Bishop149

Oh FFS, I was just about getting used to the idea that aerocapturing flimsy spacecraft was a best dangerous and at worst suicidal and now you tell me I can't even aerocapture a giant lump of rock. I think the rejigged heat mechanic has just crossed my personal threshold of: Realism is good! vs Game mechanic is no fun!

Really? I find around a value of about half that (0.3) is good for guaranteed safe chute deployment on Kerbin when using a standard shallow re-entry profile, it equates to about 7 -8 km up.

I launched my heaviest most expensive mission to date in my career game, designed to deliver 3 ion power satellites to Jool in one shot. Mission had quite a lot of issues, one of which was the interplanetary stage coming up short on DeltaV for the Jool burn due a bug in Engineer Redux. So I separate the Sats to finish the Jool burn under their own power, shouldn't be an issue, they have tons of Ion based DeltaV themselves. . . . Only to find I can't control them, they don't even show up in the flight window. . . . . because they are debris . . . . not one of the Sats had a probe core. Which is weird because they were attached as a sub-assembly which when I checked said assembly it most definitely DID have a probe core. Still could have been worse, if it wasn't for that DV shortfall I wouldn't have noticed until planned separation upon entering Jools SOI

Problems I had a ship designed to deliver some Ion Drive powered satellites to Jool, using separate interplanetary stage. The DeltaV calculations for the interplanetary stage are all wrong (both in VAB and in flight). Around 3000 m/s was listed for the stage, but it ran out of fuel after 1,700 m/s. The burn times were also way off. The stage was initially built using some Interstellar (extended) bits so I wondered if there was some incompatibility going on, stage was rebuilt using stock components with a similar result. I seem to remember that a long time back in Engineer there was an issue with combining Ion and regular propulsion in the same craft (even if in different stages) that led to these kind of issues but I thought that bug had been long since squished? Maybe it's back? Edit: Actually, looking a few posts back, maybe it's this? My ship also has multiple payloads, each with a staged separation, and whilst mine do have propellant its all Xenon. From reading above it seems dead mass causes an issue for KE's stage calculations but surely just a different propellant should be easy enough for it to work out?

I agree, however its simplicity itself to remove it if you don't like it. . . . in fact I have just done so from those I'd like to use. Good work GreeningGalaxy! Have some rep.

x64, multithreading and general improvements in stability would do me. Oh and faster load time would be nice. I'd kinda like proper n-body physics too but that's not gonna happen. Pretty mush everything else I could want can be accommodated by mods

Ok have done some more testing and it appears to be a quirk of the vessel in question. The sat in question has an M-700 scanner and is currently in a 200km polar orbit around Ike. Whatever the general ScanSat settings, the "Start Resource Scan" does not appear as an option for the part. The only option displayed is "Deploy / Retract Scanner". As far as I can see there no reason for the option to be missing. A fresh copy of the sat sitting on the launchpad however does not seem to have any issues so potentially it only affects probes I sent on their way prior to updating ScanSat. I have a few more but they are all in transfer orbits over the sun so not in a position to test.

Upgraded to the dev version a few days ago and then this one this morning. In both versions I can't seem to get Resource scanning working, at least with my current ScanSats that all have the M700 Survey Scanner. I'm not entirely clear on exactly what all the settings do exactly, I'm probably doing something stupid. Settings are as follows: Resource Biome Lock - Checked Instant Resource Scan - Unchecked Requires Narrow Band Scanner - Unchecked Disable Stock Scanning - Checked From the info on the OP might it be the "Resource Biome Lock"? Does that mean you have to land a suface scanner before the orbital ones will work?

Rescue missions within Kerbin's sphere of influence are probably my most reliable source of funds. . . . I do rather a lot of them. As a result my space program is becoming very female heavy, I dunno if this is a general known bug or not but in my game at least the stranded Kerbals are exclusively female. Anyone else?

