Starwaster

maybe thats why my kerbal splatted. it was a radial. I was going to remove them all from the ship because they were deploying on launch. again, these were the pre-RC days and I had already deployed the chutes for landing, repacked them then quicksaved only to discover that they wanted to deploy on launch. Needless to say, hilarity ensued. (Any time I think about just using stock chutes instaed of an RC chute I just think back to that incident) edit: Chris, might that be the other motivation for developing RC?

I suspect you're doing the bulk of the calculations required since you're already handling computing max drag. How is that being determined? And didn't there also used to be a calculation for max g-forces or did I imagine that?

Think about how you'd deal with the same situation if you were piloting. You'd set up multiple waypoints with the total DV spread across the. Each waypoint should be at the same orbital position as the singular waypoint created the way MJ is now. Put another way, all waypoints after the first would be at periapsis. When I'm dealing with MJ in that situation I set up that one waypoint and manually do successive burns (using +node in smartass), each terminated when I judge the burn to be too inefficient as I pass the waypoint's position. It also occurs to me that I might also use the waypoint editor to shorten the initial node then create additional multiple waypoint nodes (as before, each after the first snapped to periapsis)

The point is something that looks nice. Have you tried what you're suggesting? I have and it's not as nice. I think he was talking about the TransHab / Bigelow styled hab, not the ring. Porkjet, have you thought about separating the core section and the inflatable section into different models? That would let you make different sized habs using the same models and textures. In the cfg you'd then use Two MODEL nodes, each scaled as needed.

Because that's the planned thrust of the actual SABRE engine that's under development. As for the smaller engine, smaller chamber, lower mass flow so less thrust.

Codepoet. Sarbian. Knock yourselves out. No video, but several screenshots in sequence. both ksp.log and output_log.txt save file too (craft is 'landing tests') though you really shouldn't need it. It's not like this bug is particularly hard to encounter. If you try engaging the landing autopilot often enough it will happen sooner or later. I'm done for the night. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/9pxl3a3fz3tetcc/rxV0aqOzPz

It became a problem with the landing prediction marker moved away from the landing target. Same with the NRM burn, that became a problem when it took me into a polar orbit.

If you're playing stock (or at least no FAR and no RSS) then bump the acceleration limit to 21.5. It's still a safe value but also provides the best fuel usage. - I arrived at that figure after multiple launches of the same vehicle using a variety of values. I also tried limit to terminal velocity and while I do like the results, the one that got me the best results for fuel consumption was an acc limit of 21.5.

It should.... it seems to work with other persistent datafields. Though I've never tried it with RealChutes In fact, the only time I removed a parachute with KAS (stock chutes) my Kerbal went catapulting a few kilometers into the air... I think the chute wouldn't open or something either so it was splatsville for him. (I suspect the reason it wouldn't open was because the part itself was having a problem, which is why I ordered him to remove it in the first place....)

Suggestion, if you have the disk space, do multiple installations.

Sorry for double post, can't edit post. http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/wayland-corp-space-station-o-ring-truss-pack/ That's the station part kiwiak asked for.

Someone made that part already. I think... Devo? Check spaceport. I'll try to find it later if you want.

Re: batteries / resource requests. Pretty much only asking because of electric usage. Also, I haven't seen much mention of BobCat's AmericanPack and no config entries for them. So I've started work on a set of configs for them unless someone speaks up and says something like, "Oh hey, yeah I've got those right here." (primary motivation being: Copernicus MTV Components)

No it's a config file (.cfg) Look at second post of this thread. Pick one of the two Realism Overhaul config files that are linked to.

Nathan, what kind of batteries are we assuming to be in use? NiMH? NiH2? Li-Ion? And do KSP resource requests scale by time delta or if a module needs electricity is it just grabbing the amount that it's set to use every update? Do we know that?

