Starwaster

[quote name='K.Yeon']ok thanks! thats awsome news for modders![/QUOTE] (previously my Layered Animations would have been required for that, which I can now retire)

[quote name='K.Yeon']I should ask nertea if i could use his module adjustable cargo ramp once the remodeling is done. [/QUOTE] AFAIK he's using the stock animation limiter. ModuleAnimateGeneric now takes arguments to limit how far it opens [CODE] allowDeployLimit = true revClampDirection = false revClampSpeed = true revClampPercent = true [/code] Also, it has layer, which you should set for the docking port part. layer = 0 for one, layer = 1 for the other (lights, docking port) so that they can both animate without one stopping the other or causing the other to revert.

[quote name='sashan']When will you update the cargo ramp to use new code? My planes always sit low like the real ones, and the ramp makes the plane rise off the gears...[/QUOTE] Pretty sure the entire ramp needs remodeling. I patched the opt ramp and it's not enough. The way it unfolds just isn't right. There's no where in the animation to stop it that looks good and it collides with the runway if it's too low.

[quote name='Borogove']Installed Realism Overhaul via CKAN, and the game hangs on the loading screen. Tail end of the log pointing at ModuleEngines.Flameout: [code] DragCubeSystem: Creating drag cubes for part 'proceduralSRBRealFuels' (Filename: /Users/builduser/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/MacStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 56) MissingMethodException: Method not found: 'ModuleEngines.Flameout'. at RealFuels.ModuleEnginesRF.GetThrustInfo () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at RealFuels.ModuleEnginesRF.GetInfo () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at PartLoader.CompilePartInfo (.AvailablePart newPartInfo, .Part part) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at PartLoader+.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 (Filename: Line: -1) RemoteTech: ModuleSPU: OnDestroy (Filename: /Users/builduser/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/MacStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 56) RemoteTech: ModuleRTAntenna: OnDestroy (Filename: /Users/builduser/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/MacStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 56) RemoteTech: ModuleSPUPassive: OnDestroy (Filename: /Users/builduser/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/MacStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 56) Missing method ModuleEngines::Flameout(string,bool,bool) in assembly /Users/russell/Library/Application Support/Steam/SteamApps/common/Kerbal Space Program/KSP.app/Contents/Data/Managed/Assembly-CSharp.dll, referenced in assembly /Users/russell/Library/Application Support/Steam/SteamApps/common/Kerbal Space Program/GameData/RealFuels/Plugins/RealFuels.dll [/code][/QUOTE] Something didn't update properly it looks like. Was this on a fresh install?

[quote name='MacAddict008']Experiencing an issue with LS-19A and LS 32-C recyclers. The recycler part doesn't seem to work. O2 is consumed normally and CO2 is produced normally (scrubbers off), but when I activate the recycler on either part, no extra CO2 is consumed and there is no effect on O2 consumption. Also, In atmo, they draw O2 even if the air intake is off. Has anybody else had this issue? I'm running KSP 1.0.5 on a Mac, and I've got IonCross v 1.20.1. I've got other mods, but I tried this on a clean install with only IonCross and Module Manager 2.6.13. [URL="https://www.dropbox.com/s/9cxo4pvn55ub0mk/Player.log?dl=0"]Log file is here if anyone wants a look[/URL].[/QUOTE] Looks like a ton of errors in a collector. Probably the recycler. I haven't tested the previous version with KSP 1.0.5 at all yet so there's probably things I need to go repair.

[quote name='ThomasJun']Yes, that is exactly same as what i did. But in it's source code, it is set to constant value. ModularFuelSystem/Source/Pumps/RefuelingPump.cs : Line 17 [CODE] double pump_rate = 100.0; // 100L/sec per resource [/CODE] So in game playing, the pump rate is always 100.0, whatever its descrption on VAB. Assuming from your answer, it's made configurable but not actually works.[/QUOTE] That's only the default value if nothing was specified in the config. However, looking at the source [url]https://github.com/NathanKell/ModularFuelSystem/blob/master/Source/Pumps/RefuelingPump.cs#L16-L17[/url] It's also marked as Persistent so any existing pumps will use whatever value was configured when you created that craft or put it on the launch pad. That means that if you created something, decided you wanted the pump to pump faster and exited the game and changed it, that craft is still using the old value of 100.

Anyone who has been using LayeredAnimators to fix the centrifuge rotation+inflation issue will need to do the following when updating to KSP 1.0.5 Do NOT install Layered Animators with KSP 1.0.5. (if it is installed, uninstall it) Create a file named CentrifugeFix.cfg anywhere in your GameData folder. (requires ModuleManager) Edit CentrifugeFix.cfg and paste the following into it: If Layered Animators is already installed and you're using KSP 1.0.5, delete it from your KSP 1.0.5 installation. It is no longer necessary // This gets pasted into centrifuge1.cfg @PART[centrifuge1] { @MODULE[ModuleAnimateGeneric],0 { %layer = 0 } @MODULE[ModuleAnimateGeneric],1 { %layer = 1 } }

