Starwaster

That's why I kept coming back to Ioncross, and why I adopted it when Yongedevil couldn't continue with it. I don't know about food.... maybe as an alternate configuration?

Yeah, you want to take that out once you've got what you need. Otherwise it'll do it every time you start up, and it takes awhile I think?

But to do what exactly? Replacing the rotation animation with something that's non-stock fixes the problem. The habitat plugin can then read the animation and see if it finished playing. The problem is when both animators are stock. One animation can cancel the other. It doesn't do any good to hack the habitat plugin to use alternate methods of checking state when the habitat looks inflated. Or is the goal about switching both modules to the firespitter version? (Edit: And I see above in my quoted text that I mention the centrifuge spinning interfering with rotation animation.... ugh. I meant inflation.... derrr)

I think they should be left as is. You never know who's using them. Instead if there's a deficiency it could be filled.

Nathan, minor quibbling point re: LANTR on the front page. Technically it doesn't inject the LOX into the reactor; that would destroy the fuel rods. It gets injected into the exhaust stream, in the nozzle. (A nuclear afterburner as it were)

wow. That was completely out of proportion to anything I said. I'm angry? You actually saw anger in my response? that's a problem in you. You're overreacting. Badly. Your last sentence is more applicable to you than me. What is happening to you? Edit: Now then, coffee in hand, elucidation time. RedAV8R is right about one thing (but likely not in the way that he meant it, if he saw 'cranky' in my response) It was too late for me. Quite frankly, it was late and I didn't fully understand the nature of your query. I probably should have waited until after I had rested and investigated. But there was no 'witticism' intended in my response, nor was I responding out of anger or crankiness. I simply didn't fully comprehend. But I was trying to be helpful (and obviously failing badly). But that in no way justified what I had to wake up to reading from you on this forum thread. That was uncalled for. Yeah, I do wander these forums trying to be helpful to people. But it's not something that is owed to you, I do it because I like to. I do it because I like modding and I like being involved with certain mods that I contribute to. Now, although I probably should have had a better idea about what you were talking about, simply put, if you had put as much time and energy into your request as you did to your off-base response to me, you probably would have got a better answer. I will look at the parts in question and see if anything needs addressing with them.

UP* are just decouplers; pretty sure the description even says that. 0.625 heat shield has a deoupler in it........

Melodrama much? Ruin is way too strong a word. It might make some of them challenging, because some KSP contracts were created with hard coded numbers, while some (rescue missions) are properly coded to compensate. But if you want to take your ball and go home, bai bai. Next time, don't let us know. There's constructive criticism and then there's that passive aggressive attitude copping that turns people off of being friendly towards you.

Holy crap it's a working Spirograph in KSP!

I gaped, pop eyed and was unable to scream...

LOL that cheating dirtgab! Well, keep in mind that this is actually designed to work with KONQUEST. One of the modules is a rover lander thingy. So you might say he just released a piece of KONQUEST already!!!! Now, I'm finding myself waffling on the aesthetic of the rover. Part of me looks at it and says, "meh, not my style." But looking at it in the thread there, it does look kind of neat. I guess I better download it and send it up to Mun for some onsite testing. Uhm.... and it's two days old? How have I missed this? Have we checked to see if he sneaky-released anything else behind our backs????

I don't think its size necessarily translates linearly, or that Earth was in any of our examples.... (RSS?) As far as Deadly Reentry, it has no effect on aerodynamics so I'm not sure why it would be affecting your results, unless you were testing non-stock aerodynamics, in which case ablative shielding can lose significant amounts of mass during reentry as the shield boils away. (IRL I think it would lose a lot less since most of it is still there, just charred). Anyway, for non-stock aero, lower mass means lower inertia. That could alter your prediction quite a bit couldn't it? Did you try it with stock aero? Oops I guess I should refresh on a screen that's been sitting there for a day before I reply, yes?

