Dr. Jet

This bug was squished at 05.11.2016 by ChopShop micropatches 0.10.0.3 (for 1.1.3) and 0.10.1.1 (for 1.2.x) - check your version. P.S. A-ah... You were manually updating from CurseForge, weren't you? I forgot to put micropatches there... My bad...

Rescue 6+ kerbals from colony base near the Explodium Sea in one launch. Main part of challenge is designing an Eve lander capable of doing it within rule restrictions.

Scenario: Kerbal astronomers have discovered few F-sized (extra-large) asteroids that are going to "rendezvous" with Eve. It would be just an amazing spectacle to watch if there was not a kerbal colony (6 kerbals at least) functioning at the shore of Explodium sea. Regardless will it be a direct asteroid hit or not - you'll have just one try at the nearest launch window to launch something and evacuate all colonists at once before they will get smashed, crashed, exploded or flushed away by gigantic tidal wave. Report must have: Mod list. At least one screenshot of colony you are rescuing and the number of colonists it contains. Lander parameters. "Pics, or it did not happen" © . Craft files (or KerbalX.com links) are not obligatory, but are very welcome. Mods recommended: TAC Life Support (or another balanced LS). MechJeb or KOS. It's a DESIGN challenge, not a piloting skill challenge. MechJeb is assumed to be used. Manual control will have a small design reward though and KOS control - some more noticeable reward. Mods allowed: HyperEdit is allowed for accurately placing your colony on the shores. It's not "build a colony" mission afterall. Other usage will be penalised. KIS, KAS, KJR and other utility mods. Any design assistance tools. Any part mods that aren't disallowed. Mods disallowed: Anything with atmospheric nuclear engines. Anything with airships/baloons. Anything with special Eve-optimized engines. Anything with FTL engines and other highly imbalanced parts. Anything that changes Eve size, gravity or atmoshere. Additional rules: No external seats are allowed. Even if they are shielded by cargo bay or fairing. Unnecessary risk is not an option on rescue mission. Pods and passenger parts lighter than 840 kg per kerbal are considered vacuum-use-only and thus unable to survive landing or launch in harsh environment of Eve. Either shield those by cargo bay or fairing or attach a heavy heatshield to imitate extra rigidness and thermal protecion. Remember, you still need the colonists to get inside somehow. (Example: Mk1-2 Command Pod on top of PPD-10 Hitchhiker Storage Container, PPD-10 is enclosed inside a fairing, while pod is not. Construction is OK as it allows kerbals to enter shielded PPD-10 through command pod.) No Air Intakes allowed. There is no use for them on Eve except for drag physics cheating. Arriving just a couple of days before asteroids, you don't have much time left for ISRU refuelling. ("Colony has an ISRU thus it produced some fuel" is a viable presumption though.) Colony (initially) does not have any working means of transportation (rovers, planes, etc.), wheels on colony modules included. It's expected to have an honest report of failure and HyperEdit (or Alt+F12 cheat orbit) usage numbers. Score system: Basic score and achievements: "EVE-acuator" (+100): main task completed (bring at least 6 colonists to low Eve orbit for rendezvous with return vehicle) +10 for returning all rescued colonists to Kerbin from LEO (remember of life support if you use it). +5 for using a life support system (allows some achievements) +5 for every extra colonist rescued over initial 6. Colony score bonus: +5: for self-sufficient colony design (you'll need a life support system (preferrably TAC LS) and either KPBS or one of RoverDude colony mods for resource production). +15: for pics of how your colony modules reentry from low Eve orbit, land and be assembled (HyperEdit or Alt+F12 your colony to LEO, don't waste a launch window for it) Lander design score and achivements: "Wet" mass categories: +50: under 200t (seems impossible, but who knows?) +40: under 250t +30: under 300t +20: under 350t +10: under 400t +5: under 500t "Purist" (+20): Use only stock parts except for MechJeb box or parts needed for other achievements (KOS, TAC LS, RT) . It's HARD, believe me. "Slim Fit" (+15): You lander should fit in 10m diameter to be protected by single inflatable heatshield during reentry. "Proper Protection" (+5): Lander or at least it's major part must stay inside a fairing during fast and fiery part of atmospheric reentry. "Like a Warhead" (+10): Your lander design doesn't use any wings, RCS, reaction wheels or airbrakes during reentry relying only on fairing shape and bottom-heavyness to retrograde aerodynamically on ballistic trajectory. (Most likely you'll need "Proper Protection" for this to work.) "Power Pillar" (+5): Your lander must keep TWR higher than 1.7 on all ascent stages until it's almost in space. Eve don't forgive low-TWR designs anyway. "Looks Real" (+5): Your lander shape is generally aerodynamic. All boosters must have proper aerodynamic caps. Upper docking port (if you have it) must be shielded or have an aerodynamic cap attached. "Tumbler Toy" (+5): Lander design must assure vertical stability when landing on a noticeable slope. "Passive Safety" (+5): your lander does not need even a slightest engine assistance to land safely on chutes. "Foolproof" (+5): Your lander design is good enough to withstand suboptimal manual control on both descent and ascent. Either manned or remotely controlled. "Remote Control" (+5): Your lander does not need a pilot onboard to land or fly. (stock KerbNet mechanics). "Advanced Remote Control" (+10): You use RemoteTech AND your lander lands unmanned. (Orbital remote control from 6-kerbal crew is allowed). "AI Mission" (+10): You not only designed a proper Eve lander, but wrote a working KOS code for it! "Advanced AI Mission" (+30): You have wrote so much KOS code that your whole EVE-acuation mission is now fully KOS-controlled! Mission score and achivements: (Those still depend mostly on proper vehicle design rather than skill.) "Sniper" (+15): Land within 1 km from colony. "Marksman" (+10): Land within 1-3 km from colony. "Good Aim" (+5): Land within 3-5 km from colony. "Wheel Assist" (+5): drop a transport mean (rover) to move your colonists to the lander a bit faster. "Poseidon" (+25): Splash into sea instead of proper landing, but still be able to finish mission after that. "Plan B" (+5) have working LES on your lander, so that you can try "plan B" when your first attempt fails. Chose only one of "plan B"-s mentioned below - you won't have enough time for "Plan C". Full points if your main lander fails and "Plan B" worked, half points if you succeeded with first lander but still have "Plan B" as a spare option. "Going Nomads!" (+20) for landing a huge rover (mobile base) with enough LS supplies for all colonists to be evacuated to nearest mountain and wait there for the next launch window and next lander. "Move It!" (+30) for landing a rover, capable of moving the base itself to the mountains (in 1-2 runs maximum). Base should still be self-sufficient in new place. "Try Again!" (+40) for bringing TWO identical humongous Eve landers within same single interplanetary launch. Score Penalties: -10 for each try you failed terribly and had to reload -10 for each time you use HyperEdit (or Alt+F12 cheat orbit) to test your lander (no penalty for colony preparing operations) -5 for each colonist you had at colony when EVE-acuation mission started from Kerbin, but was not able to rescue by some reason. -5 for each LKO launch after the first one to assemble or refuel the expedition vehicle DURING THE EVE LAUNCH WINDOW. Preliminary preparations are not penalised. -10 for refuelling lander from colony fuel tanks. Relying on endangered colony supplies is unnecesary risk for sure!

