Silpion

How does this work? I just sent a craft with 2 labs to Bop, and no data ever goes into one of the labs. Both are staffed with two scientists each. Whenever I click the yellow button to send data to the labs, it only goes to one of them. Also, weirdly, the data stays in its original instrument, and I'm presented with the science pop-up a second time. Clicking the yellow button again brings up an error that the science was already sent to the lab, but I can still transmit the data. The second lab just sits there idle, with no data and some hungry kerbals.

That's it, thanks. I had to add so many mods to make this work it was hard to tell what is doing what and what has changed since I last used some of these!

I have an issue to report and a question. Issue: the HECS and Octo-based probe cores seem to change size between what they are in the VAB and when I load a save out in space. The HECS shrinks and the Octo grows. Question: I'm trying to land a probe on Duna but my parachute never deploys. I get a warning that the altitude is too high. Do you know which mod is doing this and how I can fix it? I tried looking into whether it was FAR, DRE, Real Chutes, or RP-0, but can't find anything conclusive. Edit: I was able to get the parachute to deploy by manually editing the part's deployment paramters in the save file. I guess the broader question is why I'm unable to edit the deployment parameters in the VAB like I can in stock KSP.

Hey that's it, thanks. That page seems to be disconnected from the main manual page, looks like a broken link.

Question which has probably been answered, but I can't find the answer in the manual or by searching: Is the maximum range of a link between an omni antenna and a dish longer than the bare omni range, due to some gain effect? If so, how does one calculate that? I'm playing in RP-0 and my lander's Communotron-16 with a range of 4 Mm is successfully talking to a comsat's Comms DTS-M1 at a range of 4.5 Mm.

Well that's strange, because last night I had an equatorial sun orbit contract and it just wouldn't complete. I was better than 0.1% in all parameters other than LAN, and I had to open up the save file to find out what my craft's LAN was. I used my RCS thrusters to puff it into place (didn't take much, my inclination was like 0.001 or something), and then the contract completed.

A suggestion to fix the over-sensitivity to LAN in equatorial orbits: Rather than testing if the craft's LAN is within x% of the target orbit, test whether it is within something like 90*(cos(2*target_inc)+1)+180*x%. What this does: When the target is an equatorial orbit, retorgrade or prograde, then the expression is just over 180 degrees, meaning you can be at any LAN. When the target is a polar orbit, the expression is 180*x%, which I assume is your current test. The expression smoothly transitions between the two like a cosine curve (graphed for 7% as an example). These make sense because in an equatorial orbit the LAN is irrelevant, and in a polar orbit it is critical. I'm not certain whether this is the optimal expression, but I do think it's a pretty good one and much better than doing the basic direct comparison. Edit, more info on that expression: If the margin of error (x) is 3%, then my test would allow any LAN if the target inclination is < 10 deg or > 170 deg, and if 7% then < 15.5 deg, > 164.7 deg Edit2: Actually maybe we want the restriction to kick in a bit quicker than that cosine allows. You can use higher powers of the cos + 1 term and rescale to make it sharper.

I'm getting the "crashed into launch pad" bug on every single flight in which I'm using SP+ parts, whenever I leave a craft in orbit, switch to another craft, time warp, and then switch back to the SP+ craft. It either explodes immediately upon physics load, or (once) just a few seconds before I touched down on the runway after deorbiting. My only mods are KER, FinePrint, SP+, and the Firespitter DLL. I tried updating the Firespitter DLL myself to the latest version and there was no difference. Any ideas? The only other time I've seen this error is in RSS games, when the high time warp factors were used.

I'm using just the 6.4x scaling v5 with RSS 6.2 and NEAR, to give 0.24 career mode suitable difficulty. However all the launch sites are at the wrong altitudes, either hovering in the air or underground. Did 0.24 break this somehow?

There's still an RCS issue. When I turn off capsule torque, it is unable to roll, and any x or y translation is lost when the opposite thrusters fire to null the rotation.

