UbioZur

Line 153267 (do a search for ROSTER) there is 2 } character above it, just delete one of them.

Try to remove the } just above the ROSTER

Don't forget the debris. I couldn't test it because I don't have your mods. So you will have to be the tester. since your save file have already a lot of Kerbal, I have removed all the crew from the station to be sure there won't be duplicated name/kerbals. and inside the other save file: http://www./view/faabd28b7and5ef/persistent(2).sfs You should have your space station without crew, you just need to send some crew up there now. Again I couldn't test it because I don't have your mods, so delete your KSP.log file inside KSP folder, and give it a try. If it doesn't work, let me know the error and the last 15 lines of the log file.

Nice good job, and glad you have successfuly done it. Lesson is not that inline clamp-o-tron are evil (they are a bit), but that it is safe to extend the docking port a bit out of the station to allow clearance. You have just enough space to fit it!

With the tool, you could edit all the other ships out of the save file so you only have one ship on it. making it easier to find. You should only have one FLIGHTSTATE in a save file. and all the VESSEL are inside that FLIGHTSTATE. If the save file is not too big, upload it somewhere and share it so I can have a look and show you.

You have to copy all the ship. so the more part you have on your ship and the more line you have to copy. Thankfully the file in indented so it makes it easier to see when the { start and when it stop } at the same indent. You could try to slowly delete what you don't need in the file until you have just the ship you need. On an easier note, trying to find a save file editor would be easier and can avoid mistakes. a quick google and I ended up with http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/kerbaledit-take-control-of-your-ksp-data/ I haven't tried it, and I am sure there is plenty of them out there, so give them a try

Definitely wont work with that port. the one we can see at the top would work but the tail fin will collide with the solar panel so I wouldn't try. It's hard to tell where is north/south so I would thing your nav ball is set to your command pod, not the inline clapotron and that's why it's not align. but even so the target is not where it should be. Looks like bringing up an adapter is the best way for you. Also, don't discard that ship, just send a small tug that have RCS and refuel the plane so you can keep trying to dock. As you keep practicing, you will see that 100 unit of RCS is actually a lot. it just take several hours docking harder and more complicated stuff to refine the docking process. Edit: Better than an adapter, bring up a multi port docking module to your station. For example, Docking port sr on each side of 2 Big RCS tank (so you can refuel your RCS) and radially mounted some arm with the docking port at the end. it would bring you several docking port to dock several ships. The arms (made of truss like your solar panel support) will allow for more clearance of the ship.

just a small warning on the video you can find, with the last update 0.21 (which is the version of the game you have, and the videos are not et all up to date), the SAS system is completly revamp. you don't need them (unless you need more torque if you have a pod. Command probe does not have SAS integrated however. Also now using torque to control your ship, require electricity. if you run out, you cannot turn it unless you have rcs or control surfaces. (i believe that could be your problem so check the ressources on the top right of the screen while flying). apart from the torque the ways to control your ships are: - RCS: useful in space but require RCS fuel and thrusters - Control surfaces: be sure you use either fins with control surface or canard. the tail fin for example does not control anything. it has to move when you press a key. They work great in dense atmosphere but not that much in high atmosphere. - Thrust vectoring enabled engine: some engine just push you straight, some (most) will twist a bit to help you control the ship. Make sure you have the central engine with thrust vectoring on it. If it's not the electricity your problem here is another possible issue: no thrust vectoring engine and good fins-> in low atmosphere (lower than 14km) the fins does the control job and that is why you are controlling the ship perfectly, however, once you arrive at high altitude, the fins could not be enough to control the mass of your ship, and since your engine does not help, you can't control it. as painking said, usually posting pictures of the ship will help us a lot as we can see what you have/need.

Having the CoM even lower could help, but i think it's from something else. It looks like it does flip when the ship load. Which I think does bring your ship a bit over the ground (to avoid collision problems with rounded saved position values) and since it's on a slope and the CoM would be in the middle as it touch the ground it would tip over (a small bounce could be enough). It's like when you have a plane with wheels at different heights and when you load it on the runway is fall on the ground and bounce a bit and sometime de-align itself from the center of the runway. Usually those landing legs works great. I would suggest two things: - try to lower your CoM to the lower quarter of the ship to help stability. - if you need to change ships that are within 2.5km (I think), use the next/previous ship key (default [ and ]) -> Faster and no reload. - if the ships are further away than 2.5, go to the map view and double click on the ship you want to control to switch to it (avoid having to go back to the space center).

