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.

As with other mods that I wrote, I am not in a position to do justice to PWBfuelbalancer. If anyone else would like to take it on or work it into something else, I would be grateful. Send me a PM.

So sorry folks. I promised to get this working, but did nothing. I have not played kerbal for over a year now. Can someone tell me - does pwbfueldbalancer still work with whatever the latest version of KSP is? Also is there still a demand of need for this mod?

Good stuff, I am really impressed with these improvements. Just a shame I never get time to play the game anymore

I do not know the answer to your question for certain. However I imagine that it has to do the with surface attachment rules. I would have thought that the grapple part has a surface attachment to whatever it has grabbed, and therefore config needs to be set for those part specifically (both the grapple part AND the part it has grappled). Read the CLS wiki (link in @papa_joe's signature) and pay close attention to the surfaceattachment config options.

If it is caused by re-entry heat then it is not a problem of deposits, as there is nothing to deposit, so they just need to use materials that can withstand the heat.

The part that the BZ-52 is on the side of needs to be configured to allow parts attached to the side of it to be passable. But default they are not. Consider if it is reasonable for Jeb to just hack a hole in the side of a module - for many parts this might not make sense. If the part that the BZ-52 has "Surface Attached Parts Pass: No" then that is the reason. You can take it up with the author of that part, or just provide you own config to change it. I think there is also a way of changing this in the editor for that part, but I have not played the game for so long now that I am not sure exactly how Papa-Joe made this work.

Here: Musk confirms that they did indeed cut two of the engines at then end of the landing burn and land on one. Also that the engines can now throttle down to 40%. So if 40% of one engine is imparting >9.8m/s2 then three at full belt would be capable of giving at least 73.5m/s2. That could really take the edge off your velocity in a hurry.

From the chatter on the technical broadcast we can approximate: Stage 1 is trans-sonic 7:41 (does this mean dropping below Mach 1 due to drag? Land burn starts: 8:26 Legs deploy: 8:34 Engine cutoff: 8:40 (based on the images, not sound, but image and sound is out of sync as can be seen by the fairing deploy being called before it happens) So that gives a maximum landing burn time of approx 14 seconds, perhaps a bit less (10 seconds?) due to a delay in the pictures compared with the chatter. If it can't hover on one engine, then a single engine is giving it more than 9.8m/s2 so three engines must be giving it more than 29.4m/s2. However, it is subject to acceleration due to gravity, so it is certainly getting more than 19.6m/s2. For ten seconds the landing burn is taking at least 196m/s off the velocity, probably much more, I guess those figures are all in the right ball park. Is there any other more accurate source of data for the first stage during landing? Looking at the CRS8 technical yields: Trans-sonic - 8:00 Landing burn - 8;07 legs - 8:34 MECO - 8:40 So for CRS8 that is a landing burn for 33s (29s accounting for a four second picture delay) which is three times the duration of the JCSAT14 3 engine landing burn which is exactly what we would have expected. I can't explain why the later&harder landing burn results in a longer time from trans-sonic to MECO - you would expect it to be less. Could it be because the JCSAT14 mission has it coming in with more horizontal velocity? I am not sure that makes any sense.

I picked up from here that is was a 6 second landing burn - which would be extraordinary. Is that a typo?

Crane? I understood it to be an offer to have the stage land directly in the yard. I did not realise that this was a landing burn using 3 engine rather than one. Awesome timing on the suicide burn considering how much G that much have been pulling, to get the whole 0 velocity at 0 altitude thing. For me that is the most impressive part of the whole thing.