I do that too. . . all my lifters are designed to put the payload in a ~ 100km apoapsis / 65km periapsis Kerbin orbit, I then do the final push to 0 eccentricity using a tiny amount of the payloads delta V, leaving the lifter in a decaying orbit. Whats more if I am unable to do that, I usually attach a nice slab of C4 (KAS/KIS) to the bit that will end up as litter and send a Kerbal on EVA to blow it up after payload separation. NO LITTERING! - I have a habit of rather ummm overdoing the deltaV of my missions . . . . if a mission in theory requires minimum 4000k d/V and I'll take 6000. . . . often more like 8000. Call it paranoia, it does give my missions a large amount of flexibility and tolerance of screw ups and I've yet to strand a Kerbal anywhere so maybe paranoia is good. - Its a hang over from when I couldn't do docking (now I could do it in my sleep) but I STILL have a tendency to design all-in-one interplanetary stage / landers. Its dreadfully inefficient and I really must get over it. - I dislike long periods of high time acceleration, you know to hurry along interplanetary transfers. It always feels like somehow wasting time and that my space program really should be DOING something rather than twiddling its collective thumbs until that probe gets to Jool. . . .

It looks a damn sight nicer as well. I had a go replicating this last night, after initially looking at isp's I started making something very similar to your LFO lander . . . . stopped halfway through after it broke the fugly threshold. Then I made the monoprop version, after additionally cramming it with as many science instruments as I could fit and some parachutes it has 2.3k d/V Nice, I'm gonna send a few to Duna.

Thanks, that seems to have worked for Pilots and Scientists but for some reason all my Engineers are wearing the Pilot suit . . .. which is odd. been through the .cfg file I made and the suit file names a fair few times looking for errors, couldn't find any. . . . confused. I'll post code later. Didn't actually modify @Default.cfg, I made my own little .cfg file that I'll stick all my game specific stuff into

I use them to return all those kerbals stuck in kerbin orbit to the ground They are usually in a command pod of some description, I use KAS/KIS to strap on a Puff and a parachute then use the pods monoprop supply to nudge them into a sub orbital trajectory. Jobs a good 'un and I can rescue loads of the buggers from a single launch. I like Frank's Lander. . . I might replicate it!

Since 1.0.4 we've had to become much more careful about when to deploy our parachutes. Handily squad put a readout in the parachute sub menu telling you if its safe to deploy or not. . . problem is its buried in that submenu I'd like a mod to take that readout and make it far more visible. The way I currently do it is is to right click a parachute and keep that menu open throughout the whole decent which is messy and and a PIA. Surely it shouldn't be too difficult to take the readout from whatever variable is giving safe, risky, unsafe and convert it into a traffic light signal for each chute. I guess ideally I'd display it next to the relevant chute in the staging set up down the left hand side but I'm guessing that would be tricky. Alternatively just a window containing a readout on the "safe status" of each stage containing parachutes.

A probably stupid question but I can't work it out from the OP How do I assign a suit to a particular class? Pilot, engineer etc

With the advent of 1.0.4 parachutes have become a little trickier to use due to their breaking at anything other than quite low speed. It seems that 250 m/s [surface] is the magic speed at which normal chutes are safe to deploy, 500m/s [surface] for drogues. Is this true of every situation? I've only tested on Kerbin. Also I've had a go at deploying a number of times under "risky" . . . chutes destroyed every single time. Is "risky" in fact any different from "unsafe"? If not why does it even exist?

So I see the problem I'm having (parts reverting to normal size) is a known bug For some clarification does this only happen on the root part? How about parts attached to the root part? If it follows such rules I guess it's easy to avoid. I've noticed that radially attached parachutes seem especially prone to it!

Well I said I'd do it, below is the first draft: NOTES - The Peroxide process shown is not that currently in the game but instead represents what this process should be! The version currently in the game uses H2 and NH3 to make H2O and monopropellant. This is chemically incorrect and mixes the stock an interstellar resources. . . . and not in a useful way! I hope Freethinker will correct this in a future version. - The Sabatier process does not work unless the CO2 is atmospheric. - The following processes have not been tested (by me) so I can't voucher for their working / accuracy. Reprocess Nuclear Fuel Uranium Tetrafluoride Ammonolysis Aluminum Electrolysis (I'm not even sure this one is still in the mod or at all useful if it is!) I plan to improve the chart in the future as follows: - Add the power requirements of each process - Colour code the resources based upon where they can be found But haven't yet done enough in game testing to be sure on the details of these bits.

