gleedadswell

I've been running it in 64 bit linux. Seems to work just fine.

So, I see Testflight in CKAN now, but it is listed as incompatible. I'm guessing that's because it is listed as being for KSP 1.0.2. But isn't it compatible with 1.0.4 (I'm *using* it with 1.0.4)? Is this just an issue of a configuration file that needs to be updated to say that Testflight is compatible with 1.0.4?

Thanks, I was able to get mono 3.2.1 and ckan appears to be working with it.

Just starting out trying kOS, which looks awesome. In the editor popup window the "r", "e" and "s" keys (i.e. the ones corresponding to editor commands) are not functioning. So I can't even type in the editor since I get I'm frankly not bothered because I intend to do any kOS programming in a text editor, outside of KSP. But I thought I'd bring it up.

Tried setting ptrace_scope to 0. This didn't allow the program to run (although I got *different* errors). Also tried running with sudo, but no luck with that either.

Hrm...under Ubuntu 12.04 using I get an error upon trying to launch ckan.exe I did remember to install libcurl4-openssl-dev and to run mozroots --import --ask-remove Any advice?

Several of you are saying that under 1.0 ATM does little or nothing. You folks sound like you know what you're talking about (and I *don't* know anything about this). But I'm noticing a definite speedup using ATM. I'm running 1.0.4 virtually unmodded (the only mods I'm using are ATM and Navyfish's docking alignment utility). But perhaps my case is unusual: I'm running 64 bit under linux and my computer is so old and slow that it is really barely able to run KSP. With ATM I wouldn't say that KSP is running fast, but it is at least less painfully slow than it is without it.

I had the same problem. It seemed to fix itself after a little while. My best guess is that once the stage that had occluded the engine was out of the 2.5 km range and it was no longer "physical" the occluded flag got reset. But that's just a guess.

I'm having an issue which might be a bad interaction between KAS and RealChutes. I've packed a (non-RealChutes) radial parachute into a KAS container. When I open the container and try to take it out it doesn't appear on the Kerbal's back. Instead, it appears some distance (100 m?) away. I can switch to it using "]" at which point its orbital speed shows up as 0 even though I was in Kerbin orbit when I grabbed it. In the map view its status shows up as "landed". Here's the end of the KSP.log: There are then something over 200 lines of the last line "Waiting rigidbody to initialize..." until the end of file. It looks like it thinks it is grabbing a RealChutes procedural chute, but the part in the container is a MK2-R. Thoughts? - - - Updated - - - Further testing of the parachute problem: On the launchpad, with a MK2-R chute attached to the outside of a vessel a Kerbal can grab it and it appears on their back as it should and can then be reattached to the vessel. On the same vessel is a KAS container has a parachute in it. Trying to get it results in the parachute appearing hovering in the air 100.0 m away. The problem seems to only be with parachutes. I've been able to get struts and a radial engine out of the container.

OK, this post may sound a little negative because I'm going to point out what I think are the biggest problems with the game. So let me lead of by saying: I love this game!!! I spend way too much of my time playing this game! Keep it up! OK, having said that, now I'll be critical. One thing about my enjoyment of the game is that I'm a big geek. So there are aspects of the game which I'm willing to put up with which more "normal" people might not put up with. I assume Squad wants the game to appeal to a broad audience, not just geeks. I think they'll need to fix at least a few of the following before they achieve this wide appeal. #1: time spent waiting There are a lot of times in KSP when you just have to wait. Prime among these are: - parachute descents - flights of airplanes (time warp is very limited in atmosphere) - resource transfers Resource transfers could probably have an interface which allows them to proceed in the background so you don't have to wait for them. What about parachute descents? Could you "skip to ground" once the parachute deploys fully so that time skips ahead to (say) 10 m above the ground so you can see whether the craft breaks up on touchdown? I'm not sure what to do about airplane flights. #2: right click! Aargh! Right click! Why is right clicking so unreliable? The part can be lit up green because the mouse is hovering over it but it can still take several right clicks to bring up its right click menu. Sometimes buttons in right click menus can take a few clicks to make them work. #3: non-intuitive and/or annoying aspects of the VAB/SPH The root part (and how to change it) is still very counterintuitive. When clicking certain "non parts" (e.g. the staging sequence, pop ups such as the subassembly save window) you tend to click whatever part is behind them. Mouse click capture needs to not "pass through" these things. #4: limited information available In flight there is information which it makes sense to have that you can't get. Altitude above ground would be really nice! Phase angles to objects should be obtainable without a mod, and without slapping a protractor up on your screen. In the map view it would be good to be able to display arrows pointing in various directions (e.g. towards target, towards sun) so that you can orient your view better. #5: (minor but easy to fix?) targeting locations for contracts When you target a location, such as a location for a visual inspection contract, why doesn't it use the same pink direction to/direction away symbols on the nav ball that it does for other targets? The direction away is really useful when you need to retro-burn. OK, now I'm starting to get nitpicky, so I'll stop. Cheers!

