nobody44

Hello, I guess everyone of us has launched some probes or ships into space that turned out to be a modern trashcan (sometimes with Kerbals in it), simply because it was missing some very crucial parts, like solar panels, a Kethane drill, batteries, you name it. Recently I launched a Kethane miner and right when I decided to land on Pol (in the Joolian system) I noticed that I am missing something: A Kethane drill. So again: Launch a new Kethane mining ship and put it in a Jool-Transfer-Orbit. And to fasten things up I decided to launch another mission, a Kethane miner to Duna. They both had one thing in common: They did not have a Kethane storage apparatus. Three missions wasted (plus time). That was when I decided that I need a checklist. Some checklists I have seen so far are very static (except the plugin I have seen), so the vision was, that the user selects the mission targets for the craft he is building, and the web page produces all necessary items on that checklists. So, here is the result: Pages hosted on github. (Project on github, GPLv3) Maybe some of you find it helpful.

Then something is off here. My latest RemoteTech2 version does not work like that. I just moved all my addons into another directory so that KSP won't load them. I downloaded the latest RemoteTech2 zip, unpacked it, moved the files into their proper destination, and surprise, the Rapier doesn't work. What "doesn't work" means: Just as before, I enter "50m/s", 100% throttle, kill rotation, and press "BURN". The delta-v in the extended flight computer window does not go down as it is supposed to. Sorry for the uncut version . I applied my fix and build the RemoteTech2.dll and it works.

But does the FlightComputer, especially the deltav mode, work? As I said: Build a small probe with rapier engines, set the flight computer to burn 100m/s with 100% thrust. Press "BURN". Watch that the engines ignite, but the "remaining" delta-v value doesn't go down.

I think I found the error: It's my savegame. If I start a new sandbox game it works as expected, in my savegame it doesn't. Guess I will have to figure out why. Edit: Nevermind. It is definitely the engine. I used the smallest nuclear engine from this mod. And with the smallest engine from this mod, it does not work. With all the other engines from KW rocketry and the stock engines, it does work. Edit2: And this *might* be a fix: The FlightCore.GetTotalThrust uses only parts which have a ModuleEngine module. But some engines (RAPIER is one stock engine that uses a different module) use a different module: ModuleEnginesFX. I am not that familiar with Microsofts inline SQL language (what's its name again? LINQ?), so my fix would be two for loops, one for the ModuleEngines and one for the ModuleEnginesFX. Same loop, different modules. Here is how you see that it is indeed a bug: Build a small probe with rapier engines, set the flight computer to burn 100m/s with 100% thrust. Press "BURN". Watch that the engines ignite, but the "remaining" delta-v value doesn't go down. Hope that helps .

See bottom youtube video for proof . I tried it again some minutes ago: it didn't work. Video is not in HD somehow... might take a while... Do I miss something? I am not sure how to land on atmospheric bodies either... the antenna break apart on reentry .

Hi, I really like this mod and use it a lot :-). My problems so far though: * Landing. How do you guys do that? I mean: How do you land a probe on say Bop? The delay makes it impossible or am I missing something? * The m/s format does not work. Everytime I use it, it burns until the end of time... so until the vessel does not have any deltaV left. Am I missing something? Thanks for this awesome mod :-).

Hello, The original author of this mod here :-). I am really glad you continue developing it. Currently I don't have any time to do some developing myself, sadly... Not even the time to play KSP... Just wanted you to know that I like your changes.

Hi guys, Sorry I have been busy lately :-/... No time to play KSP and no time to develop the plugin. I think I will have time next week to update and develop the plugin. See you next week :-)

It has been a while. Currently I don't have the time to develop the plugin, sorry for that. @velusip: The docking causes issues. KSP does not handle it correctly, from my point of view: Say we have two ships, ship A and ship B. Each ship has its own ID. When we dock ship A to ship B, it creates a new vessel with the ID from ship B. If we then undock ship A again, we have a new vessel with a completely new ID. *THIS* causes the behaviour you described, because the plugin uses the IDs to identify ships and save the mission status. Try to reload the mission and you will see that you did not finish the first mission goal with the undocked vessel. About the balancing issues: It has been a while and what do you think about the current balancing? Is it ok? About the current development: I am still thinking about the research points and how they should increase the costs for high tech parts. Also I am in contact with the developer from RemoteTech, we will figure it out sooner or later . Besides that I implemented an event goal, that allows other developers to fire events for my plugin (like "mapped 90% of Kerbin" from MapSat). The EventGoal would look like this: EventGoal { description = Map at least 90% of Kerbins surface. eventID = mapsat:Kerbin:90 } But it requires other developers to cooperate.

Wel... you are quite efficient... the reward for that mission is 50k in 0.10. I guess you earned it for doing math and stuff .

Because one kilogram mass costs 3.5 krones. It is not a bug . Rewards are higher... my first rocket costs about 22k. Reward is 50k or something about that... just update the mpkg file . FYI: Here is a spreadsheet for my first rockets: Libre Office calc file on Mediafire (just use the factors at the bottom of the page)

You have to consider this: 1. The engines cost basically the same (KW Rocketry and stock engines) 2. Fuel and containers cost the same 3. I use fairing (+ mass) in KW rocketry, stock does not have any fairings @viper_607: Use the new version please.

I am not sure if I understand you correctly... *should* I reduce the engine costs or have they already been reduced (I have reduced them...)? Currently, the reward for one mission is 2.5 times the price of a simple (yet beautiful rocket using KW rocketry and fairings) rocket using liquid fuel + engines (and *not* solid rocket boosters, which are cheaper). And if I should reduced the costs of engines and increate the fuel costs: Should the sum stay they same? Thanks for your feedback

The mean anomaly would not help to build a GPS satellite network. The MNA changes over time... Currently this is not possible. Actually, there is no simple value that represents a position like that... I have something in mind to fix this, but I am not sure about it, need to test it first . I just released a new version. It is just a balancing fix. It still uses the new method for calculating the costs. But: I am thinking about the balancing and if you don't like the current balance, please let my know and post in this thread. Actually, I like the current method a lot more than the old method, but if you, the users, think that I am wrong then please let me know . But first try the new version. The problem with the old balancing: Most mods, and I mean really *most* if not all mods, do not balance their costs, because it is difficult and had no purpose. With the old method some overpowered engines were just really cheap. With the current method the addon developers don't need to balance their parts in that regard, because I use a formular to calculate that for them. The downside of the current approach is, that it is not possible to create a part that is expensive because of technology / whatever used in that part. I could fix this by creating a separate list that defines the costs for some parts.

That is because the costs for an engine is determined by its ISP and its thrust. The engines in this particular mod are not balanced and have very high ISP + thrust. I probably won't fix that, because the only way to change it is to use the old way and I don't like the old way. Well, you could disable the plugin temporarily.