ss8913

will this mod have a binary distribution, post 1.1?

The easy way? Send up a station with an orbital construction dock, a UKS workshop module, and Kontainers of MaterialKits and SpecializedParts. Put on a 2.5m nuclear reactor and some docking ports. Now just resupply the station with launches/spaceplanes from Kerbin and you can build in space. If you're not *at* Kerbin, I suggest doing the same as I just mentioned, but doing your mining and refining on the ground. I believe if you do this, the MKS Orbital Logistics system will take over and 'automatically' transfer the stuff to the station, at least if you're using 3.75m or 5.00m Kontainers on the station.

I'm still not sure we're talking about the same part. this is the "hybrid thermal rocket" that has a fairly flat low profile and stack-attaches usually directly to my antimatter reactor. the ISP isn't lower in atmosphere (I'm running on atmospheric fuel), but it is lower when I switch to hydrazine ejection mass in space.

I've heard that there's problems with the B9 control surfaces acting as brakes/flaps currently (in 1.0.5) Not 100% sure if this is still true. All of my cargo planes use the stock AIRBRAKES as brakes, and the "Big S elevon 2" as flaps. Usually tweakscaled to between 150-400% size. you generally want the flaps right around the CoM. If you put them too far behind, they act as elevators and force the nose down and you do not want that. If you use the Big S wings tweakscaled to 400% you can make a glide-able 700t cargo plane with a stall speed below 250kts EAS... far lower if you remove a few hundred tons of weight of course the procedural wings are nice but.. the Big S wings are much simpler to use, are super strong (at least with KJR) and are super effective. My entire space program is SSTO craft now using these wings and control surfaces, and there's pretty much no mission unaccomplishable with these basic design principles and parts. (to be fair I'm also using KSPIE, so I'm running antimatter hybrid thermal jets/rockets with hydrazine ejection mass, so that also helps a lot ). And of course it all works with FAR. I don't even test anything *without* FAR. I'm not opting in to the beta either, if FAR is not available. I will wait for the release. Like some kind of adult.

second question about 1.7.0 -- hybrid thermal rockets (known as the 'thermal turbojet' but .. there's some confusion I think on specifically which part this is, it's listed as a hybrid thermal rocket in the parts list now.. anyway.. it seems the isp has been reduced? My scout plane used to have about 80km/sec dV after achieving LKO, now it only has about 60km/sec. Seems to have a lot more thrust though, at least in the atmosphere. I saw some mention of thrust changes in the changelog but nothing about the ISP.

I replaced the chargedparticles generator since it was marked 'legacy' and was required-replace-or-no-launch.. didn't replace the warpdrive; will try that right now, give me 5 minutes ... yes this fixes it. I suppose it's not too onerous to replace these parts on my craft, they're fairly easily separable and only have one action group bound to them, at least for my designs. Phew! I thought my entire space program was stuck

I don't see a reactionwheel module in the WarpDrive2 part.cfg ... here's what it looks like: PART { name = KspiWarpDrive module = Part author = Fractal ///model by z mesh = warp2.mu rescaleFactor = 2 node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.30, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2 node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.237, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 2 TechRequired = ultraHighEnergyPhysics entryCost = 500000 cost = 4500000 category = Propulsion subcategory = 0 title = Alcubierre Drive (Folding) manufacturer = Zefram Kerman's Warp Supplies Co. description = Originally designed by Zefram Kerman himself, this piece of technology is designed to sneakily evade the prohibition of faster than light travel described by the theory of relativity by translating a small subset of spacetime across space at unbelievable speeds while imparting no momentum change to the vessel at all. Since it was designed by Zefram Kerman, it may not function without the application of rock music. attachRules = 1,1,1,1,0 mass = 8 dragModelType = default maximum_drag = 0.2 minimum_drag = 0.15 angularDrag = 2 crashTolerance = 6 breakingForce = 200 breakingTorque = 200 maxTemp = 2900 stagingIcon = REACTION_WHEEL RESOURCE { name = ExoticMatter amount = 0 maxAmount = 120000 } //MODULE //{ // name = ModuleAnimateGeneric // animationName = t2 // startEventGUIName = Change State // endEventGUIName = Change State //} MODULE { name = AlcubierreDrive effectSize1 = 9.6 effectSize2 = 2.4 upgradedName = Advanced Field Geometry originalName = Standard Field Geometry upgradeCost = 100 upgradeTechReq = unifiedFieldTheory partMass = 8 AnimationName = t2 } MODULE { name = TweakScale type = stack defaultScale = 2.5 scaleFactors = 1.25, 1.875, 2.5, 3.75, 5 scaleNames = 1.25, 1.875, 2.5m, 3.75m, 5m } }

@FreeThinker - just updated to 1.7.0 - found a pretty major game-breaking bug with the folding warpdrive - it defaults to charging ON instead of charging OFF on the launchpad. Problem is I use these things extensively in spaceplanes, so the thing spawns already opened and clipping through the runway. turn off charging via right-click and the physics engine freaks out, flips the plane in the air, and then it hits the ground and explodes. Can you please change it back to defaulting to NOT charging on launch? I see no way from the SPH to alter this, going to look for a .cfg edit I can make... no.. I don't see anything in the .cfg that sets the default state of the part I probably shouldn't have my entire space program dependent upon any one single part, but.. I kind of do in this case Am I doing something wrong (did a clean install as far as I know) or is this an actual bug?

it's... air. Bernoulli would be the scientist you'd want to research, but.. if you've ever flown an airplane (real or a good simulator like X-Plane, P3D, FSX, etc)... FAR makes KSP more like that and less.... incorrect, as far as aerodynamics go That's the short version - long version is, aerodynamic forces matter more - what that means to you is 1. rockets get to space more easily (a little, requires a bit less dV anyway), and planes are a little more difficult if you're used to stock aerodynamics. Dynamic pressure can tear planes apart, and pulling up too hard on the stick in a plane that's got enough mass and control authority will likewise damage it. Try some of the craft that FAR comes with and fly them around the KSC to get a feel for it before trying to build your own, would be my suggestion. FAR has some nice build tools within the SPH that will tell you how good your craft design is - mostly the transonic 'yellow' curve and the static derivatives page (the one with all the numbers. You want none of them to be red.)

So does it make sense that two 90-part spaceplanes would have very different effects on framerate based on the number of reactors? A plane with a single reactor affects frame rate far less than a plane with four... does the reactor modeling really make that big of a difference/should it make that big of a difference? Or is it something else causing the issue?

I tried the long version, still doesn't work. Only way to get the textures to load is to blow away the ATM cache before each launch of KSP. It doesn't break the functionality of the parts, just the textures...

@Diazo didn't see it in your release notes but the problem with AGX forgetting actions on tweakscaled parts (and anything in the action list 'after' those actions) seems to be fixed as well.

whatever works best for the maintainers, I'm happy to wait. 1.1 isn't "released" until FAR is available, at least not for me.

There's a lot of people that understand all of the actual numbers and what they mean; I'm in the process of learning this myself. However that's the *science* of it. What you really need to know is the *engineering* perspective of it. Here's the quick guide to FAR plane design: 1. Go into the FAR menu in SPH and open the static analysis. Click 'run analysis' and make sure there are no red numbers at 0.35 and 1.35 mach. 2. Lower the 0.35 until red numbers appear. Never go below this mach # when flying. (make sure to have the FAR window open in flight - also set your airspeed indication to indicated knots EAS. This is what real aircraft use and is critical to knowing how much lift you're getting. Your surface speed is pretty much irrelevant when you want to know your V speeds and stall speeds). 3. Now open the transonic design. click the middle radio button for the yellow line. The flatter it is the less mach buffeting you will get in the transonic zone (0.80 to 1.20 mach), and the less likely you are to have serious aerodynamic issues at high speed. 4. Are you using adjustable landing gear? If not get it immediately. This part isn't really FAR related but if you can't get the plane off the runway, FAR doesn't matter. Use adjustable landing gear and never touch stock gear again. ALG gives you an alignment indicator. Make sure your wheels are not aligned to point away from the craft centerline. If they are, use the rotation tool to fix that - about 1 degree of "toe in" towards the centerline will make the craft stable on the runway. This does not apply to the nose gear. Leave that alone as far as rotational alignment, but make sure it's shorter than the mains - you want 1 to 5 degrees of pitch down when sitting on the runway. Set your spring and dampers to almost max on all gear. Set main gear brake torque to between 60-100 depending on craft weight, and set the brake torque on the nose wheel to half of what you've set on the mains. Turn shielding on for all gear. Now FAR is relevant because you won't crash on takeoff or on your landing rollout 5. Use the FAR yaw stability helper when flying in atmosphere, even if you're using an autopilot. This is like the yaw damper on real jets. It helps. 6. Mechjeb even with the FAR helper module is not that great. Kramax autopilot is a million times better than mechjeb for flying within atmosphere. It is however completely useless in space, so I use both MJ2 and Kramax. 7. Kramax likes triangle shaped planes. It can't follow a glideslope worth a **** if you have a plane with horizontal stabilizers and wings placed like on a commercial airliner. Especially if you 1. have flaps and 2. use the flaps. So you may need to control pitch yourself unless you have a triangle shaped plane (like the US space shuttle, with no independent elevators). Follow the above tips and you too can have a fun and stable SSTO spaceplane that can land safely back on the KSC runway. I also recommend KSP Interstellar Extended, because who *doesn't* like antimatter-powered thermonuclear hybrid turbojet/rocket engines giving you 80k dV in a Mark3 spaceplane? I know I do Here's a picture of one of my most successful designs. This shape works well, and at about 25% fuel has a stall speed well under 200kts EAS, making it easy to land. It's also got ATILLA arcjet VTOL engines with enough thrust to do a VTOL landing *anywhere*, even Eve. The engines are also from KSPIE. If you make a spaceplane using this layout (modify to suit), you'll have good results aerodynamically.

Suggestion: make a tech upgrade available to strengthen the parts... some kind of meta-materials node or something on CTT... I have needs to move 300-1000 ton cargo kontainers around (MKS Kontainers) and the current parts, even the new ones, are just not strong enough to hold on to them. magnets, hooks, etc.. just can't hold that much weight at least not in Kerbin's gravity. I want like a super super powerful electromagnet, really... one that I can power with a KSPIE antimatter reactor + electric generator. I suppose I could hack one myself from the current part config, but I don't like hacking other peoples' mods, feels wrong

@Diazo any ideas on the 'AGX forgets assignment when action groups are assigned to tweakscaled parts' ? It's not *breaking* since I can reassign them in flight (and they do work correctly), but often AGX will forget assignments between the SPH and the runway. But seemingly only on tweakscaled parts like my 300% scale control surfaces that I assign 'flaps up' and 'flaps down' to... and seemingly any action groups coming after those, regardless of tweakscale usage.

It should be noted that the KSPIE science lab is the best one available that I've found. Processing science data this way can yield you enough science to completely open the CTT (~120,000 science) without going past the orbit of Minmus. You can do this with any science lab, but the KSPIE one holds a lot more data, so you can do it in fewer launches. Just set up an orbital science station in Kerbin orbit, have your craft dock and drop off science on their way back to Kerbin, and then you transmit data back down from the station after it's been researched into science points.

Squad said specifically that the pre-release was for modders to get things ready for the release, so.. yes it is meant to be played with mods!

how do you tell ATM to exclude *all* the IR parts in one go? Why is it only this mod that is causing this problem? I ask these things because my install will crash while loading (ie, it cannot even get to the main menu screen), without ATM.

I have been having the issue where the Survey Stakes would not attach to the ground. After some chatting in the KIS thread, IgorZ found the answer. Adding the following to the part.cfg file for the Survey Stakes fixes the issue. node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.19, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 0 AHA! I knew something was up with that... was telling me 'cannot surface attach' lately... is it the X key or the H key? My install always seems to say H is surface-attach? It used to work that way, lately it doesn't want to, but I think I need to add that part.cfg fix here. The MKS/UKS Pioneer modules act as survey stations.

+2 ... if you make something in KSP+FAR that looks kind of like a 737, it flies kind of like one too. Pretty damn close on the V speeds, approach speeds, everything. Would be closer if I wasn't just eyeballing it too, I'm sure. @ferram4 are you planning to release a FAR for the 'public beta test' version of 1.1? I can't play KSP without FAR, so I need to know if it's safe to opt-in to the beta or not Seriously if I could only have one mod in KSP it'd be this. Before attempting re-entry did you do any docking/undocking in orbit? I've noticed that as soon as you un-dock you MUST F5/F9 or several mods, FAR included, will not work properly. In the case of FAR it basically *turns off the aerodynamics modeling completely* and air generates no drag. Not every time, but it can. Also messes with RPM, TCA, and several others.

why? My KSP won't even load without ATM. However is there a way to disable ATM for one specific mod, in its entirety?

OK so.. @ZodiusInfuser I'm losing my part textures when I load up.. if I delete the ATM cached textures for it, it's ok, but on subsequent loads of KSP, every part is just black. Only happening with the WIP new parts though, not any other mod including the standard "production" IR parts.

why is it then that when I first launch the plane with the container docked with the same docking ports, the wheels DO obey collision rules with the floor? Or is that because upon launch the docking ports are treated as a 'decouple' connection and not a 'dock' connection, and KJR is strengthening the crap out of it so it just looks like they're obeying collision rules? I'm going to try to make a 4 winch crane loader into a ventral Mk4 cargo bay and see how that works out... ... it did not. The winches connected to KAS ports ... let's just say the KAS ports attachment strength to both the container and the winch are not sufficient for the job. tried to pull it in.. got part way and then everything fell apart, everything exploded, and it actually caused KSP to crash. Going to try modifying some KAS part configs and see if I can increase their strength.. as the entire mod is pretty useless for heavy cargo lifting. Was really hoping I could .. hm.. maybe if I use my pull-the-container-into-the-cargo-bay-on-wheels idea but then use more winches to connect the rear and then strut everything together.. sigh.. this is getting really complicated. Hope 1.1 addresses this.

I'll take a look - however it's the strength of the magnet itself that's the problem. I think I may have found the parameters in the magnet's part config to fix that, but still needs testing. Also I think I've given up on wheels entirely until 1.1; drive a container/rover back into my cargo plane's cargo bay.. re-dock with the docking port in the back of the jet.. and suddenly the wheel sink through the bottom of the cargo bay. Makes no sense and I can't explain it.. and sometimes it violently detaches at this point and sends the 200t wheeled container flipping through the air, and it then promptly lands on the plane and *everything explodes*. Physics with wheels are seriously seriously broken.