HeadHunter67

Exactly. In my experience, it will let you change the roll, but it's trying to correct the ascent in the meantime - and sometimes the result seems to be that it doesn't always remain exactly on-course. Maybe it's only off by a degree, but that adds up by the time you make orbit. Rather than an inclination of 0 to the target, it can require some (manual) correction once orbit is achieved. I guess my point was much the same as yours - if I have to do it manually anyhow, why would I need MJ in the first place? So a means of controlling roll during automatic ascent would be a good thing.

So go ahead and do it then. If you can beat them to release with an idea that's at least as good, you'll sell at least as many copies, right? Or are you merely speaking theoretically, with nothing concrete to support your statement? Put up or shut up, as they say.

Well, for one, you have to turn off MJ to do that. So what's the point of Ascent Guidance if you have to disable it to do what you want to add to it? I'm going to surmise that you just didn't think it over before asking. I hope you're not deliberately trolling.

I'm guessing that the reason RCS fuel for MMUs is unlimited in the game is because a Kerbal (93kg when fully equipped, according to the game) is going to require significantly less fuel for thrust than even the smallest spacecraft. The volume of fuel in an MMU is almost negligible on the scale that KSP spacecraft use. Yes, some people do crazy exploits because of this, but I don't see that it honestly detracts from the game in any way. Even in a real MMU, the propellant capacity is less than 12kg of nitrogen, allowing six hours of EVA. For a Kerbal suit, that amount would be even less, as they are much smaller.

Obviously, you don't understand that different people process information differently. All the numbers in the world mean very little to me when three little graphical icons can convey all the information I need. All I need is: 1) The orientation of my nose/docking port relative to the target port. 2) The relative location of the target port to my craft. 3) The prograde vector of my velocity. Maybe you work better with numbers - I don't need them. I'd rather be able to see where I'm going. I am not saying the camera is "bad", I'm saying it doesn't suit my needs. I'm terribly sorry if that upsets you. It's too bad that you hate me because your favorite tool doesn't work as well for me as someone else's. If only everyone could see things the way you do, there'd be no need for all that jealous anger, right?

OK, now I just have to integrate it with the Captain Morgan launcher without compromising the payload structure.

Thanks. I'll see if I can figure out how to rework the craft in the meantime. From my understanding of the trunk text, it seems like it's got its own propulsion and doesn't need an engine on it?

I tried placing an entirely new part, and it also lacked the node. I appreciate your attempts to help. Comparing the configs, I don't see any differences in the designations for the attach nodes, so it must be a glitch in the game. Probably related to whatever makes it so hard to put things on stock hub nodes.

One of us wants to add a feature that gives Kerbals a reason to be aboard - the other does not. Which one is "limiting" the game? One of us wants to actually perform the task, the other wants it to happen all on its own. Who is "pretending", again? I honestly do understand where you are coming from - perhaps if we were both playing Unmanned Space Program, I could even agree.

Indeed - but that part is not present on the Captain Morgan craft. Also, when I try to build an Odin CSM (with the pack and trunk), RCS Build Aid shows me that the built-in thrusters are extremely unbalanced, causing a lot of unnecessary torque. Any solution for this?

That's exactly what I was planning to do.

The Universe Replacer mod (specifically the Dreamscape skybox).

The OAMS module from the MOMS series does nicely for station assembly - and it can be used to move a module from a parking orbit to rendezvous, or even to move the whole station to a higher orbit (as I recall, something similar was done with the ISS before).

By itself, this particular task would be routine and boring after a while - but if more mods gave some thought to activities Kerbals could do on EVA, we might see orbital construction really gel. Otherwise, we might as well honestly just fly unmanned rockets, and that seems to defeat the purpose (it's not Robot Space Program, after all). Give Kerbals stuff to DO!

Thank you - I will give it a try when time permits.

I'm trying to build a station, and one side of the Karmony Node MkIII (the one with the flat ends) does not seem to have a valid attach point (I'm not seeing the little green ball). I've successfully attached components to the other five points, but nothing wants to go on the remaining side. The Adaptor version seems to be working fine - so I fear a line is missing in the config or something. Can anyone please help?

