PrivateFlip

This thread has a couple of links in the first post which might help you out

I've heard about that, but I've yet to be in one of those

I'm going to second this. I love friendly communities. But I hate communities that are friendly simply because it is mandatory. I don't like mandatory friendlyness but I do like standards with regard to politeness. Nobody is truly forcing you, you only have to when you post on this forum, that's all. This is just nonsense. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, ksp moderators are incredibly strict and censor and ban everyone who doesn't says something completely supportive it wouldn't lead to people out of fear posting positive stuff while they in fact didn't like the material. They would instead just not post at all. So from my perspective your argument wasn't really thought through and I also feel it's a somewhat exaggerated negative representations. This is exactly what springs to mind when I think about people on the internet "speaking their mind" which brings me back to this one: I think many people would agree with me when I say one of the problems of forums is the safety and anonymity of the internet making some people behave in ways and say things they wouldn't or can't do in real life. When it allows people to be less shy or criticize an oppressive government this is of course a good thing but when people after seeing the obvious beginner ms paint scribble of a teenager feel the need to trash it outright instead of saying nothing at all or giving a weighted opinion when asked, like we would do in real life I feel it's a different story. So if moderators enforcing polite behaviour is truly the reason these forums are so relatively friendly, let them continue!

You make it look to easy!

Didn't thought about that. I understand that. Its just the sentence "execute the node," does the newbie player understand what that means? Maybe "Execute this node like you learned in earlier tutorials" I executed my inclination burn a little sloppy so I couldn't get it below two with just using the prograde (and retrogade). These days I can get them within one or two most of the time but in my early days I often settled on anything below ten kilometre before burning towards the target because I just didn't really have the skill to get it any lower. I see your reasoning however. I agree about the first one, your suggestion makes for a nicer sentence About the second, it depends on the understanding of "relative velocity." If the player is sure about what "relative velocity (between two vessels)" means, the original text should be quite clear as it is.

Great someone is making a tutorial for this, this is one of the hardest things to get. I can already do it but decided to test the tutorial anyways. I do have some suggestions: -make the inclination difference larger so it's more obvious. It's obvious for us, but for the newbie player the planes might seem to be 'almost' equal. -maybe explain what the ascending and descending node is (how they look like). I get it but but a newbie player might not. Something along the line of "The ascending node descending node are marked by the white dotted lines connecting ship's orbit with the target orbit. -execute the maneuver. Maybe be a little more explicit that a player has to carry out the maneuver because again its a newbie player. -in real gameplay it isn't always possible to get an intercept in one orbit. Maybe explain this to the player and make it clear they sometimes will have to wait a few orbits for the opportunity to present itself in other situations. -getting the a rendezvous within 2 km might be too hard for the newbie player; I couldn't get one after being a little sloppy on the inclination matching maneuver. Give the player a little bigger leeway, like 5 km. -In the "Closing in" before telling what to do explain the purple prograde points into the direction of the target and the purple retrograde points away just like you explained what the green/yellow markers signify. When you tell the player to burn to the purple prograde also tell them why they are doing this: "Burn to the bla bla to as peed of 10-20 to start moving towards the target" The same goes for reducing speed to zero whit the green/yellow retrograde marker "Then as the green prograde marker starts to deviate from the purple prograde marker .... to 0 m/s to eliminate your relative speed in relation to the target." These are just some suggestions. I really think it's a good tutorial and it's great somebody took the time to explain it step by step. Haven't tried your docking tutorial yet.

I don't know about that. The way i see it these packed vessels are described by a couple of kb, the majority of memory is in the models of the part which are loaded once irregardless whether they are used zero or a thousand time, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

It isn't clearly mentioned anywhere you need a part so thank you for your feedback. I already added an extra line in the manual for the next update.

It's just a location on an orbit based on the time so it's a a small fraction compared to an simulated vessel.

