Galane

Demonstration of "massless" TR-38-D interacting badly with TVR-2160C Mk2. It has its own curious bug, which seems to cascade down to parts connected below it. Note that when staging the tanks off the top of the Kerbodyne side boosters, only one goes instead of all four and a lot of force is projected downward, destroying the tank below. The TR-38-D's are mounted upside down so their weight goes with the fuel tanks - if the physics line is changed to 0 or commented out or deleted. Without being "massless" the TR-38-D works in either orientation, just like all the other stack decouplers. http://pastebin.com/xPHeUM64 Demonstration of the same craft, with the TR-38-D's right side up, which without the Physics Significance line would leave an extra 3.2t weight on the rocket. It stages with or without the physics line. http://pastebin.com/M2H5kzSs To demonstrate another problem, again an interaction between the "massless" TR-38-D and TVR-2160C Mk2, requires using the Bigger, Beastlier Quad Coupler upscaled version in ReStock, then attaching four Kerbodyne tanks below it with four KR-2L. Put four TR-38-D under those, four more Kerbodyne tanks and four more KR-2L. Strut as needed. With the physics line in the TR-38-D cfg file the TR-38-D's won't all trigger together. One pops then a short bit later the exhaust of the other engines explodes the others. Take out the physics line and they all decouple properly. Here's a test craft that demonstrates the TVR-2160C Mk2 bug http://pastebin.com/dA1Prjny Toss it onto the pad, throttle up then start popping the space bar. Note how the 2nd probe engine fails to activate. Revert to VAB then grab *any* one of the stages in the stack and move it anywhere else in the order. Don't do anything to the craft, just move a stage up or down. Launch again and amazingly, all four probes will separate and ignite correctly. It's one crazy weird bug in that part and it's been there since at least .21 Want weirder? Sepratrons are not affected by the bug. Could be because unlike the liquid fuel engines, they don't need an active command/control part on the probe they're attached to in order to ignite. That's the top end of my Armed Camp kinetic kill vehicle launcher (with KKVs simplified to demonstrate the bug). IIRC when I first built it, two of them wouldn't separate and activate but while re-arranging part to make it fail again all I could get was the one failure.

You can copy the game folder to another location and delete all the mods, saves etc from it to have a clean KSP to use for troubleshooting.

x86 is from the Intel 8086 CPU IBM used in their first Personal Computer, the Model 5150. It was a 16 bit CPU with an 8 bit bus, and it cost less than the fully 16 bit 8088. For some reason Intel did not continue the x88 for the fully 16 bit 80286. It should have been the 80288! There never was an 80286 with an 8 bit bus connection. The 80386 and 80486 32 bit CPUs came in 16 and 32 bit bus versions, but instead of having x86 and x88 to denote the difference, Intel appended SX to the cheaper variants, then DX to the full 32 bit versions. IIRC, use of x86 began when the first 32 bit Intel CPUs were introduced, with it being used for 16 bit software while 32 bit was x32 or just "32 bit". There wasn't much importance to it since until 1995, there was very little 32 bit software to run on computers with 32 bit Intel (or compatible) CPUs. With the advent of 64 bit Intel CPUs, and especially once Microsoft released the first 64 bit version of Windows, x86 came to be used to mean "All less than 64 bit software for the Intel compatible platform.". But in the past 20 years' very steep drop in 16 bit software, x86 = 32 bit when initially 86 meant a 16 bit CPU hobbled with an 8 bit bus. So that's how x86 came to denote a program meant for 32 bit Intel (or clone/compatible) hardware platform compatible software, because of IBM being too cheap to use the 8088 version of Intel's CPU 34 years ago.