[quote name='gonzo98x']Does anyone have the latest version for 1.04 of solver engines? Somehow through CKAN I think it was solver engines that updated. I'm playing RP-0 on 1.04 and none of my engine will start. New rockets or existing rockets. There is also no more Show UI for the engines in the VAB. I think this is a solver engine issue. Anyways, my save file under 1.05 will have the engines work but without RP-0 I can't migrate my game fully yet.[/QUOTE] You mean the last version that was for KSP 1.0.4? All older versions of Real Fuels can be found on the github site. Below is the latest RF that was for KSP 1.0.4 [url]https://github.com/NathanKell/ModularFuelSystem/releases/tag/rf-v10.7.2[/url] Or directly from SolverEngine's own repository, for only Solver Engines. [url]https://github.com/KSP-RO/SolverEngines/releases/tag/v1.11[/url]

[quote name='Yarbrough08']I have been away for a while and realized a lot has changed; however, I was curious if certain variables were still available.. I was curious about: direction, reflective, as well as loss and dissipation curves (since I noticed the lossExp which I would assume is the loss exponent, but I prefer not to ass/u/me).[/QUOTE] Sounds like you are referring to the heat shield module. As of KSP 1.0, Deadly Reentry no longer implements its own heat shield. Instead, it extends the stock heat shield. I don't think ANY of the old parameters are valid anymore. But especially not reflection or direction. Those were used primarily for space plane types which do not use the heat shield module (not in stock and not in DRE) and instead have their part thermals modified to allow them to survive reentry. (stock does it by increasing thermal mass so that they can soak in extra heat and increasing emissivity so that they will emit heat better. DRE does the opposite and reduces thermal mass so that space plane skin acts more like space shuttle tiles) Currently we're still not updated for 1.0.5 as I was busy with some Real Fuels coding, but now I'm done there and will pick up DRE again. (it is still possible to install the current version but the plugin is not fully functional and will throw exceptions. The configs will work and preliminary testing of them suggests they should mostly work with 1.0.5 but some changes to conductivity were made that will likely need attention)

[quote name='Shinji-The-Kerbonaut']Welp. KSP 1.0.5. dropped and I'm pretty sure the thermodynamics broke this mod. Now my spaceplanes are going to be sad. First B9, now this? Are there any other large spaceplane part mods that [I]don't[/I] stop updating quickly?[/QUOTE] OPT works just fine with 1.0.5 If your experiences are different and you have a specific problem then state your specific problem.

[quote name='ThomasJun']Trying to do some tweaks by myself, I found refueling pump rate is setted to "100.0" in its source. I just want to ask if it's intended feature or left for future work. Because i wanted to change those values of various clamps by my own MM patch, but didn't work. At this time, i just have to attach lots and lots of clamps to my rocket to maintain fuels before launch.... too harsh for me.... BTW, thanks for all your effort on this mod![/QUOTE] It's configurable. There's probably just a problem in your MM patch This should probably work [CODE] @PART [*]:HAS[RefuelingPump] { %pump_rate = 1000 } [/CODE]

[quote name='GoSlash27']Fr8monkey, This is a known bug. The fix is to attach your heat shield with a decoupler and detach it once reentry heating subsides. Best, -Slashy[/QUOTE] Having extra mass that increases your ballistic coefficient is not a bug and there's other things you can try besides decoupling the shield. For instance you can use the tweak slider to decrease the amount of ablator on the shield, which will lighten it. You can also try flying a lifting reentry by orienting the nose at an angle, giving your capsule some lift and giving you more time to shed velocity. (not strictly necessary; it IS possible to land a Mk1 pod + full shield depending on where you bring it down and how you configure the chute's opening parameters)

[quote name='blowfish']I think that configuring parts like fuel cells is probably more the responsibility of the individual engine config mods, i.e. Realism Overhaul and RF Stockalike.[/QUOTE] Or other engine packs...

[quote name='YauS']Can Real Fuels Support Fuels Cell?[/QUOTE] Real Fuels supports custom configuring of fuel tanks. Including hydrogen and oxygen in either gaseous or liquid form (as defined by the Community Resource Pack) So if fuel cells are configured to use those resources, then yes.

[quote name='Citizen247']Trying with RealFuels in ckan, the game won't load with just RealFuels, Stock configs and dependencies on a clean install: The relevant parts of the log files below: [/QUOTE] You're using an outdated engine pack that's trying to assign a non-existent resource (U235Rods) meaning either the pack itself needs to be updated or you're using an outdated version of that pack. (U235Rods is now 'EnrichedUranium' and DepU235Rods is now 'DepletedUranium') (and it's been that way for quite a few months now)

[quote name='Jovus']Does a ferociousBoiloff = false MM config still apply to this version?[/QUOTE] Yes, but you might as well just say that you don't want boiloff at all and shut it down in the configs. Hack them and shut it off. No point in neutering it, just shut it off. Or you could just make all your tanks Service Module tanks or Cryogenic tanks but the former isn't really realistic for large launch stages, and the latter for on orbit long term storage such that you won't find in a lift stage. But whatever, it's your sandbox. But it's also Real Fuels and that's the kind of thing they had (have) to deal with in real life with cryogenic propellants is that they boil off and so rapidly that you have to keep refilling them on the ground. At least that's something you (mostly) don't have to deal with because we don't start boiloff until KSP tells us the rocket launched.

