[1.0.5] FASA 5.44

[Roxette]

It appears that your download file is invalid. Am I doing solething wrong? I am Downloading the same as I always have.

I assume you're trying to download from SpacePort, and that is where the problem lies. Use this mediafire mirror instead (as on the first post of this thread) and you'll probably have more luck. Both downloads are valid, but SpacePort has issues with large files at times, particularly to users on slower connections.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Roxette

[m00f]

No, I used the mediafire download that Frizzank recently posted. I'll try it again.

EDIT: I tried again and just got an empty folder.

Also, the download that you posted is not the newest download. It's 3.73, not 3.83.

Edited March 1, 2014 by m00f

[Roxette]

... the download that you posted is not the newest download. It's 3.73, not 3.83.

You did not specify you were trying to download the beta, so naturally I assumed you meant the release, but I've just (re)downloaded the beta from mediafire with 100% success. I suspect instance of internet whierdness between you and mediafire or something sorry.

edit: Mirrored it to dropbox so you have an alternate source, https://www.dropbox.com/s/z06g3c7miecw8ib/FASA3.83.zip

Edited March 2, 2014 by Roxette

[m00f]

Thanks, it seems that I do have some interet issue, as the 3.73 download is also invalid.

[Pappystein]

Not that I am playing WoW (My friends are right now) but Blizzard has posted on their servers that there are intertubes issues ATM. So Likely an internet issue.

[wasmic]

Awesome, is there anyway to force staging to not activate a default module.

So if I have a decoupler and an engine it only does one if staged?

Easy, use the line

staging = false

Might also be

staged = false

can't remember which.

[Motokid600]

The nosecones have two nodes at the side of them, right? Those nodes are, AFAIK, meant for attaching fairings. Anyway, the exposed nodes cause a lot of drag with FAR. To fix this, add the word "Fairing" to the title (NOT the name) of a part. This will not break saves, but I'm not sure whether your current crafts will be affected.

Im just seeing this post sorry. I gave it a look today and sadly the part already has "Fairing" in the title. And yea its the 1.25 with the two small nodes on the side. There a way to get rid of them?

[frizzank]

You can delete the nodes from the config, the are labeled node_attach. I can not delete them from fasa as you would not be able to close off the tops of some cones without them.

Or see if this helps. Open up the FairingNosecone1m.cfg it is located in "GameData\FASA\Gemini2\FASA_Gemini_LR91_Pack"

change

mass = 0.02

to

mass = 0.05

and add this line below it.

CoMOffset = 0, 0.25, 0

[frizzank]

Thanks, it seems that I do have some interet issue, as the 3.73 download is also invalid.

I can confirm on 2 different computers in 2 different parts of the country that the download is indeed valid and works.

Whether or not it has bugs in it is a different matter.

[m00f]

I can confirm on 2 different computers in 2 different parts of the country that the download is indeed valid and works.

Whether or not it has bugs in it is a different matter.

I just tried the additional dropbox mirror and it worked fine. It must have been an internet issue, as my internet in my house is infamously terrible.

[frizzank]

MODULE

{

name = ModuleDecouple

isOmniDecoupler = False

ejectionForce = 50

staged = false

}

This prevented the staging of the decoupler and only fired the rockets. Most helpful thank you....

[Roxette]

I just tried the additional dropbox mirror and it worked fine

Grand, I'll leave it up until frizzank releases a newer version (or requests it pulled) in case it helps others.

[frizzank]

Posted a hotfix for the launch towers. Some where still having issues with tall rockets with lots of parts.

I am using the launch clamp mechanic from the game meaning that the towers actually hold your rocket. So just like the launch clamps, if you put them only on one side of a really tall rocket you will have issues.

Rockets must be Balanced!!!

http://www./download/j3hjm16mli41plg/FASA_LaunchTowers3.84.zip

[ctbram]

This is a great mod and it just makes me that much more angry that squad keeps dragging their feet on getting a 64-bit windows version of the game. I am currently running interstellar, kw rocketry, and aies parts addons along with kas, boulderco clouds, mechjeb, remotetech2 and a few others. The parts packs are the big memory consummers and even though I run boulderco's dynamic texture compressor in aggressive mode my games already starts at 2.5GB. I would like to FASA, B9, KOSMOS, and the Soviet pak but the addition of any one of them and my game hit 3GB within minutes or one or two reverts to the VAB.

The stock game becomes boring very fast but the memory limit is really becoming a drag and the memory leaks are also ridiculous. I have never in my life seen a game that with each release the memory leaks seem to become worse rather then better. What is more frustrating is rather then fix the leaks and put out a 64bit windows version to allow a broader experience they are focus on adding the cost dynamic which will limit the user experience. I just think it's the wrong priority. The real fun of this game is the erector set aspect. They should be wanting to allow a broader selection of options and allow expanded parts packs rather then restricting us to the stock bits and then making it even more difficult to access those.