Which one is the correct syntax? @MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment]:HAS[#experimentID[mysteryGoo]|#experimentID[mobileMaterialsLab]|#experimentID[surfaceSample]],* or @MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment]:HAS[#experimentID[mysteryGoo|mobileMaterialsLab|surfaceSample]],*

Seems that deleting and re-installing "Cryogenic Tanks" from scratch does work. There was some junk in plugin folder which I didn't notice at first.

Every bug concerning non-working contracts is CC-related. Confirmed by practice. Update Nertea packages manually. Bug persists. I can't imagine how tanks/engines plugin, even defective one can affect contracts. P.S. Seems that updating is not enough. Let's check if Delete/Reinstall will work?

Same thing. Didn't nothing that could cause such behavior. ALL contracts sudenly disappeared both from "Archive" and "Active" tabs on game load. One time contracts that were completed before are offered again. Moreso, if I take a new contract - it disappears from Active list at the moment I enter VAB or SPH. Earlier I had such issues only when upgrading CC to newer version. Something is very wrong with this build...

ad1 - Pull request for incorporating it into main RT package will be nice. Especially if it closely resembles stock Commnet ground relay network . ad2 - Usage of ModuleManager for installation of ModuleRTAntenna to parts is inavoidable. Changing parts weight to more realistic will take just one more string of MM config.

Commnet compatibility? Don't think RT users really NEED it. What we need is some minor patches: New ground stations to resemble Commnet ground stations pattern. It's really silly when you have to assure satellite hops for LEO operations at mere 500 km from KSC. Realism Overhaul pack have such configuration for RT and it's very comfortable to play with. New stock antennas like Communotron 16-s are not yet treated as RT antennas. That should be fixed. And maybe also one new feature - option to switch RT antennas to "don't transmit and recieve wake signal only" power-saving mode - for better support of new stock "hibernation" mechanic. And if RT will automatically "hibernate" all antennas when probe core is hibernated - it will be absolutely amazing.