You mean the truss that has the four drop tanks on it? Or the shorter saddle truss just behind the habitat? I haven't decided about the former as it's currently already possible to do either with stock parts or other mod parts. (even scaled up to 10m) The latter definitely. Just a matter of slicing the truss I've already made in half. Today I took a break from doing anything with the truss so I could explore various lifter solutions for getting the damned things into orbit. Stock will be easy, but I wanted to try making an Ares V lifter from Stretchy Tanks and Modular Fuels for Real Solar System (RSS) and it's been nightmarishly difficult on account of running into bugs that I didn't know about because I haven't actually played KSP in almost three weeks, so there's various known issues I didn't know about. So I get those straightened out, make my Ares V (again properly scaled for RSS, not stock) and I can't stop it from coming apart on the launch pad... (it weighs something like 6000mt without a payload!)

So yours isn't open on the bottom you mean? Also, re: nuclear engines with LH2, Real Fuels It's the Modular Fuel Tanks mod with resource definitions for a wide variety of engines. If it's too much realism for you though, you could just use Modular Fuel Tanks, add in the H2 resource and use the NTR engine configuration from Real Fuels. Adds not just H2 support but also methane, ammonia and LANTR (LH2 + LOX afterburner)

Are you also using Real Solar System? Stock heat shields are not sufficient protection.

What I'm saying is that I have seen it do course corrections after it's already hit atmo and that I've had to turn it off so that it doesn't go off course or worse burn fuel that I'll need for a soft landing. This is also to prevent it from doing things like Bobe described or to stop it from doing things like burning +/- NRM Does it do it all the time? Nope. But it's happened often enough that I just haven't felt like I could trust it with atmospheric control within a window starting shortly after re-entry and until shortly before landing. Not for a few months anyway.

Sorry, I have no idea where that post is; as active as this thread is it's probably over 100 pages back. And unfortunately using the thread search tool to search for my posts by user name returns zero results, so apparently I have never even POSTED to this thread before. So I have ZERO idea what you are even reading right now

I have seen it but it was totally random for me. Had saved, targeted point on Kerbin and clicked land at target F9 right back to just before I had started the landing sequence, target a point on planet clicked land at target and it didn't happen that time. There was an error and I posted it in this forum.... disturbing to think I did that for naught. Was several months back. Edit: If Bobe's is consistent I think you'd do better with a copy of his craft file than just repro instructions.

When you say it was burning away from the planet indefinitely, was it one of those burns where you eventually reach escape velocity out of duna into Kerbol SOI? Is there anything in the debug log when it does? Like errors?

Sometimes it does bug out like that. Before any landing attempt be sure to F5 so you can F9 It doesn't always do that so, no it's not like you tried from a bad orbit. Honestly it's random. If you had quicksaved before it screwed up and then restored that save point and tried immediately again, odds are it will work. Or it might crap out again. Also, trust your intuition. If you suspect that it might be doing a bad course correction then you're probably right and you should abort the landing procedure. Depending on how badly it screwed up you might need to restore to last quicksave OR you might just be able to click the land (at target/anywhere) and have it land successfully. And another thing, MechJeb does do unnecessary course corrections in mid re-entry so sometimes it does pay to shut it off after the initial de-orbit burn and wait until it's most of the way down before re-enabling it. You'll get a feel for when to re-enable if you practice often enough. For landing at KSC I generally do it right somewhere between where I'm approaching the coast of the continent that KSC is on and the mountain ranges.

I'm not talking about end user control over parachutes. I was referring to how the chute behavior affects MechJeb's landing autopilot. If I had time to work on code I would. I barely have time to work on modeling a part that shouldn't have taken me a month but has. So all I can contribute is advice.

Well, cant say that surprises me, what else are you going to stick that big ass inflatohab on?? I'm not sure how many parts I'll actually end up doing in this pack btw. The signature saddle truss was the main necessity preventing me from making Copernicus. Most other components can be obtained from other packs. (Orion or Sumghai's SDHI) In the course of researching for the truss, I realized it needed a way to be assembled. The docking rings are vaguely hinted at in a few NASA documents btw. They'll attach to the ends of the truss or the ends of the adapter rings (included in the truss but also available seperately for use on other parts)