Bishop149

In my game at least since the last 2 updates (that came is swift succession, I only installed the latest) I appear to have completely lost the the particle bed reactor from the VAB. It still appears in the tech tree and has still been researched although there it has been renamed "pebble bed". TBH I'm too scared to switch to any of my ships that already contain one (most of them!) for fear of a savegame corrupting bugger up. Edit: Oh FFS, mystery solved it's been moved! It now appears for me in BOTH "Nuclear Fuels Systems" AND "Improved Nuclear Power". The latter of which I've unlocked the former I've not. That's really bloody irritating, almost all of my craft use it (best reactor I thought I'd unlocked) and I'm not likely to get the 500 odd science points needed to re-unlock it for ages. Sod it I'm modding it back to where it was, my space programs essentially crippled if I leave it.

Indeed All hail the Cubic Octagonal Strut! And for similar reasons, all hail the small nose cone! These two parts with their ability to be radially attached adding attachment nodes without using any up make them some of the most useful parts imaginable. . . . the smallest circular RCS tank also has it, but I use it much less frequently.

Nah, doesn't work, even when I maintain the file structure and filename of the LFO file, oh I also realised that the ratio should be 0.25 not 4. . . . . . but anyway, irrelevant as it doesn't work. Clearly I should leave it to someone who knows what they're doing! Edit: Ok, editing the individual part.cfgs in exactly the same way does work. Guess I'll do that for now as I can't work out the "Extras" file. In terms of balance, when running on Hydrolox the engine produce slightly more deltaV for and equivalent weight of ship, however larger fuel tanks are needed due to both the reduced density of LqdOxygen compared to Oxidiser and the fact it burns at a ratio 0.25 rather than 0.1. I'm happy it doesn't really unbalance anything.

Ok hows this: // Sets cryoEngines to use Liquid Hydrogen / Liquid Oxygen @PART[cryoengine-125-1] { @MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX] { @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] { @name = LqdOxygen @ratio = 4 } } } @PART[cryoengine-125-2] { @MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX] { @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] { @name = LqdOxygen @ratio = 4 } } } @PART[cryoengine-25-1] { @MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX] { @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] { @name = LqdOxygen @ratio = 4 } } } @PART[cryoengine-25-2] { @MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX] { @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] { @name = LqdOxygen @ratio = 4 } } } @PART[cryoEngine-375-1] { @MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX] { @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] { @name = LqdOxygen @ratio = 4 } } } @PART[cryoengine-375-2] { @MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX] { @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] { @name = LqdOxygen @ratio = 4 } } } I edited the LFO file in the extras folder, if I've interpreted it correctly this should simply change Oxidizer to Liquid Oxygen, have it burn 4 units of LO2 for every unit of LH2 (as the Hydrolox tanks seem to be set up in KSP-IE) whilst keeping the ISP the same (deleted the atmo curve bit). I think. . . . as I said I'm no KSP modder, and I'm sure there must be a more efficient way to make this bulk change across all the engines at once rather than one at a time!

Well, that's the next training flight planned then! Thanks for the tip

Liking the idea of this mod and it would be a very good fit for Interstellar (extended) due to Liquid Hyrdogen pretty much being KSP-IE's default fuel. Indeed you have used the fuel switch module from KSP-IE. I'd rather however the engines ran on Hydrolox (Liquid Hydrogen / Liquid Oxygen) . . . . "Oxidiser" (whatever that might be!) is not something used very much by KSP-IE which seems to like to keep the stock fuels and its own quite strictly separated. It should be pretty easy to knock up a file to replace oxidiser with Liquid O2 as you already did for LF/O . . . . in fact whilst I'm no KSP modder, from the look of the file I may be able to work out how to do it myself. I'll give it a crack.

I took pretty much my entire space program on a training flight to Minmus and The Mun. Post trip they are all now 2* . . . . I also got 500,000 from a "Do minmus and the mun with 1 craft" contract which I'd forgotten I'd accepted! Nice bonus With hindsight I should have designed the lander better, needed more thrust and lower center of gravity, only JUST had enough chutes too . . . In true Kerbal fashion it was knocked up very quickly and cheaply.