Hi. I enjoy this mod a lot. At the moment the Textures Pack download zipfile seems to have a problem. It won't unzip. I get the following error when I try to unzip KerbinSideTexturesPack01.zip

So, under 23.0 with real fuels, in the VAB, I could select a tank to configure it and set it to have a capacity of whatever fuel, but then make it empty. When you clicked a fuel type it would give two text boxes in a format like XXXX of XXXX. By default it was full. But now under 23.5 I'm finding that it just gives one text box, which is the capacity, and how much fuel is in it. So there doesn't seem to be a way of making an empty tank. Empty tanks are useful, for example, when you are building a kethane processing unit. Is there some way to get back the functionality of being able to make empty tanks, other than by doing savefile editing? Edit: Ah, never mind. I see the question was answered a few pages ago. Thanks!

Hmm...I can't get that working. The only effect it seems to have for me is that the greenhouse starts deployed (including in the VAB) and can't be deflated. I don't see the sunlight resource being produced (should I?). Maybe I didn't do it right? I replaced the ModuleAnimationGeneric with your ModuleDeployableSolarPanel and included the resource definition in the greenhouse .cfg file. I left the TacGenericConverter module that I had inserted in the greenhouse .cfg and it still works. Did I do it wrong? My reading suggested to me that I couldn't do this with just editing the .cfg file. It looks to me like I'd need to delve into the .cs code for the part, which is more than I'm up for at the moment.

Ha, ha! You think I know what I'm doing! Unfortunately, I really don't. I'd love to make it require sunlight. I assume if I look at configs for some photoelectric panels I could figure out how, but I'm totally new to this and haven't done that yet. No, at the moment I've just wholesale copied the conversion module from the TAC carbon scrubber and pasted it into the .cfg for the greenhouse, then changed the input and output resources. It doesn't even need to be unfolded to do conversion because I don't even know how to do that yet. But I'll keep working on it and once I'm not embarrassed by it I'll post the .cfg if people are interested. Seriously though, the modular Kolonization mod is probably more worthy of peoples' attention. I posted my comment half hoping to spark a discussion of what appropriate conversion rates for waste->food might be. I haven't had any trouble launching the inflatable greenhouse. Is there some issue with it that others have encountered? The vessel that I built it into had two greenhouses and two habitat modules and I managed to fit it all into a KW expanded 2.5 m fairing, so it was pretty easy to launch.

So, I wanted a way of producing food for my colonies. So I took the H.O.M.E. greenhouse (which has no food production) and copied code from the .cfg file for the TAC carbon extractor and modified it so that it takes 2 units of waste (that's compost), and 1 unit of water plus some electricity to generate 1 unit of food. My son points out correctly that it should also consume CO2 and produce oxygen. Then I discovered that the modular Kolonization mod exists... Oh well, my greenhouse works.

OK, tried that but it doesn't seem to have fixed the problem. I'll try starting a new sandbox game in a fresh directory without so many other mods and see if it works for me there.

Hi all, I'm loving this mod. I'm building a big kethane extraction/processing site on Minmus. I've hit a slight snag with it elsewhere. During an orbital EVA my kerbal can open a container and get out an item (say a pipe endpoint or a strut endpoint). It appears on his back just like it should. But then I can't right-click select the part to do anything with it. The part lights up green when I hover the mouse over it, but the right click brings up the context menu for the kerbal, not for the part. So I can't do anything with the part. I can re-open the container and stow the part back in the container but anything requiring the part's right-click menu is unavailable. Everything works just fine down on the surface. It is only during an orbital eva that this happens. Is this a known behaviour of the mod? I'm running 0.23.0, not 0.23.5.

I just selected the text from the browser window (select all from browser edit menu) copied it, pasted it into a text editor and saved as a new file in the RealFuels directory. Seems to work. The file name shouldn't matter as long as it has a .cfg extension. Cheers!

I just selected the text from the browser window (select all from browser edit menu) copied it, pasted it into a text editor and saved as a new file in the RealFuels directory. Seems to work. Cheers!

