evilphish

Is it possible to disable the spare chutes "feature" if one is only using FAR but not real chutes in addition? Right now all the "stock" chutes in the game have 5 spare chutes and as I gather this is due to the real chutes lite implementation inside FAR. I would like them to have an infinite number of spare chutes as I want to add chutes on certain craft that I plan to use many times in a row. cheers phishy

Hmmm now that you mention it I think all crafts that bugged out for me had extra fuel tanks attached to the main one via symmetry.

Craft file in here http://phishtank.de/~evilphish/mftest.zip It is just a basic lander. Shouldn't require more than KW Rocketry. I think I have an antenna and a Mechjeb / Engineer module on it. If that poses a problem I can strip it down for you. Kind of in a hurry as new years celebrations are in order. If it doesn't work give me a shout and I will cook something up.

That's what I did yesterday. Designed a completely new Münar lander + lift stage and the same thing happened.

taniwha: No, all tanks on board the craft in question are still almost full. Problem is easily reproducible for me by: - launching anything into orbit around kerbin - plotting a course for a Mün encounter - timewarp to just after entering Müns SOI - quicksave - quickload -> things go ballistic If I do not quickload after launch everything is fine. Also, leaving to the space center and going back to the craft has the same effect as quicksaving / loading. Maybe something is messed up during the save/load of the craft?

I don't know whether this is a new version or basically the pre-release from the original thread. Just checked on another flight to the Mün and the Problem I described here is still the same. It is definately - as another user mentioned - connected to quicksave and quickload. I went for a flight to the Mün and had to quickload as the landing was somewhat dreadful. After the quickload to the place where I had just entered Müns SOI things went ballistic again. If you need further info let me know.

My bad, here is a zip of the two files, one with and one without MF. http://phishtank.de/~evilphish/output_logs.zip Regarding your inquiry further down, I am not using stretchy tanks. I use the following mods: Kethane KSPInterstellar InfernalRobotics PreciseNode RemoteTech2 SCANsat TextureCompressor EditorExtensions EnhancedNavBall B9Aerospace KWRocketry DockingPortAlignment Engineer FAR KAS KerbalAlarmClock KJR AlternateResourcePanel MJ2 ProceduralFairings TacFuelBalancer ModularFuels (the basic one without real fuels) I also spent some time (about a day in fact) removing mods, restarting KSP, re-adding them to find the mod that actually does this. No matter which mods I have installed, as soon as I add ModularFuels and I go to space towards the Mün things go haywire. As soon as I remove it I can play for hours without any hicup. I can reliably reproduce the erratic behaviour and as soon as I load up KSP, load the save and enter the ship that has just entered Müns SOI things go ballistic. As I am still very early in the TechTree, the vessel that started acting weird did not have a lot of mod parts on it. Most was stock appart from a KW Fuel Tank and the odd antenna. Also I did not alter the fuel inside the tanks using MF at that point. I used the parts as they come straight off the part list. If it is of any help I can offer to show the behaviour using twitch.tv or I can zip up my whole KSP installation including the save and put it on a secure part of my webspace for you to download (if that is ok with SQUAD, I assume since you have bought it and I have bought it this should be doable in the name of bugfixing).

Regarding my previously experienced bug. I noticed that the warning messages stay when I delete ModularFuels and start the game without it, so that obviously can't point into the right direction. However upon deletion again, the bug is gone, so it has to have something to do with MF. I comprised the ksp logs with and without MF if you want to check for differences: With MF: http://phishtank.de/~evilphish/KSP.log Without MF: http://phishtank.de/~evilphish/KSP_withoutMF.log

If I remove Modular Fuels, the bug does not appear. If I re-add it after that, the bug immediately comes back. KSP Log as follows: (Interesting stuff, at least from my point of view, starts at 13:51:44.212) http://phishtank.de/~evilphish/KSP.log (Forum would not let me post it as it is too large apparently ^^) Edit: I am using the basic version of modular fuels, as in without RealFuels.

Another bug incoming: In orbit around the Mün my craft sometimes spontaneously disappears, quicksave and return to space center are not possible due to the craft being "under acceleration" all the time. This problem is also reproducible if I enter map view and try to set up maneuver nodes or just hover the mousepointer a bit over the current orbit path. Weird enough, I have not used ModuleFuels to change any of the quantities in my vessels tanks. Sometimes the craft doesn't disappear but the mass is weirdly shifted, if you accelerate it starts veering to one side even though right clicking the tanks does not show anything out of balance. This is accompanied by the usual maneuver path jumping all over the place in mapview. The log shows lots of "PartModule is null" Warnings when this happens. Is this maybe the same as Honeys bug or closely related? This was tested with your latest build 10.

