Starwaster

what's the name of the hatch transform? I'd like to try an experiment that would show if this is possible.

Nothing in output_log.txt? Could have hit an error at a bad time loading or other problem when loading a module.

Mounted the new hab on an Altair descent stage from Bobcat's American Pack And yes, we have a problem with the ladder. And the egress hatch....

The main issue before was that some fuel tank types were not adding the right mass, so engine tests using those tanks made some engines look more efficient than they should have been, especially when compared with engines mounted on tanks that were adding the right mass. Once corrected, LVNs were a lot more attractive. Unfortunately, the hydrogen issue still confuses people, but there's really not much to be done with that. As you stated (and Nathan and Shadowcatcher) people keep looking at fuel volume and not realizing they need to be looking at mass. Also too is what application is the engine for? You probably wouldn't want to use an NTR setup to deliver and land a few tons of payload. So if people are using test setups with something like a space probe, of course it's not going to make a lot of sense.

You know what would be cool? Some FlagDecal support

You know, I was noticing in the video a few days back that the Kerbal was clinging to the hatch as it was deploying and it got me thinking that since the transform can be moved and attachment nodes can be linked to transforms, wouldnt it be possible to put a small transform under the hatch that animates with it? And make that an attachment point via NODE{} in the config file? Then it should just be a matter of reconfiguring a ladder to change its attach rules and give it an attach node (stack) and it should work....?

Well, you can, technically sort of, you just can't control when in the stage it goes off...

It's creepy.... I start thinking about making some Mars Transit Vehicle (aka Copernicus) parts but I don't want to bother with making an inflatable transhab and what does he do? He goes and makes a transhab. But if you're going to drop a long term base on Duna then you want some kind of inflatable base right? That Transhab is kinda an unwieldy thing to land so, what better than an inflatable base??? What does he do? He goes and makes an inflatable base. Who knows what lurks in the hearts of KSP players??? The Porkjet knows!!!

Working on texturing and fixing some poly issues mostly. Here's the ring texture so far. Nothing fancy, Put a pattern on it to aid in docking alignment and textured the attachment points. Also gave those a normal map. The picture below shows it attached to a 10 meter 'docking target'. Again, that's just RSS scale. There will be a stock sized version but I'm not sure what size that will be except that it would be larger than 2.5m tanks. Not sure if it would be large enough to require the multiple docking nodes that I'm experimenting with. You can see in the picture there are four textured areas that represent docking latches. Each one is a separate docking port to make it easier to line the rings with each other. That's been done in other part packs though I'm not sure it's been done with something 10 meters in diameter so it gets a bit touchy. Maybe needs to have attraction force lowered. I've also been working on non-Copernicus specific areas that would be necessary for those using Real Fuels and Deadly Re-entry. (not that Copernicus is meant to re-enter the atmosphere but if you're familiar with DRA 5 (or 3 or 4 for that matter) then you'll know that there are other things that attach to the 'core propulsion stage' such as aeroshell landers. I'm not sure if that will be an actual part I make or not. Currently I'm trying to implement it entirely through Procedural Fairings combined with Deadly Re-entry's heat shields. So a couple of days have been trying to actually make something out of existing parts + PF that could survive a Duna drop. So far I have not been successful. (fairings do NOT like being turned into heat shields and I'm not even sure DRE is even accurately determining the contents of the fairing are even protected). Finally, radiators for Real Fuels, because hydrogen tanks want to boiloff. Real Fuels has radiators but they currently need to be a child part. They don't directly cool anything that is not their immediate parent. So the radiator that I put on the truss doesn't want to cool the drop tank. So, to sum up I've been texturing reworking models Deadly Re-entry experiments on aeroshell landers Radiators Also, forgive me but the KSO was released so I was playing around dropping it from RSS altitudes to see if it would survive re-entry. It's one thing using that shuttle with Deadly Reentry. Even combined with FAR. But combine them at RSS scales and one learns that space is indeed a harsh mistress. (well, actually it's the re-entry interface that's the problem.... space was just fine). So, some Copernicus work was lost there to the KSO shuttle so blame Helldiver. All his fault. Also go try out KSO cause it kicks butt. Kerbin Shuttle Orbiter System

In that case, why not just skycladding?

Looks good so far. Reloaded a bunch of times with the dev version you posted and not seeing any dupe toolbars. Cross Fingers....

No. If you're in a higher orbit it's catching up to you. (it has less distance to travel for one thing)

Wow, suddenly I just had this vision of Peter Stormare as a German saying, "Do you know what we're going to do now? Unpimp your Kerbal...."

You're right, it showed up again. Funny thing is that I only see MechJeb components in the extra toolbars. I'll download that and test it later this afternoon and let you know how it goes.

That might not be necessary. Your very latest update seems to have fixed it. I just reloaded several times with the latest toolbar version and I'm only seeing one toolbar.

It's also caused by reloading the database from the debugging menu. I experience it frequently lately because I'm developing some parts and doing some other modding. Every time the reload button is clicked, a duplicate toolbar is spawned. I've hesitated about submitting any bug report about it because it's not something that arises (or should arise) from normal gameplay. But... it would be nice to be able to have a hard testing session where I don't have to deal with hordes of toolbars when I want to test part changes or modeling/texturing changes.

Like I said

I usually have some idea in my head what I want to put up. Then I just throw a bunch of random rocket parts together then slowly take away anything that doesn't look like what's in my head.

So, I grabbed my fresh download, installed it and the DRE patch and hastily started up the game. The installation consists of Real Solar System, FAR and Deadly Reentry. And others of course, but it's those three that are of concern right now. Can the KSO survive a re-entry with that combination in its current new release state? (there's no way it has the delta-V to get to RSS Kerbin's orbit so I hyper-edited it, seeing as how my main motivation was to see if it could survive fiery re-entry. (for those not playing RSS, re-entry is a bit more deadly there) It took me a couple of tries but the elevons keep burning off. And the landing gear too. And I overshot KSC by quite a bit and had to do a belly landing in the water. The pilot was reduced to a nervous wreck and the copilot a gibbering lunatic. Better check the ECLSS, I think it must be flooding the cabin with fumes or something.

Or maybe a swarm of KSO downloaders swarming to also download DRE to use with KSO..... maybe....

Wow, awesome! That looks very similar to an inflatable hab proposal that's floating around... that would go somewhere on the bottom of a lander. (or above the engines) So that is awesome... and well crap I'm repeating myself.

Darn it Helldiver I just got done deleting parts!

Sorry about the delayed reply, just FYI, especially for anyone who consults this thread in the future looking for modeling docking ports. controlTransformName is for when the port's desired control vector does not match the part's transform. A good example (indeed the only example of which I am aware) is the stock 'Inline Clamp-o-Tron', the docking port that is retractable, stackable and points to the side. // Indentation by Starwaster who is OCD about indentation because [I]Squad never indents![/I] Bad Squad! MODULE { name = ModuleDockingNode deployAnimationController = 1 nodeType = size1 controlTransformName = controlNode }

I don't know what it is, but it shouldn't be 0.64. Volume would be about a quarter (assuming spherical test so YMMV by shape) and mass follow volume.

Use Visual Studios to compile with. Chances are you already have it; I think that's where csc.exe actually comes from.... target 3.5 framework should work.