jrandom

!!OMG!! Thank you! Erm... maybe check to see that RealFuels works with it? I don't know if that requires separate configs from MFT. And of course I'd love to see RealismOverhaul configs (size/mass/electric). since I'll be switching to RSS/RO as soon as they're ready for KSP 1.0.x. Oh hey, that reminds me: good TAC Life Support settings, maybe?

How 'bout a question instead of an incomplete bug report? -- If I add a part and get the CoL arrow re-displayed (meaning the part is not FAR-compatible), what's the resulting behaviour? Does the entire craft revert to stock aero? Just stock aero for that particular part? An appearance from aeroCthulu if I try to fly with those parts?

Say, any chance of getting this part added to CKAN? It's super useful for staying updated with new versions.

Any chance of getting FAR compatibility? I notice that some of the parts (like the inverter fuselage) break FAR (apparent by the stock CoL arrow that FAR removes but shows up when an incompatible part is added). MFT support would also be a wonderful, glorious thing.

The list is back! Yay! ... hey, where'd Modular Fuel Tanks go?... Edit: FAR and Module Manager also appear to be missing.

Feature request: Could you add Modular Fuel Tanks support? (This will also get you RealFuels support, I think. These tanks are awesome and MFT/RF support will only enhance their awesomeness.)

Figures a Kerbal program would be attacked by killer robots.

Uh oh... fired up CKAN after the update and I only get mods starting from "Stork Delivery System" (alphabetically) on the list. Filter says "Compatible (28)". Where'd everything else go?

For requesting support for another parts mod, is this the place to ask? I'd like to see Fuel Tanks Plus supported but I don't know if that's something done here or if it's up to the mod maker to add support for MFT on their end.

Yep. My bad -- I should have checked the messages. It's the Deadly Reentry stuff-in-bays-overheats-for-no-reason issue rearing its ugly head. Guess I'll be removing that for the time-being.

Can someone refresh my memory on how FAR identifies cargo bays? I've got a "payload bay" part that doesn't appear to be shielding its contents, so I maybe need to rename it? They're from Modular Rocket Systems.

I too got in a state where ModuleManager got autodetected (snuck in hidden in KerbPaint), but if I remove it to install MM from CKAN, it crashes when I run refresh (because other mods depend on MM). So I now have to install ModuleManager manually. Is there any way for me to tell CKAN to ignore the fact that it autodetected MM so I can install/update it via the CKAN route?

'Cause ah... the mode we play in is BigRealPlanets. Yes. BigRealPlanets mode. It's like hard mode but with BigRealPlanets.

With Deadly Reentry installed, it's even trickier. I finally got a plane to not blow up at Mach 3, but I had to fly at 22km to do it.

Looks like the helicopter blade from KAX isn't being voxelized properly. Or the creator of KAX hasn't correctly specified the collision mesh? I dunno. Anyhow, if there's no easy fix for this then I wouldn't worry about it, as I'm just playing with goofy ideas at the moment and don't normally use helicopter engines.

My linux laptop has not arrived yet, so you can continue to take your time.

Anyone ever figure out how to get the hover toggle to work?

Just a quick head's up -- The Ferri version of FAR doesn't seem to be packaged correctly, as it errors out on @thumbs/ . Previous versions seemed to work okay.

They're... they're beautiful!!

So I tried sending up a pod for the first time since I installed FAR (been flying planes and whatnot), and ran into that "pods keep flipping around!" issue I vaguely remember hearing about. I see that the CoL is lower than the CoM (opposite of what it used to be back when I played KSP .25), and adding a parachute just amplifies the issue. Is this correct and you just have to rely on SAS + shallow reentry (eg. pilot error) or a genuine issue? (I see this both in Fanno and the latest dev build, and both with and without Deadly Reentry installed.)

Oh goody, I get to resurrect an old thread! Has anyone solved the depth problem for using KSP with TriDef? I can't find any profiles and just directly wiring it up gives me bad depth issues where the ground and distant objects are portrayed as being closer than the vessel due to the layered scaled rendering approach the game uses.

The CoL display issue goes away if I add struts (odd -- and it comes back if I remove the struts). They do appear to generate a tiny amount of lift, but not enough for what you'd expect from their shape and size. The "flight" was short, but I made it just past the beach before it augured in. - - - Updated - - - Wait! No! It works! Terribly and requires very high speed, but it does somewhat work!

I wanted to see if I could use structural panels as wings and... this isn't right, is it?

This one cuts through the sound barrier like Butter.craft. Requires TweakScale, Procedural Parts, and Adjustable Landing Gear. The tweakscaled-down engine (0.625-meter J-X4) provides less-than-stellar thrust when taking off, but once up to altitude it screams along nicely. Starts to lose yaw authority around Mach 2.75 due to the small yaw surface, but would probably overheat and explode past Mach 3 anyways. At least, if you have DRE installed. Probably. Took forever to figure out how to arrange the wings balanced against the intakes while still minimizing wave drag.

I'm still struggling through it, but here's what I've got so far: * The CoL is now more of a guideline than an actual rule, so... * Pull up the stability + derivatives and run it. Look at the red numbers and the tool tip describing what they're supposed to be * Start gently nudging various control surfaces, hitting the calculate button, and see if the number moves in the right direction. Keep tweaking until it's green * For transonic craft and vessels that have trouble pushing through the sound barrier: turn on the transonic design curves. The green curve is cross-section area. Keep that as smooth as possible. The yellow curve shows how fast the green curve changes. Try to keep the bumps in the yellow line as small as possible. For instance, if you have a section where wings start increasing in size, see if you can match that with a reduction in fuselage size to keep the rate-of-change of the cross-section as small and as smooth as possible. * The black horizontal lines show scale, so if you have a small craft, the yellow line will look all bumpy but that's because you're waaay zoomed in, graph-wise. Only worry about big bumps in the yellow line if the horizontal bars are getting squished vertically (showing that you're "zoomed-out", graph-wise). Example: In the first image, see how the yellow line has a serious bump right behind the cockpit where the wings increase the cross-section area. Now in the second image I've replaced the tank with a tail that narrows as the wings increase in size. This keeps the cross-section area changing smoothly (and in fact, decreases slightly -- green line), reducing the bump where the wings start. There's still a huge bump at the end where everything just stops. This is one of my problem areas, but it can be mitigated a bit with careful placement of tail and elevator wing/surface shapes.