Bac, those are gorgeous! Absolutely what I need

I see, so that means the perceived instability "due to weight" is more a matter of the rest of the structure (i. e. wings) bending under the weight, therefore angling the gear, therefore destabilizing the whole thing in the process?

Interesting. Just out of curiosity and if you don't mind my asking, how does KSP determine the "stiffness" of a part or a connection?

So you are not able to increase stability as much as you want since there is a cap of sorts?

Is it possible to do just a multi-axle model but have only one axle actually active? Stiffness and brake power, etc could then be increased to match a 3-axle gear or so. I have no idea if that is possible but I guess most players do not care for actually having 3 axles but to get a gear that can take more weight and doesn't look out of place.

Oh I'm not trying to run a reactor with one inline radiator in space. I just wanted something that can saturate the radiator quickly to test how much it actually cools. Due to KSPI I need to redesign my RT communication sattelites as the current ones do not have radiators and are slowly starting to melt ^^ Of course I want to keep the mass down as much as possible so I kind of need to figure out what the maximum cooling amount in space is with certain radiator types. These will only be used to cool heat due to the solar panels on the satellites. If there is a thermal mechanics change coming I probably should delay the whole thing and wait what you come up with. Will it be somewhat clearer to see for example if a certain radiator would be enough to keep 2 1x6 panels in check or in what way are you going to modify the temperature difference relationship if I may ask? On a different topic: I have so far failed to find any information on what the benefits are if you run a reactor on Th instead of U. I read something about getting "more thrust and a bit more ISP" but can you give me something more concrete? I.e. does it generate more heat but the fuel doesn't last as long or how does it work exactly?

My test setup consisted of a 1.25 m Reactor and waste heat was building up faster than I could dissipate it with the 1.25 m inline radiator displaying the 0.527 MW. This way I could make sure that enough waste heat was there to saturate the radiator. It still never went to 0.941 MW. Regarding the panels production I noticed that for all the stock panels the amount of heat generated is half the energy output in kW, is that correct?

I noticed a discrepancy between the displayed values for radiators and their actual cooling. I.e. with the 1.25m inline radiator it says in the VAB 0.941 MW radiated. If I use it I actually only get a power radiated readout of 0.527 MW both in space and on kerbin at sea level. Of course at sea level you also get convected power of about 180 MW but where do the 0.527 MW come from and if that is the maximum it can actually radiate why doesn't it say so in the VAB? If you want to plan ahead how much cooling you need for, lets say 2 1x6 solar panels, at present it is a pain to figure out which and how much cooling parts you need as there is no information about the actual cooling in the parts description. Is there a way to derive the actual power radiated from the values displayed in the VAB?

I don't know whether this is intentional or a bug but if I want to attach any type of hook to a retracted and locked winch I am unable to do so from EVA. I can do it in the VAB while constructing but once I take it off on EVA I can't put it back on. In the example image you first see the kerbal with the grapling hook picked up on his back. Right clicking the winch connector gives me the option to grab or lock the connector which doesn't help. Next I tried using attach to get the hook mounted on the winch which didn't work either (see img 2) The only way to actually get the hook onto the winch on eva without attaching the hook to somewhere else first, grabbing the cable and plugging it into the hook is described in #3 and #4. I have to extend the winch a bit, then approach it and right click the connector which then suddenly gives me the option to "plug grabbed". After that the hook is attached. Now is this the intended behaviour? I remember with one of the earlier versions of KAS (when you had the hook storage containers) you were able to just plug the hook in and take it away as you pleased even while the winch was retracted and locked. Shouldn't there be a plug grabbed option while the winch is retracted so things don't wobble about while you try to stick that hook on there?

Is there a special manual around on how to effectively use the simulation functionality of FAR in the VAB/SPH? Readme.txt only contains general hints and I guess it might be helpful to have an explanation of what you can actually achieve with the simulation tool.

@ferram: Ah that at least kinda explains it ^^ I will give this mod another try then and just ditch the inline docking port for starters

After installing I actually found some connections to actually be less rigid. For example, this is without the mod: this is the same setup after installing KJR: Did anyone else notice something similar?