magico13

RemoteTech as a whole should stay as a mod. It's far too restrictive on playstyle to be integrated into Stock. I could see AntennaRange being added as an optional feature (I'd love to see DeadlyReentry, AntennaRange, and TAC Life support equivalents be options in the Stock game), but still wouldn't make it a required feature.

That's the main focus of 1.2 actually. I'm moving entirely away from using upgrade points and relying on the tech tree, instead (likely) developing a new upgrade "web" system. The way I've got planned still could be considered "flat", but much less so I think. Firstly, I plan on tying into the stock upgrades somewhat by having them as requirements for certain upgrades (ie, can't unlock a second build rate without a tier 2 VAB). I haven't fully decided if some upgrades will be unlocked automatically with stock upgrades (ie, build rates are solely a function of editor levels), or if they'll need to be purchased separately. Secondly, I'm going to try to provide more options for upgrades, so that if someone wants to always use new parts and doesn't care to reuse old ones then they can do that, but if someone else tries to recover every single part then they'll be able to do that. Both ways will be considered valid, and there will be upgrades to make that playstyle better. I haven't finalized any of my plans for upgrades though. I like the freedom of a custom upgrade system (face it, the stock upgrade system is very limited and upgrades are few and far between. I can tie into it 100%, but that reduces the freedom of playstyle and alienates Science and Sandbox game modes), but that's also a lot of work and may end up being as bad as the current one. But it sounds like fun for me to do, and hopefully would be fun to play with Also, the editor GUI (and corresponding GUIs) is/are the next to get a facelift. It's far bigger than it needs to be and I don't think anyone actually cares about the total BP value. Edit: made a github issue for the rollout status being lost. I thought I had seen that before but forgot about it when trying to sort out other issues.

Thanks for that update, I wonder if somehow they're directly related. I'll try taking a look at that in the future, thanks! I just uploaded 1.5.3 which includes a fix for Kerbals losing experience when recovered by StageRecovery. Thank you lIAceI for discovering the temporary fix, which helped me figure out what was causing the issue so I could repair it on my end. For those of you who are curious, I basically did the same thing as the fix lIAceI used, but in code. First I removed the "Die" flight event, then created two new ones: "Land, Kerbin" and "Recover", which means Kerbals should receive experience as if they had landed and then were recovered from Kerbin.

I'm on mobile, so can't post a whole lot, but if you'll check the first post there's a big warning saying they'll lose experience if they get recovered this way. I'm looking into it, but have been working on getting a 0.90 update out for KCT first.

I can't replicate the issues you're having. I've made a release client for 1.1 available on the main thread, so if other people are having the same issues we should be seeing reports soon about it. The good news is that I don't have to do any work to package a new release since Jenkins takes care of it when I push a commit to the main branch Edit: Limited testing (very limited...) showed Procedural Parts to be working as intended on my end. We'll see if I need to make any changes for that soon... Could you keep an eye on the main thread a bit for the next couple hours? I've got a dinner thing with my fiance's family and I imagine people may have some questions about the changes. We've been working on this for so long that I can't remember what we've even changed!

For those of you who are feeling somewhat adventurous and don't want to wait any longer for an update, I'm releasing a "Release Candidate" version of the next update. I think it's working properly, but the primary tester JeffreyCor is having some issues that I can't replicate. This version will certainly have bugs, but I don't expect anything game breaking. So, feel free to test it out and let me know how it goes. I will be away from my computer for a few hours but will try to address anything that's reported as soon as I can. While the changelog may not appear very exciting, there was a lot of work done behind the scenes. The major changes are for RSS support, and I'll probably have more info about that after the full release once I talk to the RSS guys a bit more. Additionally, vessel rollout times are added along with maximums for the reconditioning times. I tried to implement recovery straight to the inventory, but ran into issues (and then 0.90 broke what I had) and so that isn't in this release at all. It is HIGHLY recommended that you delete your old KerbalConstructionTime folder if you have one. At the very least, you MUST delete the Kerbal_Construction_Time.dll file! Configs should still be mostly compatible. This link should always point to the latest release client or full release: http://magico13.net:8080/job/Kerbal%20Construction%20Time/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/KerbalConstructionTime.zip Changelog: v1.1.0.0 (12/22/14) - Update for KSP 0.90 - Build List got a redesign - Added vessel rollout - Added support for RSS - Added basic support for Procedural Parts - Small change to file structure (added plugins folder, renamed .dll to remove underscores) - Fixed several bugs - Check the GitHub commit log for more. This took a long time.

That's so weird to me because I didn't change any of that code between 0.25 and 0.90 and the part that seems to be having issues is the stock code I'm invoking to put the kerbals in the seats. I don't know what else I can do about it. Can you confirm that it happens with only KCT + stock? I'm wondering if you have a mod installed that affects it somehow. Edit: There, I tried using AddCrewmember instead of AddCrememberAt, but if that doesn't work then I'm out of options that I can think of.

It does provide me some direction for how to fix it though. After I finish working on the next KCT update I'll get back to fixing things in StageRecovery

Does that part by chance have different variants with different crew capacities? They may be adding the extra crew space as a module or something. It works flawlessly with stock parts on my end.

