Rissa Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 Hi @cxg2827 Will it be possible that you add CLS "passability" to the APAS(Passive)-Mk1-2? I use this to connect my Zarya, Zvezda and Soyus with your PMA. I build a very pretty ISS (as I think) but the Crew can not move freely through the station because of this part beeing the only (it seems) that is not "passable". In conjunction with the Stations Parts Extended Mods "PTD-HEX Multi-Point Station Connector they are the perfect fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxg2827 Posted February 12, 2017 Author Share Posted February 12, 2017 Update live on SpaceDock Apparently, the order of ModuleScienceContainer and ModuleScienceExperiment matters in the CFG, so JAXA modules transmit science now. Thanks @mikesm @Dark_Dragon26 The SARJ would only work with the robotics mod. Nothing I can do currently with the stock KSP tools to make it work as intended. @Rissa @Space_Coyote see below Quote v1.5.1 Fixes: CLS patch updated to include APAS_P_Mk1-2. JAXA Experiment Logistics Module (ELM) and Joint Experiments Module (JEM) CFG fixes to allow transmission of science Added new attachment node to Experiment Logistics Module (ELM) on centerline opposite of existing node. Added search tags to Unity and Destiny equivalent modules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Yammomoto Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 How much RAM does it usually use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 18 minutes ago, Rory Yammomoto said: How much RAM does it usually use? About 9 give or take Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Yammomoto Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, CobaltWolf said: About 9 give or take I only have 8 GB in total... The low-quality configs help, right? Edited February 24, 2017 by Rory Yammomoto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenomousRequiem Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 18 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: About 9 give or take 9 RAMs or 9 cards??? I only have 2 RAM cards what do I do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minepagan Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 1 hour ago, VenomousRequiem said: 9 RAMs or 9 cards??? I only have 2 RAM cards what do I do I only have bean chip plugged into USB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 3 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said: 9 RAMs or 9 cards??? I only have 2 RAM cards what do I do 3 hours ago, Rory Yammomoto said: I only have 8 in total... The low-quality configs help, right? I just know you need 9 RAMs. Can't help you any more than that, I'm not a tech support hotline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 38 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: I just know you need 9 RAMs. Can't help you any more than that, I'm not a tech support hotline. Crud. I only have seven rams and two ewes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Yammomoto Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 I meant Gigabytes... I have 8 GB of RAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin_Maclure Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 12 hours ago, Jack Wolfe said: Crud. I only have seven rams and two ewes. lol... you clever stand-up guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 13 hours ago, Rory Yammomoto said: I meant Gigabytes... I have 8 GB of RAM. That's too much, you'll have to get rid of some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxg2827 Posted February 25, 2017 Author Share Posted February 25, 2017 3/4 cups of RAM is the sweet spot for me. Make sure to pre-wash and let it soak for 15 minutes before installing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Yammomoto Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 (edited) Erm... I would like to file a complaint. I installed the mod with the low-quality version (Not sure if it makes a difference, and it will make KSP use 2 GB of RAM on a linux) and the docking ports won't dock. I tried docking the passive APAS ports with passive CADS ports , to (unsuprisingly) no avail, but even docking them to other passive APAS ports yields nothing. Given that this plagued the CADS ports before, I think the strength needs to be increased. EDIT: Passive-Passive connections do not work, but Passive-Active ones do. I was using the APAS ports for station construction. Edited February 25, 2017 by Rory Yammomoto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxg2827 Posted February 25, 2017 Author Share Posted February 25, 2017 They may be labeled as "androgynous" but that is strictly off appearance. These need active/passive to dock at the moment. The BDB CADS have the older/weaker magnetism before I increased the values on my CX port values in the 1.5 release. I didn't give cobaltwolf an updated cfg for the CADS yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
komodo Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 2 hours ago, cxg2827 said: They may be labeled as "androgynous" but that is strictly off appearance. These need active/passive to dock at the moment. The BDB CADS have the older/weaker magnetism before I increased the values on my CX port values in the 1.5 release. I didn't give cobaltwolf an updated cfg for the CADS yet For whatever it's worth, I just checked the numbers for the BDB Dev repo, and the numbers have been retuned to reflect the new values in CX, but only quite recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Yammomoto Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) On 2017-02-24 at 9:31 PM, cxg2827 said: They may be labeled as "androgynous" but that is strictly off appearance. These need active/passive to dock at the moment. The BDB CADS have the older/weaker magnetism before I increased the values on my CX port values in the 1.5 release. I didn't give cobaltwolf an updated cfg for the CADS yet OK. But passive CADS on an active APAS does nothing. Did the CADS split off before they became gendered? EDIT: Yes. I'm not entirely sure what to do with this - make APAS non-gendered, or make CADS gendered? As Far As I Know, APAS (And CADS) were made to be non-gendered - don't the configs defeat that purpose? Edited February 27, 2017 by Rory Yammomoto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxg2827 Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 23 hours ago, Rory Yammomoto said: OK. But passive CADS on an active APAS does nothing. Did the CADS split off before they became gendered? That's a question for the BDB team. I just provided the model/texture and initial CFG. I believe they changed it to be non-gendered, but may still use the same docking node type as mine. Could be possible that there are docking conflicts due to a non-gendered with a gendered, even though the node type are the same. Possible fix would be for a second docking node to be added to the Unity scene/CFG to be cross-compatible with BDB CADS/CX APAS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewHere Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Still underrated. Hope you will keep this mod alive for a long time <3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Yammomoto Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 4 hours ago, cxg2827 said: ...I believe they changed it to be non-gendered, but may still use the same docking node type as mine... they must have. That probably also explains the failure to dock between APAS and CADS - The Gendered-on-non-gendered conflict. My question is why you made it gendered in the first place - the CBM ports being mechanically different I understand, but the APAS system was specifically designed to be non-gendered - the name "Androgynous Peripheral Attachment System" derives from this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxg2827 Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 16 minutes ago, Rory Yammomoto said: My question My answer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxg2827 Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 Addendum: Do people think that it's important to be able to dock two active APAS ports together, more so that the inability to dock two passive ports? If so I can change the APAS to non-gendered in the next release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin_Maclure Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 5 minutes ago, cxg2827 said: Addendum: Do people think that it's important to be able to dock two active APAS ports together, more so that the inability to dock two passive ports? If so I can change the APAS to non-gendered in the next release. Personally, I prefer having the real-life counterpart behavior. It adds an element of design (albeit, a small one) to think of when putting your stuff together. So i.e.: passive-to-passive = no / active-to-active = no / active-to-passive = a good time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Yammomoto Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, cxg2827 said: Addendum: Do people think that it's important to be able to dock two active APAS ports together, more so that the inability to dock two passive ports? If so I can change the APAS to non-gendered in the next release. No. Keep it the way it is. Just provide patches to remove the feature. Edited February 28, 2017 by Rory Yammomoto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxg2827 Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 3 minutes ago, Calvin_Maclure said: active-to-active = yes The APAS actually allow active to active docking. the only configuration that wouldn't work would be passive-passive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts