Beetlecat

Some of these seem pretty handy! Thanks for sharing this collection. The JNSQ CNC fixes are the same as the ones released in JNSQ 1.10.1 last week, right? At least the file looks the same. I'm also noticing a B9 thingy probably connected to the RTG integrations. I'll submit a git thingy.

Shoot -- Just confirming that in my game. I won't hold my breath for official updates (although they should, dang it can look so wonderful!), but hopefully somebody (or me) takes a stab at it by the time I start planning trips to Eve or far beyond in my current game

Is the "Simulation mode" toggle button actually functional? I was just fiddling around with something else and teleported a stock lander craft to Munar orbit, when suddenly faced with the inability to activate the landing engines! (craft also doesn't have RCS thrusters) I'm noticing that remaining ignitions and ullage requirements are still being enforced no matter which state the toolbar button is in. Does this need to be set ahead of loading/launching a craft to have an impact, or should it literally be available whenever?

I was getting frustrated trying to use vehicles from the Grounded mod with Kerbalism installed-- they have plenty of power (at the expense of fuel, of course) but B-V wasn't detecting it after a few in-game minutes. Knowing the cheat works is a fine workaround, since in-game, Kerbalism ignores the stock EC anyway, so it won't affect any craft that aren't under control of Bon Voyage. I look forward to anything new you have in mind, but for now we're in good hands.

Nice. Thanks for helping me do some SCIENCE here -- I've not done a great deal of flying around yet, so it remains to be seen if I somehow have a mis-aligned JNSQ Kerbin. The KSC values seem spot-on, so it's not just a simple global shift. I didn't think to drop waypoint markers at the actual marker locations like you illustrated, so I'll do that next to better visualize what's going on. [Edit/Update/Etc.] So I'm not at all sure what was happening, but I'm not going to rule out pilot error. Plopping down the lat/lon markers show them lined up exactly centerline on the runway. Manually adjusting the #s to match the 90 approach, even made me come in slightly *south* of intended. It's entirely possible that the tighter tolerance of the short runway (plus lack of visual distance as with the KSC runway) makes it easier to drift off of center. Doesn't seem like NavUtils is doing this to me!

Oh, that's totally fair, and I don't blame them--considering the fantastic work they've done all across Kerbin. The 27 approach is probably a rarely-used one, especially considering the state of the services there. There's not even a functioning washroom! Anywho, I did a simulated daytime approach to confirm my suspicions, and it is indeed situated a bit to the right/north of the runway: I'll try duplicating the latitude #s from the opposite approach (which seems fine).

Just to confirm--the ones I quoted are from the JNSQ.cfg already distributed with NavInstruments. I'm guessing the gsLatitude and locLatitude should be closer to matching the opposite direction since the runway is 100% East-west oriented. I'll try those other values and report back if I get some KSP time in later this evening.

How do you mean? It just needs definitions for any KK runways that define the approach and different glideslope angles and marker distances. Also--speaking of that @Caerfinon -- I think the config for the JNSQ island airfield 270 approach is off-center. It's just the one dirt runway, so it should match the latitude as the 90 approach? but it's off a little bit. This made for quite an exciting night landing when stopping there for some fuel and coffee during an evening flight... ;D

Yeah, if you follow and occasionally vet the sources shown, Wikipedia can be a pretty reliable "state of current knowledge" repository. The fact that it's mutable and revisable makes it more valuable than a stack of encyclopedias on any ol' shelf.

Just to be completely sure, these dropped stages are out of physics range, right?

Nice! The fun with this one will be the steady updates over the coming months/years as the facility evolves!

Never forget! These are permanently required for me as well

This is wunderbar to a high degree. Congrats to all! Now get to flinging those darts!

The best kind of necro... Welcome back!

I'd say go for it! It's what I'm using.

I'm trying/using it with *a minor* issue (possibly just due to mod interactions)! Give it a shot! Question for BV users/and maybe @maja: As to those issues, I'm using Kerbalism, and Grounded vehicle parts-- and am having a hard time keeping a rover powered up and moving. Kerbalism typically overrides stock "fuel cells" but the Grounded mod includes its own fuel cell motors that still burn liquid fuel to generate EC (which is also managed differently in Kerbalism). I have plenty of power generation ability vs EC cost of moving + autopilot. When I set the autopilot and switch back to the KSC, the rover begins moving just fine. The Kerbalism sim of the craft in the background shows the EC left as full/"Perpetual" for about a minute or so, but will begin draining the craft's batteries (as if the motor was switched off) and eventually the Bon Voyage status panel will show the craft stopped. Swapping back to the craft shows there's plenty of fuel and the batteries fill back up immediately. The puzzling part is why there is a span of a minute or so when everything seems fine... Is something getting "out of sync" with Bon Voyage, not allowing the simulation of the Grounded fuel cell, or maybe a special issue because Kerbalism isn't handling the power generation of the Grounded mod properly?

oh yes! That's it. Good eye.

I clearly don't build enough with cargo plane parts, but I'm not recognizing this cargo bay/door combo. It's not stock, right?

The dlls seem to be the version and file size, etc. I'm guessing one of them can just be nuked. I'll try it and report back <reporting back>Seems to work fine!

Rather adorable.

Oh, that's interesting. I need to look more closely at my craft in the persistent file & KCT's queue and storage. Do the EVARepair stats get baked into each individual part-per-craft? I wasn't under the impression that's how it worked. --that it was more of a global status of "this category of part" whether it's in KCT construction queue or not?

I had totally lost track of these -- and it's all so outrageously cool! Nice work all around.

Was just doing some new digging, looking for lower-frills fueled wings solutions after realizing there were issues with Modular Fuel Tanks / FuelWings and all of the nested Part Switch and Cryo Tanks, etc. things I'm playing with at the moment. This'll do the trick! It seems clunky, but also adding a bunch of these after the [kerbalEVA*] filter can exclude the smaller winglets and fins that it doesn't quite make sense to have fueled: ~name[*Fin*],~name[*fin*],~name[*Winglet*],~name[*winglet*] -- I'm not quite sure if they can be stacked in the same expression, or if there's a way to disregard case-sensitivity, but this seems to work!

Ugh, indeed. So sorry for prompting this. It was an elegant idea but there are so many ghosts in these here machines. A big master switch button will serve the same purpose nicely-- and maybe even serve as a role-play failsafe for other mod interaction shenanigans.

so many doo-dads. I must be ready for this!