KerbMav

I think it is the AA method used that makes the difference. But as I said, I am not sure if it was KSP related, but as these beautiful graphics enhancing mods tend to slow things down a bit, I wanted to float the possibility.

Yes.567890

Do the parts need to be modified in some way? I am using http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/34664-Large-Structural-Station-Components-20-Compatible-Release-Thread and even edited them to be CLS friendly - but finally it was to much hassle to click every docking port of my assembled station and open the hatches and I wanted to deactivate the option. A few days ago I could move some Kerbals into the Taurus, but only four although it holds seven, Ship Manifest only swapped two Kerbals after that. Yesterday I open the window via Toolbar, select crew, select transfer, select two crew modules and click xfer and nothing happens. Can ShipManifest be influenced by the undockable bug?

Then I feel for AMD users!!! I reverted more than once to an older Nvidia driver because of incompatibilities with some game or another. But: Wrong thread!

Somewhere in my head spooks something I read a while ago - I think it was about KSP ... "Deactivate ingame anti-aliasing and use a program specific setup in the driver settings." Does this apply to KSP? Would have to install Nvidia driver with its software again - maybe even a newer driver - but they tend to botch them on a regular basis.

When I disable CLS under settings shouldnt I be able to transfer my crew freely or am I missing something else?

No, I would rather not - but I am using Action Groups Extended for things like deploying solar panels or decoupling difficult to reach docking ports.

Should be possible - but I have TweakableEverything installed too' date=' so I cannot say for sure. Strutting the payload negates the decoupler force (for good or bad depending on situation) and docking ports have no [i']push-force at all.

To reuse a transfer vessel for another mission it would have to be restocked with supplies and fuel, cleaned, thoroughly checked, overhauled and repaired. Landing the whole thing to do so would have required protection for reentry and loads of parachutes - additional weight needing more fuel and also even more expensive gear. Every kilogramm of equipment raises the fuel requirement, making everything heavier and requiring a bigger launch vehicle. There was no space dock back than like we have ... not even today really ... ISS might be used to dock a transfer vessel and a lander might be parked in lunar orbit, although for maintenance reasons it would be better to bring it back too. But it all comes down to: is it feasible and secure enough?

Tried the LazTek's Dragon capsule - in a test save, I lack science parts - and stripped it of all parts I wont be using in my main save to get a loadable craftfile for after I deleted the launcher parts. Like the idea of a capsule with 7 seats, although it is a bit op in regards to the stored monopropellant. (But will be needing something more handy for crew and science transfer from my space station, part count is also much lower that way.) Finally got around to speed up time for my first asteroid encounter. Rendezvous successfully in second try (quickloaded after starting my burn to late and it zipped by at 1.4km) - docked and brought it into an orbit, changed alignment to 0.x degrees, lowered PE to 80km at Kerbin to get LKO science too, transmitted a field report of a sample and packed two more from high and low orbit each, one for return to Kerbin, one for more preliminary analysis at the space station - finally parked it at 400x400km an sent the capture ship to dock with the station. No parachutes on this one ... we were in a hurry to catch that space potato ... *cough*

Somehow I always imagined them as being a bit younger ...

You are missing the point. Other players getting to much science points is not the issue, players wishing to play with BTSM intended progression getting unwanted points is.

I think it started here, but there seems to be a problem - NathanKell did not come back to this thread though. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/78089-Hard-Mode-No-Mun-No-Minmus?p=1123428&viewfull=1#post1123428

Thanks to the "contains loud sound and pretty graphics, gameplay not included"-games that are produced today, the "let me explain it for the dumb, even though there is no deep story at all"-stuff in TV and cinema. Also - and I almost feel old for saying so - the lack of reading to get the imagination going. (It does not even have to be world literature, anything will do really, as reading requires the reader to think rather than to just consume the story.) I think your post sums it up really good, it is not a question of age at all.

I started out single staged, then went Apollo, now I use both methods on a case by case basis, especially a lander on a multiple landings trip will be single staged. But I tend to leave landers back in orbit whenever I leave for Kerbin - missing out on the "landed on" bonus - will have to design a flight recorder of some kind. No need to be ashamed, this is actually difficult in its own way - although I gather you are trying to avoid docking this way?

I cannot find the post/thread describing how to change the planet/moon multiplier for science. Anyone seen it? *dives back into forum*

You renamed the ship that grabbed the asteroid - the game saves names for different crafts (groups of parts) so you wont rename your station/ship every time you docked. Can you rename the asteroid now in the observatory (click the name in the info window to the right of the screen) after you docked to it once?