Further too my work to try and recreate the resource diagram I have come across the following refinery related issues: 1) I think the Anthraquinone Process is broken. AFAIK it requires H2 and O2 to make H2O2. . . . when I provide it with a half full tank of each the process will start but will not run due to "insufficient Storage". I have played around with various tank configurations with no joy. 2) I can not get the Sabatier Process to run at all, again AFAIK it requires CO2 and H2 to make H2O and CH4; I provide with with all it should need and it doesn't come up as an option to run. 3) I will have to confirm this with a further test but I think the peroxide process is incorrect. I have it down as NH3 + H2 producing H2O and monopropellent (hydrazine) From what I read about the real chemistry it should be NH3 + H2O2 producing monopropellent (hydrazine) + H2O. A balanced equation (excluding all the catalysts and intermediates) would be 2NH3 + H2O2 --> N2H4 + 2H2O. Additionally the process in game produces monopropellant (which it calls "monopropellent (hydrazine)") might I suggest that if you wish to keep interstellar / stock fuels separated the process be also rejigged to produce hydrazine? Personally I'd be in favor of Interstellar just replacing monopropellant with hydrazine throughout but this is obviously more work! Also the second smallest stackable (16?) interstellar fuel tank behaves strangely, it appears as 2.5m but as soon as you click it becomes 1.25m. Also when set to Hydrogen peroxide it doesn't seem to contain any. Hope that's helpful

A couple of things spring to mind - Is the Kerbal doing the work an engineer? - Does said kerbal have the spanner/screwdriver in his/her inventory and is it equipped? If it is it will have "equipped" written across it in yellow writing. If it's not it can be toggled to equip by right clicking it in the inventory panel.

Is this mod being maintained at all? No disrespect meant its just its an awesome mod that is getting less and less useful with each new iteration of KSP, which is a shame. Even in its inaccurate state its better than nowt, can't imagine KSP without it and am hopeful of an update!

Yeah I was aware of that, but its all rather outdated as it refers to the original KSP-I I have decided to take the bull by the horns myself and try and work it all out myself and hopefully redo that resource diagram. A few things I have noticed during the process - Where is Hydrogen Peroxide? It's a resource / product of a number of the reactions but I can seem to find a tank to hold the stuff. Its possible that its my career game and I haven't unlocked the tank yet but that seems unlikely. I will check in sandbox. - KSP-I-E's resource system does not mesh with the stock which is ok but a little irritating, a few suggestions? 1) Simplest thing would be to add KSP-I-E resource extraction to the stock drills, I think it would be especially good to allow the drill to extract water from land at a much higher efficiency that the refinery alone. This should be pretty easy . . . I may even do it myself. 2) More complicated would be to fit the resources extractable by the KSP stock system into the KSP-I-E resource system. "Monopropellant" is almost certainly Hydrazine "Oxidiser" is almost certainly Liquid Oxygen Original KSP-I decided that "Liquid Fuel" was liquid Hydrogen but this is debatable it could be kerosene for example. I'll keep working on an update to the Wiki.

This never seemed to get an answer, might I second it? Can't seem to make head nor tail of the refineries.

Been trying to use this utility to convert some very old textures I'm using. Problem is the original textures are .jpgs It doesn't seem to matter how I convert them to .pngs the utility will not process the resulting png correctly. . . . . I get a dds file that is mostly transparency with a white rectangle taking up the left hand side of the image for every one. When I use it one some textures that where .png to start with it works fine.

Quick question If I turn off a satellites only transmitter, will I be able to turn it on again? I ask because I have a contract that won't complete. The task is to set up a 3 sat network and specifies that all the 3 sats must be connected to each other at all times, which they should be able to it's just I have other sats in orbit, and the signals often seem to prefer routing through these, rather than using all three in the contract network. I was thinking about turning off the alternatives routers. . . . but am worried I'll them permanently lose them.