Hello I'm actually the maker of this mod and the mod is up to date to 21. Installation should be pretty straightforward. -download zip -unzip -place the folder in the Gamedata of the download in the Gamedata folder of the game -add the part "differential thrust module" to your craft. You can find it under the control tab -right click on the part an press "TC systems" in the menu and the module should become active. There is a manual in the download explaining the functions. (Just tried a clean install of the latest update just to be sure, had no issues so let me know whats going wrong)

send you a pm EDIT: everything should now be working, sound, white smoke. Test it with the test extinguisher. Here is the new download

I see. These lines ar just left over from the solid rocket booster model I made the testextinguisher in. I belief these fx definitions only work for engines that's why it says "running". If you really wanted to you could get a flame to come out when the extinguisher is active. The simplest thing would be to add an "ModuleEngines" partmodule to your cfg engine to your. You can copy paste it out of the part.cfg of a stock engine part. Don't worry about thrust you can make it so the maximum thrust is super tiny and if you don't add a thrusttransform object to your model it there will be no thrust at all in the first place. You could see if you can get the effects to work that way. If you do, I can then modify the code of my plugin to activate this engine module only when the extinguisher is active. Otherwise you would have to find another way to add and play this fx, not really my expertise. But the real question I think you should ask yourself is whether you should want to have a flame coming out of the extinguisher: is this something you really think will make your part better or are you doing this because you just found out the possibility.

Could you explain to me how you just found this out? I wouldn't now how to add animation or sound to the current part. Yip. The extinguisher now has three actiongroups. Yip. You can now set this in the part.cfg file whether is it active or inactive at launch Here is the new download

Okay, thank you. If the code breaks with future ksp updates or there are any bugs you can of course contact me.

Update -Profiles now saves all configuration not just engine settings -Revised GUI, reducing number of buttons to push to operate the module, simplifying operation. -Center thrust mode can now function while ship is controlled from every command module, not just the module itself. The earlier version required the user to check a number of settings for every launch. Forgetting one would result in failure without giving any indication the module wasn't in the correct state. This has now been largely revised by creating changing the logic behind the user interface so most of these steps are performed automatically. Also changed how the module integrated it's navigational data and position of engines so the vessel can be controlled from other command module of the ship supplied the user indicates the direction the engines are facing in relation to this module.

It fails to compile saying ModuleCommand does not contain a definition or method for MakeReference. I've got the feeling I'm overlooking something else here. I have achieved the same goal with: vessel.SetReferenceTransform(part); So for now I'm good, but everybody thanks for all your help.

That's what I thought. So tried this: ModuleCommand tModuleCommand = new ModuleCommand(); tModuleCommand = part.Modules.OfType<ModuleCommand>().FirstOrDefault(); tModuleCommand.MakeReference(); I am able to change variables of for example ModuleEngines so I thought this would do the trick and I've activated methods in other classes before but MakeReference is the name of the KSPEvent so could it be that the method has a different name or is there some other noob oversight here?

If a part has a command module, how do you execute the KSPEvent "MakeReference" for this and only this part from within your code? (This is the "control from here" button)

There are lots of examples over the forums. Also check out asparagus staging. I'd like to go for the simple brute force solution: it can get around 200 tons in orbit. The answer to not having them collapse is struts. There not visible in the picture above because they are all tucked away in the four gaps in the 'nine-pack'. Add them wherever you think should be some sensible reinforcement. If the rocket collapse look at where it breaks or check the flight log an make more reinforcements.

Oh come on! Just joking jbaltus123. It's very hard especially the first tries. Landin on the Mun tutorial. See step four. Here's a nice . It's an older version of KSP but it explains all the concepts in a very clear manner. The ship is obviously over engineered which the guy admits at the start of the video.Press F5 before going down so you can try again a few times if you crash. Good luck.

Do you by 'lost' mean getting lost between the great amount of other threads on the addon release page? That's certainly a mayor disasdvantage. If your mod isn't extremely popular you'll be pushed of the first few pages in no time, but maybe this would be a price to pay in order to have some more traffic to these threads. That's obviously true; maybe be most people simply don't have an interest in external apps but if they did, they also need to know the subforum exists, which currently a significant number of people apparently don't. In addition it would also help the threads would also be in a place which people frequent (at least those who might be interested in the thread). If activity in a certain section is low some people just stop going there altogether instead of checking in there on a regular basis like we might think they should.