Looking into the issue with crew first, I found this in the log: [KCT] Assigning Jebediah Kerman to NP.Capsule.Bootleg (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) [KCT] Assigning Bob Kerman to NP.Capsule.Bootleg (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) Cannot add crewmember Bob Kerman to NP.Capsule.Bootleg. Seat index 1 is out of range That indicates the issue may be with the part itself. It seems to only have 1 seat when KCT tries to add crew to it (using stock functions). I'll see about adding some checks maybe to avoid the Kerbals being killed at least. I'm going to take a look at the issues with vessel sizes in a moment. Edit: I incorrectly was checking the size limits for the editor and not the launch facility, so I may have fixed those issues. Will test and report, but I'm seeing a potential issue in that there is only one function to get the current size limits, but there are two sets of size limits, so I'm not sure how that will work. I'll try to do some thorough testing. Edit2: HAHAHA! My intuition that there being only one size that you can get from the game was correct, but even the Stock game has that issue! The VAB size limits (well, technically launchpad) are the EXACT SAME as the SPH size limits, so a tier 1 launchpad is the same as a tier 1 runway, tier 2 = tier 2, tier 3 = tier 3. Since each is upgraded separately you're still limited by the proper one (so upgrading the runway all the way won't let you build bigger on the launchpad), but the size limits listed on the upgrades for the launchpad are TOTALLY BOGUS AND DON'T MEAN ANYTHING! Well, that makes things easier for me! I think I've solved the size limits issue now.

After I finally release I imagine there will be a set of configs and/or recommended settings for using RP-0 and KCT together. A lot of the features I've added this update have been due to conversation with those folks, since it sounds like (to me at least) they're planning on having KCT be the mod for handling anything time based. Though I really don't know what they're planning. I should probably figure that out some time

I was seeing no issues detecting upgrades or with multiple crew per ship (either different parts or the same part, like 2 one man pods or the 3 man pod). Maybe it was specific to the build you were testing? I'm also testing without any other mods (except ATM for faster load times). Try out build 35 and see if you've got the same issues. Tomorrow's goal is going to be testing procedural parts thoroughly, then hoping for release!

There used to be a mod that added internals to the mk3, so that is likely what OP is looking for.

I've started doing this with each update. Unfortunately I didn't think to save my copies of 0.20, 0.21, or 0.22, so I only have 0.23 and on.

I got a couple of things done in the car today and am playing around with recognizing mass/size/part count limits. So far I've had decent luck. There may be a new build late tonight, but there's a good chance that I'll hold off until tomorrow. Edit: I decided to at least commit the changes, meaning there's a new build with some fixes/changes but that also may prevent you from ever launching ships Read the commit message for more info, I'm gonna go to sleep and work on this again tomorrow.

How long ago did you download SR? If it was more than a day or two ago, I'd first recommend redownloading. It's possible that you managed to download the broken 1.5.2 version, or the 1.5.2.1 that was mispackaged, which both could exhibit those symptoms. I'm also assuming this is on 0.90 Hmm, I don't think I'm going to mess with the part count at all. The extra design challenge of having to decide between reusability and shear power isn't, in my mind, a bad thing. Even SpaceX has that problem with the falcon 9 that can land itself. You can take a smaller payload to orbit but keep the bottom stage, or you can take a larger one to orbit and lose the stage. In fact, we were discussing making recovery work at a lesser value when you've got low tier buildings, and improve as you upgrade them (mostly the tracking station), which is kind of the opposite of making it easier in the beginning. I'll need to think about that and maybe have some trial runs.

As I mentioned earlier, I haven't had as much time as I would have liked this past week to get things done (I will admit that I did spend a few hours one evening just playing Stock 0.90. It's very different now!). I'm on vacation now from school and work, but am going to be visiting family for the holidays. I'm hoping I can find at least a day or two to get things up to speed. Speaking of which, since I don't have to drive for the whole 7 hour trip I'm going to try to do some work in the car. But I get motion sick so there's a pretty good chance I won't be able to. I'm really hoping I can spend tomorrow on KCT and am very optimistically shooting for a Monday "compatibility" release. I say "compatibility" because I'm not adding a whole lot of 0.90 specific features, but it will have everything I was working on before 0.90. After that's out I'm going to probably spend a little time on StageRecovery, since I often neglect that, and then come back to this to get times for upgrading and repairing buildings. Then comes the fun of 1.2, where I'm planning on overhauling the part inventory system, the upgrade system, and the simulation system. But by the time that's released I'll be back home and will only have work, not also school (until school starts again in late January). Super tentative, highly optimistic timetable: 1.1 release before Christmas but hopefully by this Monday, 1.1.5 release around New Year's (also depends on how easily I can do things with StageRecovery), 1.2 release by the end of January.

