hawkwing

@linuxgurugamer The root problem is that you've included some lock files with the .cfg files you're distributing. In this mod, specifically, takeCommand.cfg~ and SXTContinuded.cfg~ should be deleted. For any end users, deleting these files will be required before updating. These lock files let other programs know that the file in question is being modified right now by another program, and that it may not be safe to change it. When software that respects lock files, such as CKAN, sees the lock files while trying to perform an operation it throws an error. Many text editors will automatically create lock files of files you open in them. They're supposed to get cleaned up when you're done working with the file, but sometimes they stick around due to buggy software or crashes. I'd recommend using Notepad++ to edit .cfg files, in part because of this issue, but it's all up to you. Just try to make sure to delete the lock files before distributing. They'll be the ones with a "~" at the end of their file extension.

The two 1.25m cockpits you've showed off are a little inconsistent in style next to the mk2 cockpits. In the MK2 there were 2 glass panes for the single pilot versions and 3 for the two pilot versions, however the 1.25m cockpits both have 3 panes that are just stretched. I think the 1.25m cockpits would look better and be more consistent with the rest of the pack if they followed the pattern of the mk2 cockpits and had two-piece windows for the single pilot variant. I like what you have so far, though!

I ran into some talk similar to this the other day on reddit. Would any of you happen to be running Hamachi? The participants of that thread were saying it was a bug in unity that increased loading time by 1sec or so per file loaded when hamachi was just sitting in the background. (something about open network connections or something, don't quote me on that.)

All of that I'd be fine with, except that the amount of thrust gained on these small turboramjet and rapier engines is ridiculous. The implementation of the system in code makes sense to me, but the config value numbers are just silly. No 1.25m engine should be capable of 1000kn of thrust, at ANY operating condition. Let alone jet engines, which should fundamentally have far LESS thrust than a rocket of comparable size.

Problems, as I see it: They cut out way lower in the atmosphere, regardless of how many intakes you have. (Not promoting intake spam, just saying they CANNOT be used at 30km anymore from my testing) Thrust spikes absurdly high (950 / 1150 for turbojet / rapier) at moderate altitudes as speed increases This is causing planes that behave as I'd expect only in the lower atmosphere, suddenly turn into a 15g fiery deathtrap in the middle-atmosphere, then cut out again shortly after. Now I have a lot of experience building spaceplanes in the old model, so maybe I'm just stuck in the old way of thinking. And if the jets are supposed to get a sizable nerf to how high up or fast they can operate at, then fine. But the massive increase in thrust (over 10x!) as you approach the intended operating altitude/speed of the engine is just absurd. At 1000kn a single turbojet is putting out almost as much thrust as two skipper engines! The code behind this system seems great - like it could really support an awesome balance for jet engines. But the numbers just don't make any sense!

Like the completeness of the new Mk3 part set, but prefer the form factor of the old? Are the Mk2 parts too small for your application, and Mk3 too large? Introducing the Mk2.5 series of parts! Well, the cockpit, at least. While still quite early in development, I thought I'd share what progress I have so far to get an idea of what the community might like from such a line of parts. The application I'd imagined for them was to fill the gap between the current mk2 parts (good for carrying .625-1.25m payloads) and the new mk3 parts (good for carrying 2-2.5m payloads). As such, the Mk2.5 line of parts are designed to fit payloads between 1.25m and 2.2m in diameter without being obnoxiously large and heavy like the new Mk3 parts are. The Mk2.5 connection is designed to be the width of a 2.5m part, but with flat sides and a less curved bottom than the new Mk3 line of parts. Let me know what types of parts you'd like to see in this pack, or mods you'd like to see supported! Currently I'm planning to include an inline top-facing docking port, reaction wheel / probe core, straight tail connector, raised tail connector with ramp, cargo bay, bomb bay, Mk2.5 -> 2.5m adapter, crew cabin, Mk2.5 -> 1.25 tricoupler, and (of course) assorted fuel tanks. Don't worry, I'm planning to include IVA models (with RPM support).

I think you missed the second part of what he was saying, Torraqe. While flying a vessel, press M. Hover your mouse over the top-middle of the screen, the same place you would normally see the altimeter. A series of icons should pop up. By clicking on them, you can toggle that class of objects' visibility in the map view. No need to switch to the tracking center required.

This plugin is fantastic. An absolute godsend for building spaceplanes that rely on more than one jet engine.

Hah, those yellowjacket engines are absurdly overpowered. The TWR is through the roof! Rockets are supposed to have better TWR but lower efficiency. Yet the yellowjacket has 2-3 times the TWR of the best rocket engines, and THOSE are 2-3 times the TWR of stock jet engines. If you want a .1 mass jet engine, it's thrust should only be 10-15. If you want a 90 thrust jet engine, it's weight should be .5-.8 Also, the attachment node is off center. Finally, the cost should be about 1/8th of what it is, 1700 ISP is still really damn good, so that's not a downside, and the engine doesn't actually seem to overheat like the description says it should. This is a really cool idea for an engine, but the default stats are really weird.

Thanks, Claw. Worked for me too. Blasted Jebadiah, trying to hog all the glory for himself...