Rosetta / Philea is the most recent example and whole remote landing process remained terrifying for those in control and the landing didn't exactly go smoothly. The same is true for many other probes we've launched, Mars for example has had 13 "landings" . . . . 3 of which smashed into the surface at high speed, 1 burned up during reentry and 2 landed but never came back online. An ~50% success rate. Success has generally improved over time, partly due to better technology but mainly due to the data gained and lessons learned from the failures. We've a long way to go before probes are intelligent enough to pull of flawless high speed maneuvers in complete radio silence in an only partially defined environment. Even the maneuvers that are currently pre-programmed are adjusted and tweaked by mission control right up to the last possible second!

Yep, also anything that's assigned to an action group can be pre-programmed to occur after a specific time eg. parachute opening. This can be tricky though, the way I currently do parachutes on probes I may lack a connection to during decent is by tweaking the Deploy altitude and pressure settings of the chute so it opens once safe automatically. I then "deploy" them in space before I get anywhere near the target. Landings then occur completely without user input, which is often required anyway because flimsy deployed sat dishes aren't gonna survive re-entry! I'm guessing the same trick could be used in the stock version

No signal delay but the stock version will have signal occlusion (but only from nearby bodies apparently), so a flight computer is required if you ever want to burn on the "wrong" side of a planet. It is a fairly major oversight IMO.

Must admit I'm a little offended on your behalf here guys. Squad decide to Stock a version of the very thing you've been doing admirably for years and don't even deign to give a brief nod in your direction? It seems bizarre to me that at some point in Squad the following conversion must have been had. - "So Remote tech is cool, how about we integrate a dumbed down version it into stock?" - "Shall we ask the chaps at RT if they want to be involved?" - "Nah, lets talk to the guy that made Karbonite" In fact its so bizarre I can't credit it, I'm guessing they asked you and you said no, further guessing you're not allowed to talk about it. Well, you get credit in my head at least chaps.

Coming next from Squad: SatScan! Scan planets with a range of sensors from orbit to make cool maps and hunt for resources also new science parts for orbital experiments! . . . . . (100% Squad original idea. . . . Dmagic? Who's that then?) Seriously, pretty bloody shameful that RemoteTech wasn't even nodded at in this article which I am 100% sure is where Squad go the idea from. I mean it's one of the most popular mods out there which already implements this exact thing, and from the sounds of it also does a much better job of it than the stripped out version that's becoming stock. Squad just went down quite substantially in my estimation.

Funnily enough, after initially posting this I am now getting a mix. However this change occurred immediately after I modded Contracts.cfg to increase the max number of contracts on offer. So yeah, I think there's definitely a subtle bug at work here and perhaps the way to circumvent it is to make a manual change to the contracts.cfg file?

Is there anything like this for doing multiple transfers? I recently installed outer planets and with it I think comes a real benefit to a slingshot maneuver. Previously the only real slingshot I have ever used is Eve's gravity to decelerate down towards Moho but beyond planning the Eve transit I didn't give it much further thought, the resulting orbits orbital period will be short enough to just wait for a convenient subsequent Moho alignment. However going out the other way, it gets much more time consuming. Slingshotting round Jool would be very useful to get further out, however I'd wanna be at least roughly sure where the outer planet would be along the resulting flight path. . . . if it's substantially off-target correcting would cost an insane amount of either fuel or time! Basically I'm asking if there's anyway to tell me when's a good time / alignment to launch for the following kind of flight path Kerbin --> Jool --> Outer Planet

The same as the "machine tool which rotates the workpiece on its axis to perform various operations such as cutting, sanding, knurling, drilling, or deformation, facing, turning. . . "

I killed my first Kerbal! Raty Kerman was to be rescued from orbit, parachutes were duely added to her pod and it was deorbited. Heading for splash down just east of KSC at 7 m/s. Anything less than 10 is fine right.....right? Nope, not if they're in a science lab, crash tolerance = 6 m/s.....SIX! Oh well lesson learned, sorry Raty....I was rescuing you cos I liked your name!

