Boomerang

Eh, I don't think too many folks want this for stock, outside of the people who are into hardcore realism. The stock reaction wheels are basically a hack so that people aren't overwhelmed by not being able to consistently rotate their crafts properly once they actually manage to get something into orbit. I'm fine with them being overpowered for the newbies, but it would also be nice to have a mod option to throw in a bit more difficulty and realism.

So, I seem to have come across an IVA-related bug or two with the AES and HERP command pods in .25. I don't have a clean save at the moment, so I'll tinker with that tomorrow if need but, but I can replicate this pretty easily. Two problems come up when either of the pods is attached to a part that already has space for crew. It doesn't occur between stock or between stock and other mod command pods. Here's a very basic set up. The stock pod is the root part: Everything looks kosher. Until you switch to the AES IVA. It ought to be looking west, towards the mountains, the same way it's sat on the runway. Instead, this happens (and does with any other parts it's attached to, occasionally showing clipped bits of the parent part). From experimenting with it, I can tell that the IVA of the AES/HERP part is facing 180º from where it ought to be. If it's facing up, the IVA will look down, etc. Then, whenever you separate the AES/HERP pod from the parent, either via decoupling or undocking, this happens (the focus is on the stock pod): The detached part's IVA remains in the corner until I go back to the space center and refocus on the root part. The AES pod showed only it's sole occupant in the lower right. However, the detached part refuses to show me the IVA via the C key and if I click the IVA button in the lower right avatar, it's facing some odd direction and only showing me terrain. Like I said, I'll do more investigating tomorrow if it's needed, but I'm exhausted right now and maybe there'll be an obvious fix to this. Thanks for all the awesome work!

Everything you want to know: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Orbit#Orbits_in_the_save_file

Thanks for the info and I'll keep an eye out for an update at some point.

I know some one out there has a WIP mod that makes craft rotation in orbit persistent and that that mod has managed to nix the 'time warp to kill rotation' bug/feature, so that's not the end of the world. I've seen plenty of discussion about our reaction wheels and how they're entirely unrealistic and how some people would like ones that need to be desaturated and such. But to the best of my knowledge, no one's working on it. I too would like to see such a thing though.

Another quick question. If there isn't a clear answer I'll start doing some more in-depth trouble shooting. But are there any common problems with having more than one part inside of a cargo bay causing all such parts to not be shielded? I'm running into this with stock and mod cargo bays both. If one part (stock or mod, doesn't matter) is attached inside the bay, it's labeled as shielded and the bay says that one part is shielded. If I do the same to the other node within a cargo bay, both parts are shielded, etc. But as soon as I attach another part to a part already within a cargo bay, all of the parts in the bay are unshielded, the bay itself says it's shielding 0 parts. That information is consistent between the editors and on the runway/launch pad. The same problem occurs when adding subassemblies to a cargo bay. Like I said, if this is a known problem, great, if not, I'm going to be starting a separate game file soon for experimenting with and I'll see if I can replicate the problem in a clean install and if so, what the conflict is.

You're telling me! I'm not even that big into the whole resource aspect, but all his little pieces are so well made. I've ditched most of the tanks and drills and such with the exception of the small parts and at least once a week I end up having to add in another new little cockpit or something. Also, to keep this sort of on-track, I can't wait for TACLS to be updated. And if anyone was curious/hadn't tried yet, TAC Self Destruct works fine in .25

When it comes to RoverDude, you pretty much have to make a habit of checking his half-dozen threads every day or you'll risk missing something awesome.

Just wanted to say thanks for the patch. I know the group of you have been at it a while, but thanks again for looking after RemoteTech!

This is entirely my own personal opinion, and I'm not a graphic designer or anything, but I liked the fairly simple look of what you've done so far. I'm a fan of that repeated texture because it fits well with stock, and like you alluded to, we don't generally look to panels for particular details. I also like seeing more of the structure of the panel. All of the 1x6 and 2x3 panels end up looking fairly magical in how they unfold due to a lack of visible support and hinges. Eh, I had a nose around for mbm2png and while it seems to still be floating about in the aether, I'm running OSX and no one got around to writing a version for that. I suppose if I'm terribly desperate to do some photoshopping of textures I could set up a dual boot. Emphasis on terribly Thanks for the info though. I usually have my hands full just creating new MODEL routes and such for when I make copy-cat parts for my own use, I can't imagine teaching myself modeling and all that, let alone then animating those parts. Makes me even more grateful for folks like you!

No hype in the build up to it and finishing/polishing all of the IVAs would make me happy.