Different docking port size cannot dock together. it's like trying to plug a usb cable to a hdmi output. here are the compatible size docking port Jr only with themselves doking port - shielded dockig port - inline docking port docking port Sr only with themselves. You could try to send a adaptor that would consist of a bit to rcs, a prob, a Sr and a regular port, and electricity for the nav ball. using a control from here on the inline docking port will be helpfull. use a mix between the target reticule and what you see with the camera, I have found that select target dosen't always change the target to a precise place where port is, as well as the distance is completlyt wrong (it's a distance to the center of mass not the targeted port). It can help to point the station port to south (180° heading) and the inline docking port to the north (0°) so you only have to translate and not rotate (that work if the station is on equatorial orbit, else you need to find I believe it's the tangent of the orbit)

Hohmann transfer is the way to calculate the most fuel efficient way to transfer between two celestial body. It would consist on a ejection burn from the departure body (here Kerbin) at the right time to encounter the target body (here duna), mid way you can ajust your trajectory with one or two more burn (mainly for inclination and getting the encounter at the altitude you want. As well as painking links, here are a few more I like: - http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ - http://i.imgur.com/dXT6r7s.png (nice map to see everything at once. and there won't be any answer without a link a tutorial from scott manley right? Edit: I like your probe design

I do have a few question: - can you at least get to orbit with a simple rocket? - Have tried doing a transfer to the mun (no landing necessary, just transfer, orbit and back)? this is just to make sure you do know how to get to orbit and transfer to another celestial body. else you may be hitting a objective that is far from your current skills, and it would be better to at least know how to do them before going to another planet. for your rocker on your last post. - remove all the struts - make sure you have a fuel line going from the outsides tanks (preferably the small grey ones) to the inside one. So the outside tanks drain their fuel first and then you have the inside one full to keep going. - You will need to separate the radial decoupler to another stage (that will be the new stage 5) - You don't need the delta wing, remove then, you can add canard however. - make sure you center of mass and center of thrust are align (buttons at the bottom left (mass on the left and thrust on the right) - now for the struts: . struts the outside tank to the inside one, at the button (one strut each) so the engine don't move the tank. . same thing but at the top to make sure it good. . outside tanks to the middle grey tanks. one strut is enough. . struc the tank over the nerva to the decoupler at the under the nerva. also use a smaller decoupler (you will gain weight and not loose anything) . I see a command module and advance stabilizer at the top, not neccessary to have both. the command pod will offer you sas since .21 and just as a note, I would add a small battery or two on the rover to make sure it won't run out of power during night time.

hummm tacfuel is available for .21 http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/tac-fuel-balancer-v1-0/ and it remove the needed parts so you don't even have to bother with changing it it is a icon on the screen apparently as of information only: name = TacFuelBalancer Z5000 v2[COLOR="#FF0000"] Important to have a different name than an existing one or the game could crash[/COLOR] module = Part author = TaranisElsu MODEL { model=Squad/Parts/Electrical/batteryBank/model position = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 scale = 1.0, 1.0, 1.0 rotation = 0, 0, 0 } [B]//[/B]change all the node stack [COLOR="#FF0000"] Comment are marked with // sign, else it may bring an error to the part[/COLOR] node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.1108553, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0 node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.1108553, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0 cost = 600 category = Science subcategory = 0 title = Z5000 Fuel Balancer manufacturer = Thunder Aerospace Corp. description = The Z5000 is the newest to the TAC family, Allows transfering fuel to maintain vessel balance. attachRules = 0,1,0,0,1 [COLOR="#FF0000"] It's here for the attachment rules not before (not sure if it change but better safe than sorry)[/COLOR] // --- standard part parameters --- mass = 0.001 dragModelType = default maximum_drag = 0.02 minimum_drag = 0.02 angularDrag = .5 crashTolerance = 15 maxTemp = 3200 MODULE { name = TacFuelBalancer } Also I forgot to say but you need to reload all the parts if the game was started already. Either restart the game fully (long) or go to the space center and alt+F12, debug tab and reload all.

what Kasper said. and as an added note: revert is like a reload to a previous autosave, to be used really only for testing vessels. everythig else is on the tracking station - end flight: simply destroy the ship and crew, disapeared in a wormhole! - recover flight: only available if landed on Kerbin, will recover your kerbals, and once career is implemented, you should get some parts or cash back (that one is probably yet to be fully determined by the game designers)

may be the center of mass of your lander is too far high up. have you tried waiting with the command pod as an active ship to see if the lander tips? any mechjeb smart A.S.S on maybe? Try puting SAS on if it's off, so the it can use the torque to avoid it from tipping over. Other solution would be to land it somewhere a bit more flat and use the kerbal jetpack to fly there. there is a nice few km distances for the jetpack.

it's possible, here are a few things to consider however: - they must be perfectly align during docking to have all of them docked. - only one (the first one that will be considered docked) will have fuel crossfeed, the other will only act as struts, so be carefull with the fuel flow. - sometime if they are nicely align and don't dock, just quicksave/load or change ship to reload the physic will fix it. tips to align them perfectly, On equatorial orbit, pointing north (0°) or south (180°) your ship will only roll and keep it's heading to the north or south, making it easier for both ship to be align (one docking port point north and the other south).

if it doesn't work, you can paste the cfg here and I will have a look if you want.