What is PhysicsSignificance = 1 doing in the cfg for the TR-38-D? That's supposed to be a large and fairly heavy part. With each release from .24 I have commented that line out. Why? Because with it in there, it causes a heap of problems. I can build an all stock parts rocket that demonstrates how very bad it can get, then simply change that 1 to a 0 or comment out or delete the line and no problem. It took me a while to find out what exactly was causing the problem in the rocket I was building. Then I built some test rockets of all stock parts to see if the problem only manifested through scaling up some stock parts. Nope, same exact problem all stock. That's what led me to examine the cfg files for all the stack decouplers and separators. Then I saw it, the only thing the TR-38-D cfg file had which none of the others had. PhysicsSignificance = 1 Changed 1 to 0 and all my test rockets worked as built. Besides that, it's quite cheaty having a 0.8t part effectively weightless in flight. So please, Squad, change this in the next release and put out a notice advising people to edit the part.cfg in .24 through .90. It will only cure a bunch of problems people may experience using the TR-38-D in anything but a straight up single stack, or single asparagus stacks. If a TVR-2160C Mk2 is involved, it has its own little bug that can combine with the TR-38-D's as-shipped part.cfg to do some very strange things. *Going to rebuild that test craft since I've altered it significantly due to it turning out to be a good base for a heavy launcher.

@WuphonsReach Do these craft by any chance happen to include any TR-38-D? NASAmission/parts/size3decoupler Open the CFG and insert // in front of the Physics Significance line or change the 1 to a 0. Your crafts using that will gain a bit of weight but the flipping weirdness sometimes caused by having such a large part "massless" in flight will go away. None of the other separators or decouplers have that setting, I dunno why Squad put that in the TR-38-D. Yes, KSP seems to revel a bit in weirdness. When I was testing my assemble-on-site Gilly refueling lander it suddenly developed an aversion to having Quantum Struts aimed at some parts that had never given trouble before - and this was one day to the next in the same install, probably some funky interaction with one or more other mods recently updated. Was a real hair puller figuring out why the thing suddenly was spinning out of control or wouldn't maneuver correctly and would rip itself apart when hyperedited to Gilly orbit. Took off two QStruts and the problem went away. Still waiting on some mods to get sorted out for .90 so I've been working a bit on ReStock updates and fixes.

This craft is all stock parts http://pastebin.com/dA1Prjny Put it on the pad then poke the spacebar to launch the probes. Note that the engine on the second one does not activate. Revert to VAB and only shift the positions of any two of the stages in the stack. Don't alter the craft itself. Launch again and you'll find that all four probes launch properly. There's a bug somewhere with that quad adapter. I found this back in .12 (the first KSP version I used) and it's still there in .90. I tested this example craft in .25 and .90 last night to make sure the bug shows in both. It should not matter what order the couplers and engines are placed on the adapter or what order the stages are arranged. As long as the correct icons for the engines and decouplers are together in the stages, the activation should always work. Complicating debugging this is that Sepratrons are not affected. I tried swapping on small I-beams with a pair of Sepratrons in place of the liquid fuel engines, tanks and probe cores. The Sepratrons light every time, in all possible arrangements. I've experienced other oddities when using this adapter in rockets, which can be worked around by altering the order in which parts are attached and/or staging order while achieving the same final construction. If the bug is fixed, there would be no need to do such fiddling because there wouldn't be the possibility of stumbling upon a configuration that does not work but should with this adapter in the build. The Tri and Bi couplers should also be examined to see if they have the same or similar issue.

Here's an all stock test craft demonstrating the sequential staging bug in the stock 1-to-4 adapter. http://pastebin.com/dA1Prjny Saved in .25, tested in .25 and .90 to verify the bug in both versions. Swap the positions of any two stages in the stack in the VAB and all four will fire correctly. Leave it as it is and the second stage will not activate the engine. It doesn't affect Sepratrons, just liquid fuel engines. I just tested it many times in both KSP versions to verify that swapping *any two* stage stack positions will have the probes launching in the assigned order while leaving it as-built causes the second probe's engine to fail to activate. Why? I dunno. Bugs tend to be that way. Tricky bastards. Been there since at least .21, which is the first version I used and when I noticed this problem. If it can be fixed by making changes to the cfg files for those adapters, then I'll apply that to the ReStock part. Fixing the original? That's up to Squad, or individuals to do on their own if a fix is found. If you want, I can re-build a sure-fire-fail rocket with all stock parts, using Kerbodyne stacks hung off the sides of small stacks below this quad adapter. But it will only exhibit the failure if the Kerbodyne decoupler has the Physics Significance = 1 line left active. Should also be able to replicate the partial stage separation failure with the massless Kerbodybe separator used below the Bigger, Beastlier adapters. 'Course those issues are easily fixed by removing the physics line.

