ZodiusInfuser

That's understandable, I like the unintrusive approach the current system has. And yes, I was mainly thinking to assist with rendezvousing as there's other great mods that help with docking. Perhaps just ghosting the target vector would be sufficient. I'm sure it will be great whatever you decide

This mod is great! One suggestion, would it be possible to add ghosting to the velocity and target vector when in Target mode? I don't think it does this already.

Mechjeb . Far too much to think about otherwise. How the game let me switch craft whilst in flight I have no idea. The craft I was controlling used mechjeb too for altitude control. I then controlled the pitch of the engines via docking washers (12 in total) to "manually" align the two craft. It was almost the same as orbital docking It got a bit hairy on my first attempt as the downforce from the target craft caused the mine to veer off course and nearly crash! Hence the second attempt shown in the last two images having a 45 degree offset. I presume you'll be keeping the current gantry version too? Both have their uses depending on what side of the root part they are wanted, that is until there is a real fix for the problem.

That mod is indeed good. I've used it for quite a number of "interesting" dockings in the past: I believe the instructions for how to create it were back a number of pages ago (I forget where). From what I recall Sirkut gave out the instructions for those (like me) too impatient to wait for an official release. Hopefully he'll include it to the mod soon, as both versions have their uses.

Hi, I don't have time at the moment to go in detail about the gantry. Here's an old video showing the current version, and a potential new version (.cfg edit). Hope that helps.

After seeing HOCgaming's artificial gravity ring experiments, I thought I'd have a go at making my own station I gave it a quick spin and it can reliably produce 1g, but I have yet to drive a rover around it And just for fun, here's a "simulated" de-orbit

Congrats on making it into this weeks KSP Weekly!

The gantry and telescopic piston parts should be ok. I went through and set them up before giving the cfg to you. It's just the other parts that need altering.

Yea, it would let these sort of things be possible (sort of).

This was the only other thing that I recall being mentioned: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/37707-0-21-Magic-Smoke-Industries-Parts-Infernal-Robotics-0-8a?p=626690&viewfull=1#post626690 That's if you want to include them of course. After all it's introducing a part to get around a more serious bug with either IR or KSP, so I don't know if you want to do that. Also, something else while I think about it. Free spinning versions of the tall hinges? I used my own versions for that spider a number of pages ago to reduce part count. The only thing is that with the current approach to free spinning the hinge can turn a full 360 rather than +-90 degrees. Still something to consider though.

Hi Sirkut, Just a query, will you be including the reversed gantry myself and others edited cfg's to create? It would certainly be useful to have official ones (for .craft file sharing etc). I suspect the surface attachment point will either need to be changed for it though.

Thanks! It turned out a lot better than I expected . I think it would need a few more lights and explosions to truly fit with the rest of the "attractions" at Jebland though. Surprisingly no Kerbals were injured!

Thanks for the suggestion. OBS worked like a charm! Well, it took me a lot longer to record and edit than I planned but here we go. Enjoy Btw, this is actually a real attraction: It visited my town once when I was a kid, and was the most awesome ride at the whole fairground! This came a close second though :

Pure Brilliance! This has inspired me to devise my own attraction. Haven't got time for videos tonight so the 48 Kerbals will have to wait till tomorrow for a test ride. They look excited for it (well some of them anyway) Btw, what video capture software have people been using? I'm getting fed up with the 30 second limit the free version of fraps offers.

You could either go with Sirkuts suggestion, or replace that middle gantry with a non-reversed one but build a support structure along the top that the other reversed rails will connect to. Essentially a cross between the two designs I show in this video. In the first design the probe is attached above the platform, and in the second design it's attached below. From what you say it seems you want the central beam of the first design and the outer rails of the second.

You need to follow these instructions to create a modified version of the part, whereby the rails actually become the thing that moves rather than the platform. -------------------------------------------------- Its a shame that IR or KSP doesn't currently allow for this behaviour with the current part, as that was certainly one of its planned uses when I made the original model. It may end up being a case that two versions of the gantry exist to allow for some of the existing setups people have shown, but also systems like myself and ecat have demo'ed.

Well, having a reversed version with the platform as the fixed mesh certainly simplifies matters thats for sure . I haven't had time to test if theres any knock on effects of this, but it looks promising.

Cool! I'll be eager to see what options it gives .

What, an overhead gantry like this? Knocked this up in a few minutes. I had to use extra parts and flip the outer rails around, but it's certainly possible .craft file here. @sirkut. Thinking about this. Is it perhaps possible to create a gantry version where the platform is the fixed mesh and the rail is floating, to handle situations like this? Have both as an option until the issues get fixed (if ever).

That's pretty cool actually! Simple and easy to control. I wonder what it's like if you go faster? Meanwhile I had another go at my design, adding a free spinning hinge to reduce the part count, also two extra legs for extra stability. It has a tendancy to spontaneously combust and only goes at 2m/s but other than that it's a great vehicle Edit: Page 100!!

I'm not familiar with the extra parts DR includes. What are these trusses you speak of? Ahhh!! Your telescopic pistons are clipping through each other! All those minutes I spent making scaled versions that fit perfectly inside each other, wasted Looks cool regardless though, and glad those extra gantry attachment points are already being used

Here you go Use the Stride Adjustment to change how far the legs move, and hold the I and K keys to drive it forward and back. Don't drive too fast though (10x multiplier max), the front left leg has a tendancy to spontaneously detach and I haven't figured out why.

I guess it depends whether the issue is the connection between the two sides of a joint, or between the IR and other parts. Yep . The issue with creating a true hexapod though is the lack of Inverse Kinematics within KSP, plus (as Torminator mentions) the lack of rigidity, hence the landing gear for support.

VTOL's are great fun!

Sure , send it my way. This issue is also what's holding up the bearing idea I've suggested previously as it causes it to behave like a docking washer, which isn't the intention. I have quite a bit of coding experience from other projects so I'll take a look, but it may be a limitation of KSP's part tree system .