Vorg

Last night I sent a craft up to rescue an engineer and it was then to head to another craft to add a small part for a mission test. I put the part and a wrench in the seat and sent the craft up using probe core because I was picking up the kerbal. But when I got the kerbal on board, I found the part was gone. I did this with a command module and the lander can. Seems that the stuff is not loaded before launch if there is no kerbal in the seat at launch time. I don't have the universal storage wedge unlocked yet, so too carry one part and a wrench, I would need to ether add a big draggy box (have to use 2 for balance) or add another command module to include a kerbal to carry the parts in his lap

When taking a few solar panels and batteries up, you don't need a large container. Just one that won't add a lot of drag to the rocket trying to get it into space.

Set set the chutes pressure setting to .32. This keeps the chutes from popping out until I think it was ~15-20k? I forget now. I was having a problem with the retro burn section burning off chutes during reentry if it followed too close to the pod. With a setting of .32, you can stage the chutes, but they don't deploy until after reentry. Even at .3 I was loosing chutes. .32 puts it a bit low if the part happens to come down over mountains. They may not slow down enough before hitting.

Some mods have multi function containers. In the VAB, you right click the part to set which type of container it is. Seems like a simple fix that keeps part count down while expanding LF/LFO to all tanks. Biggest thing I don't like is that now jets now take fuel from all tanks at the same time even across seperatrons. Infact that is really the only control you have in that they pull from the other side of them first. It's a real pain with mixed engine craft, esp before you unlock fuel lines to give rockets back the fuel stolen by the jets. We need a better fuel routing control.

The zip puts an old out dated version of CommunityResourcePak in the sub folder CivilianPopulation1.4 instead of along side it so that it gets noticed and doesn't override the properly placed version.

The build I have right now is 464. I've noticed this a few times with different builds over the last few days. I hadn't really looked at it that close in the past. I don't get to play as much as I'd like. But for an example, a burn of ~1 minute should start at -30secs but doesn't start until around -15 to -20 seconds. Burns that are 10-20 seconds seem to be late by 2-3 seconds. I have KER up showing split burn start time at the same time and for every burn, it goes positive before the burn starts. Not a big deal for short burns, But I did have a minute burn go wonky partly because of a late burn and partly because the starting stage only had about 1/3 the required dV left with the next stage being a smaller engine and lower TRW. Instead of getting a circular 80k orbit, it ended with ~100k by 67k.

With the new system, the shape of the craft greatly impacts reentry. If you set up the reentry node or just do your retro burn, then dump the engine to expose the heat shield for reentry, the mass and shape of the craft has greatly changed and the prediction is wrong. Maybe we could get a way to note which stage the craft will be at for reentry or aerobrake?

I've been noticing over the last few days with different builds as well, that the auto burn does not seem to be splitting at the burn node. It tends to be a bit late and the longer the node the more off it gets. Also, would it be possible to take into account if there is not enough dV in the current stage, what the TWR of the next stage is? Because often the next stage is a smaller engine needing a longer burn which means the burn needs to start sooner then if the current stage could do the whole burn. The game and KER both also base burn time on the current stage only even when the burn will have to go into the next stage. Often the case when circularing an orbit right after launch.

I was messing with the safety light and the sliders to set the color seem to have no effect. Saw no change in the fab or sitting on the pad.

Anyone find it odd that you seem to get containers and container mounts before you get the tools to add remove parts? I have unlocked all the levels through 45 science cost, starting on the 90's, and the tab for Kerbal carry parts where the tools are is empty. Yet I have unlocked the storage boxes and the mounts for them. Did I miss something?

The 4x mount from Universal storage looks like it works well holding 4 of the little green houses.

MS as even removed the MIDI driver from 7. You have to provide it.

It would still be nice to have this info some place. Right now it's just a guess as to what the extra specs mean or how to make use of it.

I was thinking this was the recovery mod thread which doesn't require probe cores to recover parts that move out of physics range. If playing stock, before, even if a part had a core, if it moved out of physics range before reaching the ground, but still in atmo, it was deleted. I don't know about parts without cores when not using the mod.

No, looking for an aid to see when a ship needs larger landing gear and when it can get by with smaller ones, or if it needs more and where to handle the mass

I see no need for traction modeling. If a micro landing strut will break with 50 ton craft on Eve, that should be computable. And in that example, 3 gear properly placed in relation to COM, should work up to a given landing speed. The data is there. Just need someone who decode the meaning for sure and then create the code to make it easier to use for all.

No, you don't need probe cores.

Some time ago, there was extra data added to the info for landing struts. But not much is known about it. I tried to find out more with this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/112727-Landing-Strut-Specs-and-what-they-can-handle What we need is a mod like Engineer or RCS Build Aid that Will look at the craft mass/CG and Give you info about landing on a given planet for each attached gear. How fast, how much mass each gear gets at rest maybe with a curve for impact speed that show at what point they likely would fail. Might also see about data for rover wheels as they have travel and mass limits also. Not just speed limits. Haven't looked at the new aircraft gear yet.

Bumping this for any updates

I have asked this a number of times, but no one seems to know. Maybe it's info that could be added to Engineer. Awhile back, they put more data on landing struts that should be useable to figure out how much mass a given gear can handle on a given body.

For the little one with a prop, would be nice to have an option to reverse it so it could be mounted on the front.

Ran into a problem last night because the physic range is now 10x what it was. Dumped a lower stage shortly before reentry and as I normally do, but the shutes with the decouple. But now chutes burn up and with the increased range that is what happened got a message that the chute had burned up and started checking the pod, but the chute was stilll good and deployed. But then the lower stage went flying by and blew up in the water because it's chute was the one that burned up. We now need ether Squad or the mod to and another option to chutes setting the alt/speed they deploy in addition to the options for when they fully open..

For my craft it screwed it up by not following the cross flow laws. They drain from the rocket tanks, but the rockets can't drain from the jets. That is wrong. I am not far enough along in the tech tree from fuel lines (though they really should be much sooner), so the craft got screwed up. putting all the fuel tanks in line makes the craft too long and because the rockets still pull from the farthest end, it still has massive balance problems. In fact it makes it worse, not better. Call it a bug in the design, but it is still a bug. changing the subject doesn't change that fact.

I looked at the greenhouse last night and one thing I noticed. It doesn't say anything about production rate. How many it supports, etc.

Need to find a better way then loading down with decouplers you don't need.