I don't believe his problem is CLS or hatches. As I indicated earlier, I believe his problem is that the centrifuge doesn't allow Kerbals in it until it is inflated. However, if you also set the centrifuge to spinning then it can interfere with the rotation animation. (and vice versa) I posted a workaround fix for that on the previous page. You can't use the same animation module on all animations on the centrifuge. If you do, each time you play an animation it will interfere with the previous animation that was playing. (Edit: I'd previously said it cancelled it which is wrong, but the plugin that reads the animation incorrectly thinks that the animation state for inflation is that it is no longer inflated. Now that I think about it, I've had this problem with firespitter animations before in Deadly Reentry and had to write up a workaround for it then...) Edit #2: I changed the previous config as it had some conflicts. This allows both animations to play while still allowing the habitat plugin to work properly. However, regarding replacing both animation modules with FSanimateGeneric: I've played around with it a lot and am still unable to replace both animation modules with the FS version while retaining habitat plugin functionality. @PART[centrifuge1] { @MODULE[ModuleAnimateGeneric],1 { @name = FSanimateGeneric layer = 2 } }

It's a Unity issue and from what I gather, there is a correct way to play multiple animations so that one does NOT cancel the other. It's referred to as animation blending and it requires some special handling in the code that handles animations. (just a one line piece of code added or changed) However, it may also require something special in the model with regards to the transforms, I'm not 100% sure of that. Maybe one of these days I'll download Stupid_Chris's animator source and see if I can hack blending into it. (since I can't readily modify Squad's)

[/noparse] Turns into: Stuff that goes inside the spoiler, like this gif from Nichijou http://i.imgur.com/hLyeh2D.gif Sorry, I simply couldn't resist. LOL ok now how do you put the spoiler tags without it.... OOOOOooooooh, noparse. Huh, even I learned something new today.

I stopped eating for two weeks because I wanted to be able to download as soon it came out. Then people staged an intervention and put an IV in me. Also my F5 key doesn't work anymore. I think it must be defective or something. I mean it's not anything *I* did to it.

Edited for grammatical errors Oh yes definitely, the B9 Airbrakes. Putting some on the tail (on the fins) to increase the torque will help keep the nose up, for those having trouble in that area. (best to assign action groups to these which raise/lower them incrementally in addition to the brake key which just toggles them)

It's probably the latter, but the whole reason for the rearrangement of of the wings and their attachment points was to work around the cargo bay bug. It's easy to verify though, do the wings display as shielded or not? (I forget since I don't use FAR anymore but I *think* you have to enable the displaying of shielded status. I think it was relegated to being a debug function) This would be easy to fix on FAR's side btw. Just add attachment node exemption to cargo bay and fairing code. Then the KSO's FARCargoBayModule would add the attachment nodes it needs exempting to its configuration. I doubt Ferram would implement something like that though. Edit: BTW (shameless plug mode) there is a drag alternative in my signature that KSO doesn't require special craft breaking modifications for

Do you have verifiable examples?

Just a hunch but I think that recent changes might have broken the tag system. (specifically, the recent addition to parse multiple CSV nodes within a single pair of brackets) Additionally, spaces in front of a pair of braces are not necessary. Why is this still going around? Consider the following: The first set of configs will have exactly the same result as the second. @PART [*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[ElectricCharge]] { !RESOURCE[ElectricCharge]{} } @PART [*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[ElectricCharge]] { !RESOURCE[ElectricCharge] {} } I have almost 100 sets of config tweaks accumulated over the past year that I've written myself and have never had any fail because it lacked a space in front of a pair of braces.

Ah ok so you put together a set of configs then?

So you thought it had plenty of air and it was just all going to one engine? Really ? in your video, after getting airborne you should have opened up the throttle. You would have had no flameouts. Or use something like MJ that shows you available intake air alongside intake air requirements. That will make a believer of you.

Don't think so. Is 'Bobcat' / Home still a thing?

Interesting. Looks somewhat like the docking rings I had for Copernicus before ...

Just a hunch but I think he took it down because he's pretty much completely reworking the chassis parts for the lander.