This is certainly an interesting argument. Although anybody can agree to the idea a thread should in principle go in the most fitting subsection and no one is actually disagreeing with a moderator for enforcing this, there can be a legitimate discussion about what effects a certain subdivision has and whether such a subdivision is desirable. Certain overly specific subdivision might be having the undesired effect of placing some threads, which many might enjoy, in a very specific sub forum which because of its low action doesn't get much views. CoriW's case is an excellent example. Reasonable people could disagree on whether giving tools and applications their separate forums is beneficial. For one I do know it exists but I never go there. The subdivision is also in some way arbitrary. Not in the sense that there isn't a fundamental difference between ingame and outgame add-ons, but in the sense that we could imagine other subdivisions like for example between part, plugins and part-plugin combination mods which we don't make. I think everybody can appreciate why you might want the questions and discussions of modders seperate of the general game discussion, both for the sake of the developers as the rest of the community. The same might be said for those wanting to post lengthy fan fiction, you're either in to that or you don't. But for this subdivision the reason is not so apparent other than that we can make the distinction. For example like threads are currently marked with [Part] and [Plugin] in the showcase section there could be another [Tool] marker just as well. Looking at the relevant sizes (Add-on Releases and Projects Showcase Threads: 651 Posts: 68,485 Tools and Applications Threads: 57 Posts: 2,164) the order this subdivision brings is questionable. (I'll bet this subdivision was made before it was a problem.) Some diversion of topics on a subforum isn't necessarily a bad thing. Take this thread In memorian, Meldorf Kerman, RIP seems like an excellent short funny diversion for the general discussion where its currently placed but formerly its a work of fiction so it will probably be moved to KSP Fan Works by a moderator. Too bad, because I and lots of others never go to fan works just to find out a short and passable little comment like this among the often longer, more serious stuff which we're at least right now not interested in. Like katateochi already said, besides order there is a relevance to having activity and, maybe more base, to having views when you post something. I like the suggestion of using the new posts functionality as a preferred way to use the forums. But isn't proposing such a solution to the perceived problem not an indicator the forums may be a little overly ordered. So to add my 2 cents, I do feel there is a relevant discussion here. (There probably won't be as this thread has/will be moved to the 'forum forum' subforum which most of the people IN THIS THREAD didn't even knew existed. )

From the looks of it there seems to be a collider missing. Have a look at this tutorial. It shows how to add a convex collider in unity.

This is the first time i managed to get something with wheels on the Mun The rocket Safely landed on the Mun surface only 14 kilometers from the Mun base. Where is my precision landing achievement? The rover: room for eight kerbals, lot's of solar panels turns out gravity on the moon is low so the slightest bump will send the rover flying. Maximim safe speed was established about 6 m/s. After 14 klicks mostly downhill trecking it finally arrived.

The code is okay, tested before uploading and again after receiving your post. I did see a small calculation error but it shouldn't have given problems (I've made a new upload in which i changed the part name to Test Extinguisher so it is easier to find and also corrected the error but my previous upload should work as well.) If you look at the part.cfg of the Test Extinguisher. (This has the model of a sepatron because your model is not working. ) PART { // Kerbal Space Program - Part Config // RT-10 Solid Fuel Booster // // --- general parameters --- name = TestExtinguisher module = Part author = NovaSilisko // --- asset parameters --- mesh = model.mu scale = 1 node_attach = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 1 // --- FX definitions --- fx_exhaustFlame_yellow_tiny = 0.0, -0.17, 0.163, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, running // --- Sound FX definition --- sound_vent_medium = engage sound_rocket_mini = running sound_vent_soft = disengage // --- editor parameters --- cost = 100 category = Propulsion subcategory = 0 title = Test Extinguisher manufacturer = test description = Test Extinguisher // attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision attachRules = 0,1,0,0,0 // --- standard part parameters --- mass = 0.0125 dragModelType = default maximum_drag = 0.3 minimum_drag = 0.2 angularDrag = 2 crashTolerance = 7 maxTemp = 3600 MODULE { name = ModuleExtinguisher ThresholdUnderMaxTemp = 500 TempDecrease = 100 ExtinguishingAgentCostPerTempPerMass = 0.0001 ExtinguishingAgentName = SolidFuel } RESOURCE { name = SolidFuel amount = 30 maxAmount = 30 } } in your own part.cfg there are these lines: ActivatesEvenIfDisconnected = true stagingIcon = SOLID_BOOSTER They should be deleted So for the moment use the Test Extinguisher and make such a vessel as depicted below. A mainsail engine with an orange with two Test Extinguishers which can be dropped Now do the following tests: Launch at full throttle while not activating the extinguisher. Result: mainsail overheats and explodes Launch at full throttle with extinguisher activated. Result: mainsail overheat to halfway and extinguisher starts using SolidFuel Deactivating the extinguisher. Results: mainsail start overheating again and explodes Dropping the extinguisher. Result: mainsail starts overheating again and explodes Let extinguisher run out of fuel. Result: mainsail starts overheating again and explodes