And Communotron 88-88?

They surely are. But they shouldn't do it in expence of emptying already filled niches. They are OK as ADDITIONAL parts, NOT as REPLACEMENT parts. What is the point of losing something nice to get something less nice when you can reap a benefit from having BOTH?

As I said above - solar panels and Communotron 88-88. They are different. If they were an added parts - there will be no objection - having more choices is always good. But stripping out 2x3 solar panels for ugly half-functional 1x3? Stripping out nice and compact antenna for non-compact? No. There should be an option for NOT installing those along with all other GOOD changes.

It's not only my opinion. Moreso, it's not even my idea. So don't speak for everyone. You are just one of the few, who prefer BREAKING changes to stock parts, while other people prefer the non-breaking. It actually is the reason to split mod. Who love EVERY kind of change - will install both parts, who love non-breaking changes - will install only one. Freedom of choice without digging in other man's configs.

Never worked with Maya, but it looks more like a Blender+plugin glitch incorrectly translating .dds UVmaps. With PNG textures along .mu what you see is what you get. If you use Blender just to convert formats - don't touch the UVmap at all - it's OK for PNG, JPG or any other non-dds. But remember that stock .dds files converted to any other format will be vertically flipped themselves (it's normal for how dds format works), so they won't fit as is.

You missed going to "UV Editing" window and importing corresponding texture. Since KSP shaders can use more then one - there is no texture automation in import plugin - you have to chose appropriate file manually. BTW, texures in .dds will need vertical flipping to display correctly in Blender, but you'll need to flip em back before exporting to Unity.

A wise idea would be to separate this mod into two. Stylish retexture/remodel of stock parts, preserving their original size and functionality. (What we all actually love in this mod). Anything else that changes/breaks stock parts size or functionality - like nerfed solar panels or ugly non-compact replacement for cute little Communotron 88-88. (What most of us actually hate in this mod). Separating fleas from dogs will be a very, very good decision. P.S. Or at least make those gamebreaking parts additional rather then forced stock part replacements.

Well, modelling is no problem at all. In worst case one can just chop off a head from free model - like this or this. Problem is having a proper tool for game insertion, capable of working with some decent file format (preferrably .blend or .mu) and proper rigging scheme that will work for stock animation clips. I, myself, can do some modelling and even some rigging in Blender (though didn't have much experience with animated characters), but I'm almost useless when it comes to proper texturing or modern coding.

Yeah, separating dogs from fleas is a very promising idea.

Well, using stock MODELS along with your ExExtractor module will solve at least problems with deployment (lack of it) and surface detection. BTW, stock drills already DO mine MetalOre - as a part of asteroid mining function (they mine everything that exists on asteroid as long as vehicle has free tanks for it).

More bugs found. All parts using TacGenericConverter are broken. Seems that new TAC LS build doesn't support old-style comma-separated configs: You should re-config them like this: MODULE { name = TacGenericConverter converterName = Greenhouse StartActionName = Start Growing Plants StopActionName = Start Growing Plants tag = Life Support GeneratesHeat = false INPUT_RESOURCE { ResourceName = CarbonDioxide Ratio = 0.000187434623617525 } INPUT_RESOURCE { ResourceName = Water Ratio = 0.000000457030228799 } INPUT_RESOURCE { ResourceName = Waste Ratio = 0.000000286462536029 } INPUT_RESOURCE { ResourceName = Organics Ratio = 0.0000004537609069 } INPUT_RESOURCE { ResourceName = ElectricCharge Ratio = 0.0245098039215686 } OUTPUT_RESOURCE { ResourceName = Oxygen Ratio = 0.00021699209123848 DumpExcess = false } OUTPUT_RESOURCE { ResourceName = Food Ratio = 0.00004217941516789 DumpExcess = true } } I'm a bit of slowpoke, am I?

Confirmative: augers are broken. Question: Why not to use stock deploying drills models and ModuleResourceHarvester for MetalOre harvesting? It will solve major half of the problems.

Found nice part review from GrunfWorks - more up-to date than Kottabos one.

This needs to be recompiled for KSP 1.2.

About my previous post. ModuleCargoBay can be controlled only by module, containing animation. So AnimatedDecouplers + ModuleCargoBay seems a viable choice to provide working protection to RN clamshell fairings. SDHI used it for protective cap and service bay fairings and they worked fine. The only trouble is AnimatedDecouplers are not yet updated for KSP 1.2.

I'm pretty sure it WILL be updated. Though RT team needs time to investigate new stock mechanics to integrate RT rules into.