Hacked Spaceplane! plus parts to get them in line with FAR and DRE (hopefully, at least my CoL worked again after I was done!) and then built another Not-yet-space-plane ... @PART[*]:HAS[#author[Porkjet]] { @module = Part @dragModelType = default !dragCoeff = DELETE !deflectionLiftCoeff = DELETE } @PART[mk2_1m_Adapter] { @maxTemp = 1500 MODULE { name = ModuleHeatShield direction = 0, 0.15, 0.9 // underside of fuselage reflective = 0.25 // 25% of heat is ignored at correct angle } } @PART[mk2_1m_AdapterLong] { @maxTemp = 1500 MODULE { name = ModuleHeatShield direction = 0, 0.15, 0.9 // underside of fuselage reflective = 0.25 // 25% of heat is ignored at correct angle } } @PART[mk2_1m_Bicoupler] { @maxTemp = 1500 MODULE { name = ModuleHeatShield direction = 0, 0, 1 // underside of fuselage reflective = 0.25 // 25% of heat is ignored at correct angle } } @PART[mk2CrewCabin] { @maxTemp = 1500 MODULE { name = ModuleHeatShield direction = 0, 0, 1 // underside of fuselage reflective = 0.25 // 25% of heat is ignored at correct angle } } @PART[mk2CargoBayL] { @maxTemp = 1500 MODULE { name = ModuleHeatShield direction = 0, 0, 1 // underside of fuselage reflective = 0.25 // 25% of heat is ignored at correct angle } } @PART[mk2CargoBayS] { @maxTemp = 1500 MODULE { name = ModuleHeatShield direction = 0, 0, 1 // underside of fuselage reflective = 0.25 // 25% of heat is ignored at correct angle } } Found a Dragon capsule mod and hacked around as well - then saw that there is another (with no hacking necessary) Dragon available ... So, I basically learned a bit more about ModuleManager, FAR and DRE behind the stage.

It has been quiet in here for some time, but I took the liberty of putting all your fixes into a cfg file and adding some stuff myself. Anyone see anything I missed/that is wrong? @PART[*]:HAS[#author[cBBp]]:Final { !TechRequired = DELETE TechRequired = veryHeavyRocketry entryCost = 8500 @maxTemp = 1700 } @PART[cBBp_Dragon] { @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.8362352, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2 @node_stack_top = 0.0, 1.4769561, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1 @node_stack_ASAS = 0.0, 1.3005309, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2 @node_stack_trunk = 0.0, -0.6316727, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2 MODULE { name = ModuleHeatShield direction = 0, 0.15, 0.9 reflective = 0.25 ablative = AblativeShielding loss { key = 650 0 key = 1000 1280 key = 3000 1600 } dissipation { key = 300 0 key = 500 23 } } @MODULE[ModuleCommand] { !RESOURCE[ElectricCharge] {} } @MODULE[ModuleRCS] { @thrusterTransformName = RCSthruster } @MODULE[ModuleEngines] { @heatProduction = 200 } RESOURCE { name = AblativeShielding amount = 4000 maxAmount = 4000 } MODULE { name = ModuleDecouple ejectionForce = 250 explosiveNodeID = trunk } MODULE { name = ModuleScienceContainer reviewActionName = Review Data storeActionName = Store Experiments collectActionName = Take Data evaOnlyStorage = True storageRange = 2 allowRepeatedSubjects = True } MODULE { name = ModuleScienceExperiment experimentID = crewReport experimentActionName = Crew Report resetActionName = Discard Crew Report reviewActionName = Review Report useStaging = False useActionGroups = True hideUIwhenUnavailable = True rerunnable = True xmitDataScalar = 1.0 } MODULE { name = FlagDecal textureQuadName = flagTransform } } @PART[cBBp_Dragon_Saddle] { @node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.1850713, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2 @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.1850712, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2 @node_stack_adapter = 0.0, -0.3314734, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2 } @PART[cBBp_Dragon_Beak] { @node_stack_dragon = 0.0, 0.0210884, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1 } @PART[cBBp_Dragon_Wings] { @node_stack_top = 0.0, 1, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2 @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.88, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2 !MODULE[ModuleDecouple] {} }

So, that is why - and it is intentional, thank you.

Ship Manifest does it, I think it even respects the one-shotness of the Goo Container/Materials Bay - an older mod didnt.

You could also copy the MODULE that enables pods to store science from the part.cfg and paste it into a small radial part. I keep forgetting about this - and we still do not know if this is intended or a bug - it is one more reason (in a stock game without the mod part I linked) to bring the lab along, but it still requires landing the lab back on Kerbin. How does it even store multiples of the same experiment? Is the MODULE in its part.cfg different? (Not at home right now.)

Has anyone come up with a working stasis/hibernation chamber compatible with TACLS yet?

The two engines are in the stage with the parachutes. If you stage once, you will decouple your transfer stage but not activate the two engines.

Not playing today, but came to notice that I get the "cannot undock bug" more often - at least perceivedly. Pondering if I should MM-install some emergency explosive bolts to the docking ports like I did with my one-kerbal-pod. Not sure which end should seperate though, the docking or the vessel side of the part ... would it be able to dock again after seperating? Would they even seperate if the parts are connected via docking game code? Sunday will be a lab day, I think.