I found the original download file. http://partsbyemc.com/pub/uploads_2013_10_kommitstockalike_struts_v0.1.zip which has this single line license. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. So there shouldn't be a reason it can't be added to this mod, bug-fixed of course.

There is some stock issue with the 1-to-n adapters, especially when stages are attached radially to tanks attached to the bottom sides of the adapters, or if the adapters are used upside down. I first notices that with this project in the version with the four missiles. Switch around the order of the four missile stages and the decouplers will not trigger. I built an all stock parts rocket in .25 with the 1-to-4 adapter then used radial decouplers to mount Kerbodyne tanks to the sides of the tanks attached to the bottom of the decoupler. Those side boosters had second tanks atop them, with the big decouplers and plenty of Sepratrons to kick them away. With the decouplers right side up it worked. Flip them upside down to drop their weight with the tanks and it all goes worng. The same node order issue appears, not because of staging individually, but because the Kerbodyne size decouplers have Physics Signifigance set to 1 so they have no mass in flight. (Cheaty by default!) The problem also manifests when using an up-scaled version of the 1-to-n adapters to fit Kerbodyne tanks. With Physics Significance left at 1, those decouplers directly in line beneath those adapters will not all activate. One will, the next stage engines will, but the other 1, 2 or 3 big decouplers fail. *big explosion* as the engine flames destroy the decouplers. So if you are having staging problems using the kerbodyne decoupler in anything but a single stack rocket or in an asparagus rocket where Kerbodyne size stacks are not attached below a stock 1-to-n adapter, you need to enable Physics Significance in the Kerbodyne decoupler. Squad has kept that error in .90 and I don't know why. Those decouplers are supposed to be heavy parts that require appropriate rocket design to account for the mass, unlike struts and various other small parts. None of the other decouplers or stack separators has that setting and they cause no issues in any configuration I've used them in. As long as you're not trying to do sequential staging off the bottom of a 1-to-n adapter (right side up or otherwise) there shouldn't be a problem - unless by some weird thing the latest KJR is interacting with the bug in how the multi-node side of those stock adapters operates?

Forgot to mention I found the issue with using the Kerbodyne parts. Squad has made the big decouplers physics-less in flight. Find the CFG file for the part and delete the Physics Significance line, or change the 1 to a 0 or put // in front of the line to comment it out. When I found that in .24 I told Squad about it but they've kept that in there. still there in .90. Rather cheaty to have those large decouplers having no mass! It also causes plenty of problems if you're using Kerbodyne parts in anything but single stack rockets or as a single core stack of an asparagus rocket. Don't even think about top-staging drop tanks with those upside down until you fix the Physics Significance line.

A girder cube to match the stock girders. Kommit made this http://partsbyemc.com/pub/kommit_stockalike.rar some time ago. It works but is difficult to get attached until it has been rotated a few times. Dunno why.

Page 42 of this document shows the exact dimensions used for the isogrid panels for the floors and walls in Skylab.