Another thing that's strange to me is the number of up-pointed thrusters. V1 had one in each quad plus the two spares, for 6/18 thrusters. V2 has one in each triplet, plus the one on the opposite side of each nacelle, plus the two up top, for 10/18 thrusters. This leaves only 8 to point other directions, down from 12. Maybe they wanted the extra axial redundancy for safety purposes, and then the weird angles for the other 8 is for some kind of non-obvious control scheme that can make do with fewer thrusters. Maybe there are some combinations of thrusters that give zero net impulse and rotate it along unusual axes. It still seems like sideways translation would be an issue, particularly on docking approach. Maybe that's what the two on top are for, because they don't look like they're pointing straight up, but out a bit so the exhaust would miss the station.

Of course, I'm just trying to understand it.

So now that you're configuring the RCS... Do you understand how it's supposed to work? It looks to me like the roll/sideways translation thrusters will push the Dragon up and that some of the up-facing engines will have to fire just to counteract that. I can't figure out why they chose to do it this way.

Another possible error: Venera 1 in the game is 1.4 t, but in reality it was 0.643 t. Maybe the error is because it's about 1.4 thousand pounds? My Molinya replica couldn't heave it to Venus It'll have to be lighter to carry the necessary dish (edit: ) and fuel for course corrections, so maybe make it like 0.3-4 t?

Possible bug: Is Sputnik 2 supposed to lack SAS? All the other early probes have it. Made launch somewhat challenging.

Just want to make sure I didn't accidentally rub you the wrong way: I wasn't suggesting you do this yourself, but was just thinking out loud. Given the prevalence of modding it seems like Squad should maybe at some point build in some kind of mod management system to allow auto-updates or at least notifications. For now I'm quite happy to just consume these awesome mods you guys are pumping out. Great update!

Yikes, I feel dumb, this was it. Thanks! There are so many mods to keep track of now... at some point that will have to be automated somehow! Thanks everyone for their hard work making the game extra awesome.

I am using RftS. It's in the second or third liquid engines node (the 1963 one). The 1968 node contains a whole slew of engines of absurd thrust into the 10's of MN, quoting names "Artemis" and "Prometheus". I'm trying to use exactly the mod setup you specify on the front post, with only the "required" mods, plus editor tools. Oh, I followed the link from the front post of this thread, searched for the word "Soviet", and downloaded the first mod that it found. I didn't see that there was a separate engine pack. It's "Soviet Pack 2.0" vs "Soviet Engines Pack V1.0" both on the same page. So that explains that part at least, thanks.

So just checking to make sure I'm not doing something wrong, but are all of the mercury / gemini / apollo parts lacking their realism? They all seem significantly underpowered and undersized, and using the stock fuels. If you just haven't gotten around to them yet, maybe those nodes could be labeled so we don't unlock them uselessly? For example I see some realistic gemini engine parts in the RftS config, but the parts which show up in the tech tree are different. When I build a Gemini and Titan II, I only get about 6 km/s delta-V. Also I get a lot of Soyuz and Mir parts unlocking right form the get-go, which I doubt was the intent? There's also some other wonkiness with the tech tree, like getting certain fairing parts before getting the bases needed to use them (and the AIES fairing separation motor is stuck with the SRB's instead of the fairings). There are also some crazy powerful engines showing up early which seem out of place, like the LR18-4. I love this mod, it's just hard to tell at this stage which parts are supposed to be used and which aren't. Let me know if I can help in some way.

Don't know if this is part of the same bug or not, but the Mars 1 LS experiment won't go either. It gives different errors depending on whether you're in high space or low space, and sometimes the button just disappears.

I'm also stuck on Luna 1. The probe never enters the Flying High situation, it transitions directly from InSpaceLow to FlyingLow at 7 km, so there is never an opportunity to release the chemical or do the impact experiment.

An alternative to having it deploy in the VAB is if they could edit the model such that it is in the correct arrangement by default. Edit: oh, that's what you meant by Yogui away. Well crap.

Hi, I'm trying to to a recreation of Voyager in Real Solar System, and I want to use the Hermes. It's a beautiful model, but unfortunately it appears that the initial orientation of the hinged booms interfere with a realistic solid upper stage as was used in the real mission (figure (right)). Is there a simple way to have the initial positions of those two booms be about 20 degrees more open?

So do we have to install those modules separately, or can they be packaged in with RO somehow?

I'm playing with including Vernier engines, but they seem to be incapable of roll control as with KSP engines in general. However I noticed earlier that the Space Shuttle Engines mod engines are apparently capable of roll control. Is there a way of integrating that capability into RO so we can have roll control during launch without RCS?