[frizzank]

I recommend having 2 different installs until mod launchers get incorporated in stock KSP. All you have to do is install it in 2 different folders. I do this and it works great for me.

[Camacha]

Running a dedicated 64-bit Linux install from an USB3 stick is also an option. It takes some fiddling to get up and running, but you get the RAM you need and it prevents you from having to deal with dual boot and all that.

[Deathsoul097]

-Snip- it just makes me that much more angry that squad keeps dragging their feet on getting a 64-bit windows version. -Snip-

Oh. Um you appear to have no idea what you're talking about. That has nothing to do with SQUAD you know. The reason KSP isn't 64bit is because the UNITY devs (You know, not squad, the guys who make the game engine that KSP uses.) haven't been able to make a stable 64bit version for Windows/OSX, right? (And before you do, don't even think of suggesting a switch in game engines. That's basically saying (In fact, no, that IS saying) "Hey SQUAD, how's about you throw away over three years of hard work and switch to this game engine?")

[Deltac]

This post went out of scope in 1654.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Deltac

[ferram4]

Hey frizzank, would you mind making a changing the nosecone and fairing attach node names to "connect" rather than "attach?" It turns out that most of the fairing mods (KW, AIES, pFairings) use that id for their fairing nodes, and the next version of FAR is going to have the ability to flag a particular type of attach node id as something to be ignored for blunt body drag calculations; re-naming the nodes will help prevent me from having to add another exemption and increasing the risk of false positives with other mods attach nodes. If you've got a good justification for leaving them as "attach," I'll just add another exemption, but at this moment I think it would be simpler for everyone if the change is on your end.

[frizzank]

Yes I can but it will break craft files and save games......

I could just do it for the small one if you think it would help....

Is there a way to include a FAR override in the cfg files so I dont break attach nodes?

node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0

node_stack_connect1 = 0, 0.25, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0

node_stack_connect2 = 0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0

node_stack_connect3 = 0, 0.75, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0

node_stack_bottom1 = -0.624, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0

node_stack_bottom2 = 0.624, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0

to this

node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0

node_stack_bottom1 = 0, 0.25, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0

node_stack_bottom2 = 0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0

node_stack_bottom3 = 0, 0.75, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0

node_stack_connect1 = -0.624, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0

node_stack_connect2 = 0.624, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0

Edited March 3, 2014 by frizzank

[ferram4]

The only way that I can think of that would work is for me to create a new PartModule that exists only to feed in the proper parameters, which will hurt performance if it continues to exist or it will cause weird things to happen on reload if it deletes itself. Another option is to recode of the way that the FARBasicDragModel PartModule works so that the values can be fed in there, but I think that would also require me to work out a new KSPField thing to allow it to be easily loaded, and I don't know what that entails (and my only attempt with that went nowhere), and besides that it means more memory usage for each part since it's going to have to store the list of exempt attach nodes rather than working off of a global list. There are a lot of bad things that can happen with the recode that would be necessary for setting things up that way.

[tmikesecrist3]

any thoughts on how to have two ksp installs with steam?

[frizzank]

any thoughts on how to have two ksp installs with steam?

KSP does not need steam to run. You can double click on the icon outside of steam and it will still work.

Copy your Kerbal Space Program folder in \Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common

Paste it to a new location somewhere.

Run it from the KSP.exe in the new location.

Now you have 2 working instals

[tmikesecrist3]

Cool thank you I will do a clean install and try it think your Frizzank

[eggrobin]

Hey frizzank, would you mind making a changing the nosecone and fairing attach node names to "connect" rather than "attach?" It turns out that most of the fairing mods (KW, AIES, pFairings) use that id for their fairing nodes, and the next version of FAR is going to have the ability to flag a particular type of attach node id as something to be ignored for blunt body drag calculations; re-naming the nodes will help prevent me from having to add another exemption and increasing the risk of false positives with other mods attach nodes. If you've got a good justification for leaving them as "attach," I'll just add another exemption, but at this moment I think it would be simpler for everyone if the change is on your end.

If you want to work with the names of the attach nodes, fewer exemptions is better,

Another option is to recode of the way that the FARBasicDragModel PartModule works so that the values can be fed in there, but I think that would also require me to work out a new KSPField thing to allow it to be easily loaded,

ceterum censeo this is a better a better approach; expecting future modders to properly pick correctly between "connect" and "attach" seems like a bad idea (neither of those explicitly refers to blunt body drag) and the same question of renaming and breaking saves vs. adding an exemption would arise every time someone gets it wrong. A KSPField that explicitly says what it does seems both more elegant and safer.

and besides that it means more memory usage for each part since it's going to have to store the list of exempt attach nodes rather than working off of a global list.

This is technically true, but should be negligible. I do not think it is enough to warrant going with the more obscure "connect" vs. "attach" approach.