Another small update, another part or two added. Oh, look, PoleCat EZ's original ReStock thread, for history buffs. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/47496-Testers-Wanted-ReStock-Add-on-(WIP)

That works, despite the "fail" warning when engaging differential throttle on the pad. It will even make it to a 71 KM orbit. You've also managed to create another craft that MechJeb cannot land. (Or at least cannot land from a 71 KM orbit.) It flails about, twisting and turning, making erroneous "corrections" in every direction except the one that will take it down to KSC. The last time I tried it, I gave up on landing guidance, used SASS to aim retrograde and did a manual burn to get the end of the trajectory close to KSC. Missed it by that much. *sploosh* I let it flounder too long, wasting fuel, so it ran out before it could correct course enough. If I had Hyperedit on .90 I would have refilled the tanks to see how/if it could have landed. I tried moving all leftover fuel into the center tank, which did enable it to turn quicker. I also tried turning off differential throttle once it had dropped all the tanks. I noticed that in the craft's final configuration, with differential throttle on, the craft would pitch or yaw under part thrust as though it wasn't balanced. With that setting off it was more stable. Well, now to update from build 376 to 378. Hooray for editable ascent guidance force roll degree!

How about an example craft on which differential throttle works? It doesn't work on the stock Learstar. I tried angling the two engines on the shuttle and setting their throttle limits up from 34 to 100. I also tried removing one of the engines and leaving the remaining one angled just to see if it would not fail. Then I tried this, launched with the added tank empty. Modified_Learstar by g_alan_e, on Flickr The single engine on the shuttle is angled towards the centerline, but still differential throttle doesn't work. MechJeb did manage to fly it to orbit anyway, which it can't do with that craft in the configuration provided with the game. There was some off-axis pitching a few times but nothing the RCS mono and vernor thrusters couldn't handle. While there was enough air, it managed using aero controls. It did have a bit of trouble rolling, likely would have flown better if it could be set to roll 180 so the thrust of the shuttle engine would work against wing lift and gravity. Does differential throttle not work if there are solid fuel rockets on the craft? Could they be ignored by the option or used as the "reference thrust" around which liquid fuel engines get adjusted?

Differential throttle? Oh yeah. Can MechJeb handle the stock Learstar shuttle now? One of the first things I did after installing .90 was to launch that, no mods at all. I just turned on SAS and let it go straight up until it began to get unstable. Cut throttle, dumped the booster and was going to let it crash... "I wonder if I can land this thing myself..." TERRAIN *woop-woop* *PULL UP!* Too bad KSP doesn't have water/shockwave interaction effects. Just missed slamming into the ocean then was able to gain altitude enough to land it on the plain outside KSC.

Here's what I have edited. Started with a copy of the TT-38K, switched model to the OKTO2. Need to test and see what setting the force to 0 does. Would be nice if that makes it stay attached. PART { name = notaDecoupler module = Part author = NovaSilisko, Galane MODEL { model = Squad/Parts/Command/probeCoreOcto2/model position = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 scale = .5, 1.0, .5 rotation = 0.0, 0, 0 } scale = 1 rescaleFactor = 1 node_attach = 0.01, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0 //fx_gasBurst_white = -1.16832, 0.0, -0.0826454, -1.0, 0.0, 0.0, decouple sound_vent_large = decouple TechRequired = stability entryCost = 1200 cost = 25 category = Structural subcategory = 0 title = NOTA Decoupler manufacturer = Alan Aerospace Recycling & Packaging description = The NOTA is not a decoupler. Nothing can be connected to it. Its sole reason for existing is to ensure that autopilots do not prematurely activate engines. AARP's engineers are attempting to make it stay attached to the rocket after activation so it doesn't become more debris in space. attachRules = 1,1,0,0,1 mass = 0.005 dragModelType = default maximum_drag = 0.2 minimum_drag = 0.2 angularDrag = 1 crashTolerance = 8 maxTemp = 3200 stagingIcon = DECOUPLER_HOR PhysicsSignificance = 1 stageOffset = 1 childStageOffset = 1 MODULE { name = ModuleAnchoredDecoupler anchorName = anchor ejectionForce = 0 explosiveNodeID = srf } MODULE { name = ModuleTestSubject // nowhere: 0, srf: 1, ocean: 2, atmo: 4, space: 8 environments = 15 useStaging = True useEvent = False }