Will install ASAP, excellent work sir have some rep!

Installed this the other day, thinking that it would be a nice if not especially noticeable improvement, based upon the screenshots Must admit I'm pleasantly surprised how much difference to the pretty it makes! I don't think the screenshots do it justice, good work sir!

You can't basically SAS and flight computer seem mutually exclusive, both are mechanisms for controlling and holding the attitude of your ship and thus won't work together. Tell the flight computer to do anything and then try turning on SAS with T, it flashes briefly on the turns off again. The only way to toggle SAS back on again after flight computer commands I've found is: Set the flight computer to "KILL" (if it isn't already it defaults to this state after completing burns etc) The click the x in the top right hand corner of the KILL command box in the flight computer, it will then read "OFF" Now you can turn on SAS with T I think this is also partially deliberate, as has been much debated commands to the flight computer come with a signal delay manual commands and SAS don't. If for immersion / realism's sake you wanna always have the delay then use the flight computer exclusively, otherwise you can use SAS / manual commands. Personally I usually do the former but like the option of the latter in case of screw ups / can't be bothered to wait multiple signal delays do perform a very quick easy maneuver.

Suggestion: Any plans to integrate the mod with tweakscale? I shortly plan to install outer planets (having freed up some RAM usage) and many of the new planet are beyond the range of the stock dishes. There is a mod to add some dishes which I may use (or set up a relay system of some kind), but ideally I do like to keep my part count down to an minimum. Thinking along these lines an alternative would be to make the dishes tweakscaleable with mass, electricity consumption and range scaling with the size of the part, perhaps cone angle should remain the same. I'm pretty sure that just simply adding the tweakscale parameter to the part.cfg would take care of the mass . . . maybe the electricity consumption as well but the range is a Remote tech specific parameter so I don't think that would work. I don't know what would be a reasonable scaling factor for range, I'm guessing such things probably scale with the surface area of the dish? Thoughts? Difficult, not difficult? I might look into it myself.

This one? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92907-1-0-x-GCMonitor-1-2-7-A-graphic-Memory-monitor-%28July-8th%29 There are a couple of others but this seems the only one still regularly supported I don't think they are unknown, I know (because it's already been reported) there is one in a mod I use, and then there is the perpetual scene change instability with stock KSP. . . . I don't think that one is technically a leak, its been around for ever.

Question in the title basically, Windows 7 install. I don't really know how much RAM my current KSP install uses but it often crashes after a few hours of play so I'm guessing I'm running close to the limit, and various leaks push it over within that time. I'd like to install a couple of more mods that I'd predict to be memory heavy and wanna see if the Force OpenGL trick might allow it. I have read around various 'tings on t'interwebs about how to monitor the RAM usage of a process and the majority answer seems to be a windows program called "perfmon". I've had a poke at it but its rather complicated and has about 20 different variables that can be monitored for memory use alone . . . . I don't have the first clue which one to pick. (Edit: Ok, after some playing about it seems "Working Set (Private)" is the one reported by task manager so I'm guessing is the one to log with Perfmon) So how do people do it? Ideally I'd like just a nice little idiot proof stand alone utility.

I installed hot rockets. How the hell I overlooked this mod for so long is beyond me it's brilliant, memory light and makes things SO much prettier. In other news I transferred my mapping sats / eve science mission from Eve to Gilly. One of the ion sats couldn't burn off the required 800 odd m/s of dV in the less than 4 minutes of Gilly flyby time. . . . but managed to rearrange a slower intercept for later, made orbit on second attempt. Lander is hopping around mopping up science.

Excellent, thanks for that. To answer the second part of my question myself, I found the following from searching around:

Ok, I'm getting sick of certain types of contracts popping up all the time (looking at you tourists!), I hear tell you can use contract configurator to just disable certain types of contract and change the max amount offered? How might I go about this?