Hey, that looks great! I don't know if you've looked at the BoxSat mod at all, but it's got a 1x3 panel with a rather different texture but a similar folding mechanism. Looks like it's the tiny sort of size that you excel at. And honestly, if I'd taken the time to actually read what was in the cfg and perhaps been a bit less eager to help spot minor problems, it wouldn't have been a thing, don't worry about a changelog. As someone who's not a modder by any means but who occasionally tinkers with editing .png/.tga textures to change the look of parts, or occasionally create similar-looking parts with different functions, is there any fairly straight forward means of converting .mbm files to an image file? If answering that would require pages of explanation, don't worry about it, I've already probably kept you from working on something

Ah, mea culpa. I got a bit over zealous deleting parts that I don't use. If I'd bothered to read the MODEL routing in the tiny radial tank cfg I would have seen that it's texture was in a separate folder. Thanks!

I used to be a bit more grumbly about science/career modes, but recently I've found that if nothing else, it makes for a nice change of pace. I naturally prefer sandbox and setting my own goals and having the freedom of design, but when my enthusiasm over that flags, I can hop onto my career save. Heavily nerfing all the rewards makes it a lot more fun/challenging as well. Once I can be bothering to set up a separate game file, I might try out BTSM for it as well, which sounds interesting.

Thank you so much for updating this so nicely. I've used different iterations of some of the vintage parts from this for so long that they pretty much are stock for me. Looks buggy before I get them into my part list. One thing I noticed though is that the model000.png for the tiny radial MP tank is all white, so that the part doesn't really have a texture. Figured that probably wasn't intentional and I hadn't seen anyone mention it yet. And using the old .tga texture results in a part that's gunmetal grey all over.

Quick question. When playing on stock-scaled Kerbin, are the default DRE settings fairly useful for use with NEAR, or are there any recommended tweaks?

This is what I've been thinking. I haven't had any kerbals ejected off hatches or ladders yet, but every time I've EVA'd, there's been entirely unnecessary motion when the kerbal ought to be holding still on the ladder. Can't hang on while moving slowly in atmo, and in orbit, they're quick to drift off the ladder, which would totally ruin missions, if I was new. Between this and the poor attaching of the Structural Wing A, combined with all the hype leading up to what's really a fairly minor update, makes this all feel very sloppy.

Just another person who likes the Hexcans well enough. Especially with some of the cool textures that have been released for all the parts.

I've just noticed this as well. It's nothing game breaking, but it's really, really sloppy and I would have expected better. The z-fighting especially looks bad and you'd think they would have take the time to make sure the edges of the parts align well. Also, related to the SP+ parts, I know PorkJet hadn't gotten around to creating the crew cabin internals (at least I didn't notice any updates as far as that went) but you'd really think with all the build up to this, they'd have insured that the part was released in stock with a decent internal. I've noticed the lack of one causes mild IVA bugs as well, if you transfer a Kerbal to the crew cabin via the new transfer method, then try to use the V key to cycle through IVA views. Just feels sloppy.

I see someone logged the problem on Github, but in case you haven't investigated yet, the MODEL lines in the AES Rack and Outrigger cfgs need to now reference "Squad/Parts/Structural/strutCubicOcto/model" rather than "Squad/Parts/Structural/strutCube/model"

Just to toss my own opinion out there, I'm fine with this change. I'd deleted the original parts that SP+ made redundant in previous versions and I'm glad that I don't need to do that now.

Chutes and ejection system both seem to work fine in .25

I understand your frustration, but at the same time, the folder-naming system was pretty crude. While it may cause you some effort, it'll make finding specific stock parts much easier in the future. We finally have descriptive titles, rather than 'Dockingport1, 2,...' or 'Panel1, 2, 3...'. In the long term, this is a good change and I don't think it was done without thought.

The compatibility checker that pops up right as the main menu shows up doesn't necessarily mean much. The game's just checking the version of the game that the mod said it was compatible with when it was released. It's entirely possible that the mod will function fine with the new version of KSP, it's just giving you a heads up that it might not.

Eh, I'm in the same boat of being perfectly happy to wait for the update sans hype and just download it when it comes out. But as annoying as OMGHYPEHYPEHYPE is, especially when it's left, right, and center on the forum and elsewhere, the people who get into it aren't hurting anyone or anything and honest, as a marketing company, it's what SQUAD wants. Everyone knew it was more than likely going to come out this Tuesday or next, so it's not a big deal to just check back every day or every other one and ignore the hype.