If the font is too big, then change it to something smaller. For the persistant file. Open it with a text editor (like notepad / wordpad / anything pad that load text really) you first want to open the old save persistant file (the one called persistant.sfs) do a search for the name of your ship it will be on something like that VESSEL { pid = ... name = ShipName type = Probe sit = ORBITING landed = False ORBIT { ... } PART { ... } PART { ... } ACTIONGROUPS { ... } } copy and past it all to the new save under activeVessel in FLIGHTSTATE. for the crew, in the persistant file again, copy the crew you have in the old file. not the idx number and on the ship, you should have a crew= and put that number in. Also, have you tried to simply load your save, convert it to .21 with the in game tool and then just delete everything else you don't want with the tracking station, and then you will have the persistant file you want with the ship?!

I don't know that part, but you could change the .cfg of the file to load another model instead of the normal one. I would copy the part folder you want to change and rename it with the name you want. - delete everything but the .cfg - open .cfg in the cfg change name= mynewtacfuel delete mesh = model.mu and put instead MODEL { model=Squad/Parts/Electrical/batteryBank/model position = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 scale = 1.0, 1.0, 1.0 rotation = 0, 0, 0 } change all the node stack node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.1108553, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0 node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.1108553, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0 You can change the title/description if you want. Change the attachment rules allowSrfAttach, allowCollision attachRules = 1,0,1,1,0 You will have a Z1 like part that would be your tacfuelbalancer. the node value and surface attachement are taken from the z1 pack cfg.

From the description and what I understaood of the dev talk during the ksp-tv marathon, the advance one add the stabilization computer while the normal one only add torque to be used by another computer. From the data and .cfg files, they are both the same apart from the weight and texture, making the advance one obsolete (except for retro compatibility of old .craft files)

Hey, It's kind of the plan but it doesn't need to be out of game. It's possible to have a set of assembled parts in the VAB/SPH, and it's a lot easier also because then I can directly get the key and links to the cfg parts from the loaded database in game. and then create my own cfg. I am considering the pros/cons of doing it subassembly like (move a assembly to a button) or just have a button to weld everything on the VAB/SPH. Also I am still considering the way I can managed some exceptions (welding two hitchikers have a problem as of all my tests). Loading back the new part in the game without having to use the debug menu is something I need to consider and haven't had a look at it yet.

I am slowly adding more parts, just haven't release anything new yet to take time to test them, and waiting to see how it will work with .21, I don't think it will break but we never know. Also I am trying not to add too many different parts to avoid increasing the load time by too much. Slowly working on the design for the in game tool too.

Nice catch, i will fix it For the attachement node, I have started doing it. Just haven't released them. For the invisible surface and texture, Yes they are there and as of the stock game you would have the exact same effect as it use the stock models. Also most performance issue with Unity/KSP are from the CPU and physics calculation or all the parts, not really from the GPU. So unless you have a really low end PC, removing those texture will probably barely effect your FPS. SirJodelstein it is not impossible to make, it would take a lot of time, and I guess you want a stock fairing Work is still crazy this week. So far I have no work plan for next week, when I will be able to work lot more on improving the parts and adding more.

I am busy with work at the moment, so I don't come to the forum everyday, and mainly want to chill and rest afterward. I have decided to integrate Teirusu to the team, as it take time to weld things, and he is doing a great job. Look earlier on the thread, I posted a link t a twich tv stream that will show you how it's done, there is also a link to the wiki about it. we basically the .20 new cfg path. For the overheating problems, it will mainly always be there as the longer the tank, the further the CoM is from the engine and so the less heat dissipation there is. Unity design! tri-coupler are not 2.5m attachement, so it is possible but I won't do it since I require to scale a part and would make it game changing I do plan on playing with few wings, probably just weilding 2-3 wing connector. After as Teirusu said, it will mess with the flexibility. I won't empty tank as they are not stock, but you can easily change the cfg to have them empty. Theyre are usualy at the end RESOURCE { name = FuelName amount = 5760 <- Current amount to change to 0 maxAmount = 5760 }

I do spend some times on thinking how a in game tools could be done. The concept itself is there, I just need to find solutions for the parts that are not normalized with the game. Take the FL-T800 tank, the cfg file give it a lenght of 30 and scale of .1, while most of the other are a scale of 1. And it was a pain to weld with a itm of scale 1. So the ig tool would need to cover that. Also I have had issue with rew hatch when welding parts, I don't completly understand how they work at the moment. Animated items will be a pain to weld too. And items that generates ressources (solar panels), different generations will be a pain to managed. Multiple docking ports are bad too. And of course, creating a new .cfg could be find, it would still need to get the game reloading all the data. So far I keep it theorical concept. and once .21 is out, I will have more trial at the programing itself, to see what I can gather. Eventually it could be possible, but a pain to do as we won't know what is the parent/child connections. I usualy do my build full vanilla, and then replace with the welded parts. It allow me for more flexibility on the creation and then I ty to reduce part count. Wings that have the same plan shouldn't be a problem to weld together. it's just about having the position of the center of lift.