Just a further comment on nuclear engines. With the engine config file so that my engine masses, etc. were fixed now with the 3.75 m tanks I was testing with it was possible to make a NERVA get higher delta-v than a chemical rocket. But it would still take a somewhat ridiculous number of tanks because the full mass/dry mass ratio for the tanks (type=Cryogenic) was only about 7:1. So I went into the tank .cfg files for Real Fuels and changed one of the big KW tanks over to type=BalloonCryo. This gives a full mass/dry mass closer to 80. With a tank like this it is now possible to build a nuclear rocket stage using the NovaPunch 2.5 m NERVA which is quite comparable to the projected real world NERVA stage. The stage as a whole (engine + tanks) has a full mass/dry mass ratio of about 10 and will give a 100 tonne payload a delta-v of about 3500 m/s. This takes 21 tanks (!). This may seem like a lot but as far as I can tell from my reading it is fairly consistent with a real world NERVA which would have carried about 150 tonnes of liquid H2, would have been over 10 m in diameter and over 40 m long. A chemical rocket stage of the same gross mass gives this payload only 2500 m/s. To get the same delta-v with chemical takes about 20% more mass, although it results in a stage of much lower volume (only 6 tanks). So, if you are using real fuels without stretchy tanks and you care about building nuclear rockets then you should go into the config files and give yourself a BalloonCryo tank. Of course you should probably just use stretchy tanks and I wish I could get it to go with the other mods I'm using without hitting memory issues. Cheers!

Sorry about ninjaing you. But that is very helpful advice to me for future reference. I didn't realize the module manager log would be that human readable. Cheers!

Aha! I thought I had installed an engine pack, but apparently I hadn't. I've installed the "stock" engine configs and now the tank dry mass looks to be correct.

Yes, something is wrong. The NovaPunch 3.75 m tanks are listed as Cryogenic. In RealTankTypes.cfg I see that the base mass (is that the dry mass?) should be basemass = 0.000011 * volume For a 3.75 m X 9 m tank that should give a mass of 0.94688 Ton if I'm understanding how this is supposed to work. In the VAB that tank shows up as having a dry mass of 4.5523 Tons. But when I click the appropriate button to fill it with LiquidH2 the dry mass changes to 4.9662 Tons. The "current mass" is then listed as 11.0649 Tons. How does it then calculate the gross mass? In RealTankTypes.cfg under the LiquidH2 entry it says mass = 0.000006 Is that a multiplicative factor applied to something else? Since I'm using the 3.75X9 tank as my standard I know that, if the walls were infinitely thin (wouldn't that be nice!) the mass of liquid H2 in the tank would be pi*r^2*h*rho = 7.042 tons In game the fuel mass in the tank is coming out to somewhat over 6 tons, so accounting for wall thickness this seems reasonable, though I don't see where in the config files this is achieved. So the problem seems to be with the dry mass. Any ideas about what could be conflicting with the real fuels config? The mods I'm using are: Toolbar AIES H.O.M.E. Active Texture Management Deadly Re-entry FAR KAS Procedural Fairings Kethane KW Infernal Robotics MechJeb NovaPunch Planet Factory RealChutes RealFuels Remote Tech TAC Life Support Kerbal Alarm Clock Interstellar Note, my current game is not using RSS. Maybe some of the RSS rescalings are necessary for making this work? I'll try in a fresh directory with just RealFuels and see what happens, then add mods until it breaks. I'll get back to you.

Hmm...well the 3.75 m NovaPunch tanks are listed as cryogenic and at one point I was using 21 of them (!!!) for a single nuclear engine. The Orbital Bertha still gave better delta-v for that volume of tanks. If that's not big enough then the VAB isn't big enough... ;-). So I'm inclined to say maybe it is an install issue. I've quite sure about that propellant fraction. The dry mass was a little shy of 5 t and the gross mass was about 11 t for each tank (reading the tank info in the VAB from the real fuels dialogue where you set the tank configuration). I can't use a stretchy tank in my current game. I was running out of memory and stretchy tanks was one of the mods I had to remove to get the game to run. I'm going to do a little digging in sandbox mode since my tank options are somewhat limited otherwise, then get back to you.

So looking through configs it looks like this already exists in real fuels. The Balloon and BalloonCryo tank types have very low base masses. At the moment the only tanks of those kinds are apparently in Stretchy Tanks. In my current game I wanted to use Stretchy Tanks but was having memory issues and that mod was one of the casualties. But it looks like I can just go into one of the real fuels config files and change the type of a tank to Balloon or BalloonCryo and it will achieve what I'm after. I'll give that a try.