Found a small bug in the .90 release. Rescalled parts (IE the Poodle shrunk down to 1.25m) are still assumed to have their default mass by the new in-game information panel. Thus a vessel with shrunk parts could be wrongly prevented from launching. Edit: further testing seems to show that this only happens when the part is auto-scaled to a smaller size. Also, removing the part and placing it back on the craft will update the mass and and cause everything to work as expected.

Bump. I ran into the same exact problem last night. This was from a fresh save on a fresh modded install started after the .90 update for me.

I couldn't seem to get this to work. Nothing happened when I clicked the "Find Solutions" button. I tried messing around with the settings some, but on the off chance I'm not doing something wrong, I thought I'd let you know. If I am just doing something wrong, however, some additional information on how to use this tool would be nice.

>_< Of course I managed to download this mod just minutes before the stock parachutes were fixed.

D= I think there was some confusion! I'd meant for you to fly him to safety in the craft you dock to the station, after transferring him from that station to the ship you just docked to said station. Not under his own EVA power! Safety was meant to be anything, really... landing on the ground, return to safe orbit, etc. But you and jimbimbibble bring up a good point: I probably wasn't clear enough with my challenge rules. That said, jimbimbibble, I'd personally still define the two vessels you docked as being one vessel, but I don't really want to stall this thread again, so your submission stands. (If perhaps a bit dishonorably)

Yeah... same could probably be said about the seeing the grid hovering over kerbin in the main menu though. Really wish that, at least was gone.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who misses the old days when the kethane scan results were a square map instead of a magical hexagon projection floating over the planet... That integrated into a RPM display would really make my day. (Probably not going to happen, though. )

>_> imgur > photobucket... We can't see your images, man. Photobucket doesn't like you actually USING their service...

The bed in the back made me very happy. Downloaded. There are a lot of really useful things in here!

Ugh... I hope I didn't kill this challenge.

Completed mission in 2:15, then sent Jebadiah home on a service vessel docked to the station. I've been phasing out the older, smaller shuttles with larger 3-man designs. I'd meant to ram the fuel tank I'd dropped in the path of my SSTO, but forgot I was out of rocket fuel in the main tanks.... Oh well. With no way to re-dock to the floating tank, and being on a suborbital trajectory, the mission was as good as scrapped anyways! Now then, a challenge for you all: You must dock to a vessel on on decaying, suborbital trajectory, remove one kerbal from that vessel (presumably a station) and then fly him to safety. The docking itself must be performed at an altitude below 50km, and the station must have a periapsis of at most 39 km.

Hah, damn... I actually did something fairly similar the other day, but didn't take pictures... I'd left one of my kerbals and some fuel on a station I was deorbiting. I was SUPPOSED to dock a space plane to it and transfer the crew / fuel for a Duna flight, but ended up doing that in the wrong order. This meant I had to DOCK IN ATMOSPHERE with an intercept at 42km, EVA the kerbal to the plane, and transfer fuel to the spaceplane so it would have enough to get back up into orbit. I'll be doing this challenge. I hope I can get my submission up in time to put the rest of you through the hell I mentioned above! =D Edit: You guys are going to love the shuttle I'm flying Jeb up in today...

I'd considered adding a scoring system, but this was meant more as an introductory challenge. More advanced flyers can of course check out UpsilonAerospace's challenge, above. Also, Upsilon, there was no intention to overlap with your challenge, and I hope people can see that they are different. Your challenge allows wings, is a race, and contains 3 bridges. This isn't meant as anything more than a "can you do it?" challenge. @jmiki8: Its actual name in the VAB was "Wasp". It looked a lot more like one, too, back when it still had a downwards angled cockpit and 6 legs. Sadly the tilted cockpit skewed the controls and made for difficult flying, so I trimmed it back to basics to complete and submit the challenge. Also: moving my example flight down here out of the original post. Here is my example flight, using keyboard controls.

Partially inspired by Cupcake's wonderful exploits, I've been looking into jet VTOLs recently. As such: a simple challenge for anyone interested in the art of wingless aircraft. Take a VTOL of your design and fly it through the hole in the building over at the R&D facility. As a side challenge if the first proves too difficult to you: fly under the skyway at the R&D facility. (honorable mention only) Rules: The use of rockets is discouraged and will limit you to an honorable mention. Control surfaces and wings are forbidden RCS may be used for rotation only. It may not be used for translation. If you bump the ground at any point in the flight other than take-off or landing, you must restart. (self enforced) Use of 3rd party stabilization aids such as mechjeb or Im a Cupcake Wannabe will limit you to an honorable mention. You must disclose if you used a joystick, keyboard, or other control scheme. There is no penalty for using any of these, this rule is just for informational purposes. Dedicated Completionists: hawkwing : Keyboard burnoutforzai : Keyboard Honorable Mentions: moved my example flight to comments

Ugh, that's a tedious challenge. This is like "go run around the block seven times, in a different pair of shoes each time, shooting a basket each time you change your shoes." I think you're missing the point of horse... Obviously, I'm not a moderator for this challenge, but I was hoping to participate. This just isn't fun. I'll be back for the next round. (please make single challenges. Not 4-part mega-challenges that take up the entire afternoon. #3 would be a good example of a challenge.)