Haha, no problem. Happens to all of us! It was just an entertaining tidbit to me Yeah, FMRS is better suited to things you actually want to land, but for general things like boosters it can be a hassle to have to fly them all manually. It'd be cool to see this and that merge so that the approximation method this uses can cover uncontrolled vessel while that can handle controlled ones. Maybe I'll see about adding some features to make them work better together, such as not triggering when FMRS is installed (or active?) on controllable craft, but still triggering for uncontrolled stages. Reflection is starting to get fun for me to mess with

Awesome! As JeffreyCor can tell you, nearly every time there's a RC update it totally breaks KCT and SR since they interact with it very differently from most other mods. Let me know if you encounter any troubles, but they'd likely be pretty obvious (things not recovering when they obviously should be, game crashes when stages get unloaded, etc)

What I'm trying to say is that it isn't actually cheating, I actually had to add a bunch of code (thanks to Malkuth for making it much easier) for powered recovery to work at all (and had to solve some fun linear equations to make it work for arbitrary fuel types). There's a whole section about it on the first post. StageRecovery isn't specific to parachutes, we're an equal* opportunity recovery mechanism *Excluding planes with TWR < 1. Nobody likes planes anyway. Go back to your hangars!** **Ok, I do actually need to find a way for powered plane recovery to work without requiring a TWR > 1, but that only comes up with AJE.

Thanks JeffreyCor, I will see if I can figure anything out with that. Sorry for the lack of updates in general, I've been busier than I had anticipated this week and I'm not expecting it to be much better in the immediate future. I'm going to be travelling for a majority of tomorrow, but thankfully I'm not doing most of the driving this time, so I'm going to see if I can do some work on my laptop while in the car. There are a few changes that the RSS guy's were requesting that I need to implement, I need to sort out the procedural parts issues, fix the few bugs I know exist, and make sure you can't build things larger than your launchpad or the VAB will allow. Then 1.1 for 0.90 will be golden and I can start working on more 0.90 specific features. Those include: times for upgrading/repairing buildings and maybe adding a tab in the editor where only inventory parts are available. Then come the big changes of 1.2! Between 1.1 and 1.1.5 I want to do a bit of work with StageRecovery though. Also, has anyone tested StageRecovery + the new RealChutes version? He mentioned a change in the module, which may have broken things. Summoning JeffreyCor for his favorite duty of testing how badly RealChutes updates break things

Well, if you use up all the fuel in that stage it won't get recovered, and typically people will use all of a stage up before dropping it. The dV requirements for landing w/o parachutes is about 250 m/s (at atmosphere ISP) which is quite a bit to be leaving behind. If what @Ratzap posted is correct, then the mechjeb part does in fact act as a probe core, so that's totally valid. ModuleCommand is the exact same thing that probes and command pods use. There's not actually any loophole here. There is a bug present though if those stages being dropped are empty and are still being recovered, but since there's a small amount of funds being returned for fuel it looks like they've still got some juice in them. If you really don't like it for some reason, you can either remove the ModuleCommand from the mechjeb part, or disable powered recovery in the settings

Well, it seems like it's actually working exactly as intended! StageRecovery has powered recovery using rocket engines to land, rather than (or in addition to) parachutes. I just wasn't aware that mechjeb counted as a control source, but I suppose it makes sense that an autopilot would be able to land a craft. Do you happen to know if you can control a ship with just mechjeb? For instance, can you control it if you take all the kerbals out and remove all the probe cores? If so, then things are most certainly working as intended.

Hmm, I didn't actually fix anything with regards to that, yet... So I'm glad it's working better at least! I've generally found the inaccurate recovery percents to be a random occurrence, so it's likely they'll pop up again, but there's a chance Squad fixed whatever issues were causing it before. I think I know a way of testing if they did since I got consistently bad recovery rates when implementing the launchclamp recovery code using the STOCK recovery functions! I ended up writing my own, but if I switch back to the stock ones I should see pretty quickly if they're working better in 0.90. You may have also noticed that when you select a stage now it actually makes it clear which one is selected! Though I may need to make some adjustments to that for long names.

By "Kerbol" I'm going to assume you mean Kerbin and not the Sun, cause dropping anything into the sun won't survive That won't work in KSP without a mod like FMRS or Romfarer's Lazor Plugin (EDIT: Or by circling around the dropped craft until it lands, which is what I did when dropping RemoteTech ground stations from planes). Any craft that goes outside of about 2.5km of the active craft and isn't landed will be deleted by KSP, which SR then attempts to recover them only after they've been deleted. Without SR you'd just be dropping the craft and having them get deleted, thus killing the kerbals and losing the funds that the craft is worth. At a later point it is likely that I will make it so SR will actually *enable* you to do what you are trying to do, but that code isn't in yet. Now, if I'm perhaps misunderstanding what you mean, and you can 100% ensure to me that the craft you're dropping is landed by the time it goes out of range of the flyover craft (with logs and either screenshots or video), then we have a serious bug. SR only kicks in after KSP deletes the craft, so it is unlikely but not impossible. "Recover Kerbals" makes it so the kerbals aren't killed when SR recovers a craft. Turning it off means that if you drop a craft with a kerbal in it (for instance, an escape pod) then they will be killed even though the parts will be recovered.