What I want to do is cfg mod a stock part as a "throwaway" decoupler to which nothing can be attached, and also be physics-less in flight, and not actually separate anything from the craft so it creates no debris. The purpose of it will be to have a 'control module' that can be stuck anywhere on a rocket then put its icon into a stage with engines. That will satisfy MechJeb's requirement to have a decoupler or separator in any stage with engines so that its auto staging will not fire engines prematurely. One use for it would be to block MJ from firing sepratrons intended to be used for deorbiting. Mount some of those pointing upwards along with a small probe body and one of these little gizmos, then put the icons for the sepratrons and non-decoupler way up high in the stack. MechJeb's auto staging will then "skip over" their physical location. After the payload is in orbit the player can switch to the spent stage, orient it for deorbit and smack the spacebar to fire the sepratrons. Integrating decoupler technology into the Sepratrons would serve the purpose, but a standalone device would work for any craft design. Sticking on an extra TT-38K works but it has mass, drag and pops off a piece of debris.

Looks like the issue is that you can't use IR to move docking ports at all, even with normal parts between the port and the IR parts. It used to be possible, some versions back. I built a Kethane mining rover for Mun to dock to a lander with 32K Kethane capacity. Getting the ports to connect required getting the elevation and hinge angle of the arm right, backing up the rover then driving at it almost fast enough to knock the lander over. Didn't save enough fuel leaving the large drills off the lander to be worth the bother. Now if there was a way to launch a KAS grapple and release it without needing a Kerbal on-site...

So that's why the MK3 cargo bays are missing textures in .90, without any mods.

Just adds a bunch more parts, without adding more parts. It's all done with cfg files that adjust the sizes and specifications of stock parts. Some of the parts allow building rocket configurations not possible with only the stock parts.

Just put the basic version on .90 32bit on Windows. No other mods but KJR, ReStock Ninety and MechJeb. It makes the stock toolbar MechJeb button blurry.

Pictures! More parts too! Same link as before. These three examples are packed with ReStock Ninety. They all have the AR202 case from MechJeb attached. You'll also want Kerbal Joint Reinforcement. For some reason, without KJR, they sometimes come apart after reaching orbit when MechJeb starts to do the circularization burn. Dunno why, when the ascent is a heck of a lot more strenuous. Testing the ThunderMax to dual Rockomax adapter. ReStock90-JPN1 by g_alan_e, on Flickr Testing the ThunderMax to triple Rockomax adapter. Attempting to get the long ThunderMax to orbit with more efficient engines on it for use as a tanker. Still needs some work. It's called the JPN2 but below the adapter has been through about 6 total redesigns. If I'd put Mainsails under the ThunderMax... it would make a poor tanker. ReStock90-JPN2 by g_alan_e, on Flickr Testing the ThunderMaximus to triple Kerbodyne adapter. ReStock90-OMG-Max1 by g_alan_e, on Flickr After I got this adapter modded, I stuck it under the short ThunderMaximus tank, put three of the shortest Kerbodyne tanks under it with three of the single nozzle Kerbodyne engines. With a Stayputnik on top and launched straight up with SAS engaged... SSTEV. Single Stage To Escape Velocity Alan Aerospace Recycling and Packaging. Bringing you ridiculously over-sized and over-powered rockets with crazy low parts counts. We couldn't have made it here without the contributions of AeroKerbin Bath Products Division. PS. I should make a ThunderMaximus to ThunderMax adapter.

The engines aren't active, yet the shaking happens only when the throttle is increased from zero.

I use this bolt circle calculator. http://theoreticalmachinist.com/BoltCircleCalc Enter the diameter, how many holes nodes you want and how many digits of precision. 4 should be good enough. Units and hole size doesn't matter, you're just using this tool to get coordinate numbers. Sooo happy KSP uses simple XYZ Cartesian style positioning for nodes, rather than whatever the heck it is it uses for part rotation/orientation.