third (cruise) stage. If you use 2 MechJeb cases (one on the Atlas V booster and one on the cruise stage) that works but, because the Pandora flight computer takes over on 1st stage sep the centaur does a back-flip and points the wrong way until you switch guidance packages. Also sticking AR202s on everything leaves ugly green lights everywhere and looks unrealistic. It would be better to provide a neater solution that is correct to the real spacecraft *but* I don't know if adding it to the Cruise stage alone will work as it's part is oriented 'upside down' compared to the Atlas V like the other parts. I think Yogui needs to actually remake the cruise stage the opposite way up and add the MJ guidance to it, so it is 'heads up' when mounted to the rocket, for it all to work right. You can then build Pandora as normal then switch the root part to the Cruise stage using SelectRoot, then save and update the .craft file. For Yogui this is probably a small amount of work but I know he's busy...

If you install the Sunbeam laser plugin you get Romfarer with it... it's not rocket science folks (har har), read the readme/instructions files.

Yogui87 - Is there any way you can think of to reconfigure the Pandora capsule system so the guidance is the correct way up when it's installed on the rocket? Maybe put a guidance system that's 'upside down' in the cruise stage tanks? It's only once you separate the cruise stage that you need to flip around to the rover orientation. As long as it can be made the root part then it'll work just fine. It makes the separation process at the landing planet a little more complex but I think we can cope?!

I did find if you use the stock .craft file for Pandora and rescale it you have to go around an re-attach everything in the right place as the spacings are all wrong. Aside from that, no major problems after rescale, flew it all the way to Duna no issues (had to jury rig it to fly right with extra mechjeb AR202s on the the Altas V to make it fly while Pandora is inverted). Flew okay got me to Duna fine, I can't land on Duna for pepper, but that's not exactly a new thing

DSL Pandora: Is this a good enough fit? Wasn't exactly hard to do, I just reduced the rescale factor of all the parts to 0.95. My guessi s either Chimer or Yogui made an assumption about the measurements somewhere and one or other is slightly off. Either way, now it fits just fine into the Altas V 5m Fairing. I'm gonna flight test the right to make sure it works as a lander and rover and make sure the part alignment isn't off. EDIT: Flying Pandora upside down is tricky. The guidance is aligned upside down so it gets soooo confused if you use MechJeb for launch guidance :S

I really like this pod, it's a masterpiece. It goes really well with th SDHI Service Module and FusTek station parts too (both of which I use regularly). Thanks, and keep on improving!

I've raised this matter before, I think it'd work better if things were fitted with connecting points ala KAS then picked up that way. Romfarer's arms just aren't stable or strong enough to move these items given the masses of ISS modules. I tried to deliver one of the radiator trusses via Buran using the shuttle arm and it was impossible, the whole rig just shook itself to pieces, even if I used slow movements. I think the issue is the spring in the joints of the arms as well as the attachment point. heavy masses, when manipulated just caus the arm to stretch and warp around from it's normal position rather than moving the payload. Making the payload maneuverable via null physics is one option that would work. you could effectively make the payload massless, so moving it creates no torque, until the arm id detached. I know when working with payloads in space this kind of thing has to be accounted for but I think the limitation is in the simulation engine not the parts themselves. It will require a work-around for that reason, I think.

Someone's likely already mentioned this by now but the Land at Target function has some fairly painful issues in several places. It doesn't seem very stable when executing de-orbit and correctional burns at high altitude, and when I tried to land on Mun with a craft I tested extensively and repeatedly and found to be well balanced and a good performing lander on Kerbin, it went ape-**** when it got near the ground (possible error when zeroing horizontal velocity?) and flipped my lander upside-down and crashed it. I can land the same lander flawlessly with the 'Land Anywhere' option, and also using a vertical velocity hold plugin it handles in vertical flight perfectly, it has ample and well balanced RCS. I can't find anything wrong with the lander itself. If you'd like me to test more extensively around different bodies/planets etc. and see what happens I'll gladly do so using Hyperedit and some time.

I'll give it a shot tomorrow night maybe.

There are a few bugs I've found with the landing-at-target in MechJeb 2.1 - it went loopy on me while landing on Mun with a lander I tested extensively on Kerbin beforehand. I wasn't using this this mod so I can only assume they messed up something in MechJeb 2.1... For the sake of testing, try landing the DragonRider pod using the 'Land anywhere option in MechJeb. That one seems to work much more reliably for me.

If you are determined to do this, I've successfully rescaled most of Pandora's parts (aeroshell, arm, mast/head and some others) to use with smaller probe landers and such (I was just messing about trying to build cool advanced Mars landers). If you like I can download Chimer's ULA pack and see if I can scale Pandora down to fit the Atlas V, then pass the results to Yogui for him to look at and possibly include? Also, Yogui, I experimented with fitting Pandora with cameras using the Hullcam VDS cmera mod. Would you like me to look into doing more with that then let you look at the results? IIRC the only really buggy thing was the head cameras don't turn / tilt with the head.

Oh dear lord this pack just hit a whole new level of awesomeness

Another question: Is there anything stopping you making the fairing bases freely variable diameter the same as the interstage? I only ask because I can do interstage on non-standard sized rockets (Looking at Mr BobCat, I use his launchers for almost everything these days!) and they look awesome but the fairings look ugly because they stick out at the sides on some because they aren't exactly 2.5/3.75/5m parts. Even if it was only on the low-profile fairing bases (I can imagine the full bases might have issues with the payload deck scaling vertically??) it'd still be very beneficial I think

Just out of blind interest, is there scope for adding this as a mod in the Gamedata folder or can it ONLY be added to the stock game file?

Probably Universe Replacer. Keep up the good work Bobcat, can't wait to see what you come up with next

There is also the point that, although with stock aerodynamics it's of limited practical use, it does allow you to make custom rockets that look awesome, that's very important for me It also has a lower part count (especially for larger fairings) and is more stable and secure than the KW or Novapunch fairing systems. You have to put a decoupler between the fairing base and the item. On most real rockets the fairings are jettisoned in the upper atmosphere to provide the drag to pull them away cleanly, but the payload is left attached to the rocket until it finishes it's orbital ascent. Simply use a stock decoupler above the fairing base and attach your payload on top of that. A couple of the mod parts kits like KW Rocketry and NovaPunch have some nice looking light-weight decouplers that make a nice alternative to the stock ones which IMHO are very ugly (esp. the 2.5m one).