OK, that's what I thought he might have meant. I just wanted to be sure, because some people use the words "magic torque" when referring to reaction wheels because they think that the concept of a reaction wheel somehow violates Newton's Third Law. Such people should be used for rocket-sled testing, but that's just an opinion.

Not sure I understand what you mean by "magic torque". Are you referring to reaction wheels, or the fact that they apparently don't use any extra energy beyond the electricity continually consumed by the module?

I've used the Docking Camera - and did until DPAI was released. Honestly, all those measurements are meaningless to me - I'm either moving towards alignment, or I'm not. About the only two numbers that matter are my distance to the port and my speed relative to it - and DPAI gives me those. I could get all my other data from the navball, but in DPAI I can keep my eyes on the window. With the alignment needles, I'm able to translate my prograde to the intersection (which represents the real location of the port) and then gradually cancel that relative velocity on my way in. It's not uncommon for me to be lined up dead-on with the port before I'm within 75m of it, and this allows me to approach very rapidly until the last few meters. I kind of liked the authentic look of the camera, but I honestly think the image of the port is the unnecessary information in that window - and, in fact, it makes it harder to make out the cloud of numbers that surround it. I also don't like the overhead that Romfarer seems to bring to the table, along with some of the glitches I've encountered while it was installed. But I can see why it appeals to some. There's no wrong answer - I'm just going with what's proven to be highly effective for me. I was never able to accomplish high-speed docking maneuvers at these distances or these odd angles with the Docking Camera. That only works when they can see the relevant action - when sped up and cut as you did, a new viewer cannot possibly absorb or understand what you're doing. It's readily apparent to you, of course, and to those of us who already know how to do it... but it's hardly an effective teaching aid. Still, I commend you for your contribution to the body of knowledge. I learned how to do this "single act" (arguably one of the most important fundamentals of the game) by reading Blizzy's thread and watching PebbleGarden's videos. Without the commentary, it wouldn't have clicked for me like it did. But I accept that different people learn differently, and I hope some newcomers find your video helpful.

I've noticed that Jeb has a habit of stowing away on unmanned missions if there's a place for him to hide. I agree with this idea - especially if there's a good way to attach a removable MJ that can be used while launching other modules. Once joined to the Utilities module, there's no need for every component to have MJ functionality anyhow. But keeping the reaction wheels in all parts is a good idea, provided that it doesn't cause a station to torque itself apart. Works for me. I look forward to it!

I'm not clear on exactly how you recommend one to do this (assume I'm not a modder). I did download your white textures but can't see how they would be added to this new release. I'd love to use these tanks with my stations, but not if they don't match the existing look. If I can easily make them white, that'd do it.

I hope so - that seems the best way to go for mods and it really makes a difference in how much space a mod uses.

Most importantly, it takes more than just making a popular mod - the modders that have joined Squad so far have been the ones who made mods that Squad considered indispensable to the core game. In other words, find what KSP needs and do that - and do it well. That may be very different from a cool mod that might be awesome and expand gameplay, if Squad doesn't feel that's necessary to the core of development. It helps if you do it in a way that is resource-efficient and even moreso if you can do it better than Squad feels they could have in-house. It's a tall order, but it's happened before, and far more often than any other game I've seen (except when the whole Desert Combat team got hired by DICE to turn their mod into Battlefield 2).

Got it, thanks. It looks like the lander fuel tanks are NP as well, but I can't seem to place the lander command pod. Is it from AIES or something?

I tried using the Captain Morgan last night - with the default staging as it comes out of the box... and when I got into orbit and jettisoned the fairings, I found myself in a junkyard of scrap, with the lander floating free and the command module possessing no RCS - sure, the Odin module has the nose thruster pack... but no monopropellant on the CSM at all. Making it impossible to do an Apollo-style mission with the most arguable Apollo-style craft I've yet seen.