Starwaster

Maybe he's talking about having it report weight by local gravity.

'Stuff'? What kind of 'stuff'? Delta-V window already displays stage mass in kg per stage.... the Vessel window shows the current mass of the entire craft. If these aren't what you had in mind you should elaborate a bit about what you want exactly.

Nonsense, we are Kerbals!!! We live on the ragged edge flirting with SRBs and memory errors!!!

Sounds like you have one or both of the ports on backwards. I've docked those ports using MJ before with no trouble. There's nothing unusual about them that would prevent MJ from docking them.

What other parts is that ship made from?

what do you mean by that exactly?

Well then, I believe the key you need to change in the config file (RealSolarSystem.cfg) for Eve is atmosphereMultiplier. I just tested this out , according to MechJeb, a value of 92 yields 82.67 atm at 1700m. i think thats close enough. But, I wonder too... can we make the temperature suitably inhospitable? Or should the challenge stand as is? Edit: Didnt see ferram's / Dragon's posts before. very interesting. Must be some way we can make this work...

Wow if Venus is 92, and Eve is configured to match, how the heck is anyone coming back from that soup?

Kerbin and Duna are, and I think Eve(as Venus) I have some doubt as to Jool, seemed a bit thinner than I was expecting but that could just be my expectations at fault. All the pertinent parameters are exposed in a config file. and I'm working on some code to contribute to Nathan that will make atmospheric visual height and color configurable as well. first three are Duna. last two Mars.(yeah cloud layer is too high)

Thanks, I'll check that out and see if I should change their messages.

No, in the example above, volume is 400 (220 + 180) also dont do it all as one line or it will confuse module manager.

Hah! I came under Dres's south pole and hit Laythe from under its orbital plane. As I said, with a velocity of just over 11km/s. The vehicle's design, velocity and altitude to pull off any aerobraking with the DV left to it didn't allow for any maneuvering at all. I came in hot and it was either breaking apart or shooting back out of the atmosphere. Trust me, it was just a really bad design to be using with FAR. The best I could hope for was to get a piece of it down on the ground. And a bad flight path too. The mod's design involves movingg the planets around. As I was talking about above, Laythe is a moon of Dres now. Duna has two moons, one is Gilly. But, you can change the relationships and orbits in the config file. If it's not very maneuverable you want a high value. I use 54%. More maneuverable, 20-30?

that's not MJ. You say it happens during great acceleration so it sounds like part of the stack's connections broke. Press F3 when that happens. If it says that there was a failure in any connections then note the Max G's. Multiply that number by 9.82 The result is the upper acceleration limit for your craft. Keep it under that limit. I prefer a value of 21 m/s. It's a little excessively cautious but it's also good for fuel conservation.

No, trust me, it really did suck. I wont go into details to protect the guilty. I did eventually get a piece of it down intact, enough to qualify as a 'landing'. It took a dozen tries with most attempts either shooting out of the SOI or the entire stack coming apart because of stress. (and I dont even have DR installed) Interestingly enough as I type this, the probe core is still bouncing around on the surface so it may yet 'crash'.

My main concern is aerobraking.... Coming into Laythe with 11km/s... I guess I just have to accept that my design sucks for aerobraking under FAR rules

using FAR & procedural fairings.... sometimes I see terminal velocity Infinity m/s and zero drag. WHY ??? not sure it's the fairings or not because it doesnt happen always....

What cloud radius values work well with this? I tried the values specified earlier (0.00038 & 0.00076) but they clip the planet surface. I ultimately ended up just halving them but I was curiousnwhat everone else uses. Change them in the config file to suit yourself. I've done that and added a variety of alternate fuels including kethane and ammonia. It's in my sig but still needs updating for the new MFSC. You need heightfield maps.

I think that was a dropbox screwup in general. I had trouble uploading something for nathan around that time.

That's why I use this: @PART[*]:HAS[#module[Part],~breakingForce[]] { breakingForce = 1000 } @PART[*]:HAS[#module[Part],~breakingTorque[]] { breakingTorque = 1000 } *Requires either ModuleManager 1.3 & Sarbian' MM Extensions OR ModuleManager 1.5 Yeah, the PART[*] and module[Part] are redundant; that's a holdover from when Sarbian's extensions were bugged and applying the patch to all nodes, not just PART nodes. Probably could take that out. Might speed startup a bit.

What kind of problem did you have with TAC? I use it myself and haven't had any trouble with it.

I suggest you seek the Viking lander mission raw image data. It's easy to deal with and has not been edited by NASA or the media. On

Ok, I was under the impression that a lowly set of configuration files did not require licensing. That's apparently not the case so, license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en_US I think it says 'do whatever the heck you want with it as long as you share it with other people' Oh and if it somehow changes your life and you find yourself in front of a lot of people accepting an award because of it you gotta say that you owe it all to Starwaster. Or something. Oh also, while I'm at it, this should work ok the new ModuleManager 1.5 as is. If you use that one instead of MM 1.3 you don't need the MM Extensions.

I'm currently using it with the installation I use for My Real Solar System install with several mods that use MM such as Modular Fuel Tanks. Also an assortment of config files that add various things to parts. All 1.3 files with no modifications.

Has MODULEMANAGER[LOCAL] {} been tested by the people who need that feature and found to be working as it should?

Easiest thing to test for here: Are the handles on the two docked ports lined up with each other? If so then Force Roll is working the way it should be.