Not mentioned, but there's also tool tips for tank auto configure buttons, which is really awesome when you have [I]THREE[/I] different mixture ratios for Aerozine 50/NTO on your rocket ;) Also, there's an issue with Procedural Parts as root. Don't make a PP tank the root on your vessel. Area (drag cubes) is not properly calculated for those parts so they don't interact properly with thermo or aero. (AFAIK does not affect FAR, but still be careful)

[quote name='wreckreation']Forgive me if this has been asked and answered; I searched the forum and reddit and didn't find anything. I like my parachutes to spread out, away from each other ('repel each other' as [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/57988-1-0-5-Wenkel-Corporation-RealChute-Parachute-Systems-v1-3-2-4-10-11-15?p=1005877&viewfull=1#post1005877"]you said[/URL]), as they would be designed to do in real life. I've been using [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97285-KSP-v1-0-5-Stock-Bug-Fix-Modules-%28Release-v1-0-5a-2-14-Nov-15%29?p=1486867&viewfull=1#post1486867"]StockBugFix/StockPlus[/URL] for that and it works great on stock chutes. Just downloaded and started using Realchute the other day (great mod, btw!), noticed the realchutes don't spread out, thought I'd be clever and fix that with a MM patch, adding the ParachutesPlus module from StockPlus to the realchutes. It works only partially, in the sense that, on realchutes in the VAB, in the right-click menu I get a slider for the spread angle of the chutes, as expected, indicating that the StockPlus parachute module was indeed added to the realchute. And the realchute gui is still accessible from the action groups tab, so no conflict in that direction. But when I launch the vessel, the realchutes still don't spread out. Any idea why this might be? I didn't see anything in the log. I haven't posted this question in the StockBugFix thread yet, I thought I'd hit you up first.[/QUOTE] That mod was very specifically designed to work with stock chutes and it even checks for the existence of ModuleParachute and only functions when it finds it. It doesn't look for real chute modules and doesn't try to do anything to those. Yes, you'll get the menu option but that doesn't mean that it's working or even trying to 'work'. Claw should probably put in code to disable all such menu items when ModuleParachute is not present but he didn't.

[quote name='Laie']Doing a few more boiloff tests... My test regime is to hyperedit the craft into a 150Gm orbit round the sun (about earth-like), wait 1h for things to settle down, refill the tank through hyperedit, then gauge the boiloff. Problem is that I seemingly can't get the same rate of boiloff twice. Riddle me this. [/QUOTE] The temperatures (internal/external) were likely different at the beginning of each test and then you dumped a whole lot of resource into the tank for the second test which changed its thermal mass and thusly altered the dynamics of the test.

CONFIRMED! Landers with chutes [I]DO[/I] work on Tylo!!!! ... What? [URL="http://[img]http://i.imgur.com/sBcZlIO.jpg[/img]"][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/sBcZlIOm.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

[quote name='Kobymaru']Dear atmospheric Overlords, this is very counter-intuitive. Could you walk us mortals through it? Personally, I'm not opposed to formulas. (I just don't know which are important and what the abstractions for KSP are). ps.: I asked the same question [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/139855-PSA-Eve-%28re%29entry-is-impossible-CONFIRMED?p=2302079&viewfull=1#post2302079"]in the other thread[/URL]. Sorry for the spam.[/QUOTE] I don't think I have anything to add on to what Ferram said but here is some reading material on the subject: [url]https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_delegations/designee_types/ame/media/Section%20III.4.1.7%20Returning%20from%20Space.pdf[/url]

[quote name='ferram4'][URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/139855-PSA-Eve-%28re%29entry-is-impossible-CONFIRMED?p=2301560&viewfull=1#post2301560"]And as I noted in the other thread[/URL], the failure of your rocket, Xyphos, is due to your reentry procedure, not due to Eve's atmosphere. It is perfectly possible to reenter that vehicle. Edit: as a general suggestion to anyone having reentry problems: check to see if your reentry is too shallow. The goal is to slow down, and heating is not proportional to drag. You can get more drag with less heating (proportionally) by diving deeper. That's why Xyphos's design exploded; he was too shallow. A steeper trajectory was survivable.[/QUOTE] Not only is heating not proportional to drag... it is [I]inversely[/I] proportional to drag. (the more drag, the less the heat load)

Yeah, too shallow by far. And not only is Eve easily survivable from Eve orbit, it's pretty easy on a Kerbin->Eve transfer. You've got to try HARD to mess up an Eve reentry.

Electric prop would be valuable for a remote mission to Duna

[quote name='josea74']Well there are most likely people just like me who don't ask and just continue playing upset about this issue but unwilling to take action. The re entry value for 100% should be decreased to allow for fast aircraft like mine which go around 1500 m/s - 1600 m/s[/QUOTE] Just use the difficulty slider already. That's what it's there for. That's why games that HAVE difficulty settings have always had them. Find it too difficult? [I]Change the difficulty setting.[/I] As Shia Labeouf says... [COLOR=#ffffff]JUST DO IT.[/COLOR]