codepoet

Yay. Lovely to see old friends! I just dropped by seeking a moment out of real life. Great to see people still (trying!) to use Connected Living Space, and really thrilled to see that it being used with feature rich mods like Kerbal Health, I have read the discussion about conflicts with CLSInterfaces.dll with interest. I am sure things have moved on, and I can not remember much from when it was originally introduced, but the purpose of having a separate interfaces dll was to remove some of these sorts or problems by making the interface definition rigid and allowing the implementation and callers to change. It sounds like something has changed in KSP to make life harder for everyone, but it is great to see you all trying to find the best solution. Thanks everyone.

Thanks for keeping this alive LGG. As often happens, my life has moved on so I am not able to maintain it, but it is great to see that this mod has been able to move on in its life too.

Just a quick note to thank Micha for getting involved with maintaining CLS. I am really pleased to hear people are still interested in it. Micha has my blessing to take it on, and I am happy to be answer any questions if that would be helpful (not likely!). I have added Micha as a collaborator to the original Github project. Let me know if there is anything else that would help. Blessing all - CP

An ignorant question, I am sure, but why does each launch provider need to have their own spacesuit? By a Beoing suit and a spacex suit and a NASA suit? Can't they just use what is already on the shelf?

Bloody well done. I remember looking at a module manager approach to the adding the hatches problem, but for some reason was unable to make it work. If you have got it all figured then I expect you will end up with a far more elegant solution, It is great that you have stuck with it - it would have been a shame if CLS ended up having to be abandoned. Thanks.

Just looking through the original CLS thread. This post seems to speak of what you are going through at the moment (although is not much help.) Also this post seems to document another of my dead ends in this area.

A the time I tried doing it about 3 different ways, until I settled on whatever it was (I can't remember).It was really frustrating as each different approach had an accompanying hard to solve problem related to it. Grrrrr. I do nit think that the original thread will help to recreate the history much as I think the only post was me saying stuff like "Arrrgghh, I am pulled it all apart and can't make it fit back together again."!! Good luck.

I remember that bit of code was a real pain to get working. If the base game has changed in that area I can be certain that PapaJoe is having to some very heroic work to get it working again!

I remember to issue of orientation in SPH when I wrote it originally. It is just the way thing are in the SPH. It must be the way that Jeb set about making rockets go up and planes go sideways.

This is not a surprise. PWB-FB does a bunch of funky stuff to do with z-buffers and cameras in order to be able to render the CoM indicator on top of everything else. I believe there are some hard coded z layer numbers in the code based on what else was being used in the game at the time I wrote it. If that has changed then we might need to use a different layer. However I have not seen the code for over a year so I can;t remember the details.

Can a mod please lock this thread now.

Thanks so much for putting your time into this Joe. You have been very good to me, and have done a great job keeping mods alive. You have my blessing to take this forward.

So I am wondering if second stages get test fired in Texas the same way that the first stages do before they are shipped to the launch site. Much better to have a single f9s2 go pop that loose the whole stack.

Failure still occurred somewhere in the whole launch system, regardless if it was booster or second stage or pad or operational procedures. If the satellite had been on top of an ariane5 would it have been lost? Of course the failure could have been caused by the payload, in which case it is not spacex's problem, but at this stage we just do not know.

Bottom line is - F9 success stats now suck big time.