*Redundant Thread - Do Not Use* KW Rocketry Update

[Gristle]

Seems like this might be a SpacePort problem. Another Mod , Telemachus, was reported as being updated by the author on the SpacePort, yet the DL is the same as the old one I have.

[lpam]

Yes i used those steps and order, im using the 1.25mm I think that is the size. the smallest of them anyway

Tested the fairings now and I can't seem to replicate your problem. Try using the fairings again on a different rocket design and if you have the same issue re-download using my link and see if that works.

Can confirm this, they haven't been updated yet. The nodes for most of the fairings are off.

The one listed here does work though. Thanks for that Ipam

OK, it seems that the official KW link has not been updated properly, until that happens I will keep this thread open.

[jordanjay29]

i noticed that today. Im having a small problem with the fairings. when i try to decouple, the fairing unit stays together and my craft magically floats through the cone. Any ideas?

I had the same problem when I first started using them. Try staging the fairing shells first, and then the base. That will pop off the cone+walls first, and then in a separate stage separate fairing and rocket. Actually put the fairing shells in a different stage before the fairing base, that's the only way it'll work. Otherwise both pop off at the same time, and you get that weird animation.

[Konraden]

I had the same problem when I first started using them. Try staging the fairing shells first, and then the base. That will pop off the cone+walls first, and then in a separate stage separate fairing and rocket. Actually put the fairing shells in a different stage before the fairing base, that's the only way it'll work. Otherwise both pop off at the same time, and you get that weird animation.

I wonder if it's related to the same issue with engines not igniting if they're decoupled at the same time or something.

[viperwolf]

I had the same problem when I first started using them. Try staging the fairing shells first, and then the base. That will pop off the cone+walls first, and then in a separate stage separate fairing and rocket. Actually put the fairing shells in a different stage before the fairing base, that's the only way it'll work. Otherwise both pop off at the same time, and you get that weird animation.

This worked for me thank you for your help. also thank you for the others that also helped me with this. I appreciate it. this seems to be a good community.

[sushinut]

Thanks for the info. I was scratching my head about the new file that is the same as the old one.

lpam-- I don't think you can change thread subjects, but if you can, it would be mighty helpful if you referred to "KW Rocketry" (with a space).... will help with people trying to search the forum for support info using the author's name for it. I posted a link to this thread over on Spaceport to help others out.

[Wait- Was That Important?]

How about a parts modification? I don't know how open people are to changing things like that, but I've taken to reducing the mass on the fairings.

For example, 6 tons for the largest fairing base? That's just ridiculous. I reduced the masses of all the fairing bases larger than 1.25m by a factor of 5, just for balancing issues.

Any other useful rebalances made to the pack?

[Synthesis]

How about a parts modification? I don't know how open people are to changing things like that, but I've taken to reducing the mass on the fairings.

For example, 6 tons for the largest fairing base? That's just ridiculous. I reduced the masses of all the fairing bases larger than 1.25m by a factor of 5, just for balancing issues.

Any other useful rebalances made to the pack?

Any chance you'd mind sharing that, if it's not too much trouble? I know how to do the changes to the CFG files, I'm just afraid of being clumsy.

[Frostiken]

Would it be possible for someone to modify the KW files so they aren't such atrocious unoptimized crap? The pack is 400 megs and is pissing away tons of RAM needlessly. The 3M fairing itself is like 8 megs alone, and it's a freaking cylinder.

I have no idea what the problem is, but there's packs with ten times the resolution that don't even use as much space as these :/

[MDBenson]

How about a parts modification? I don't know how open people are to changing things like that, but I've taken to reducing the mass on the fairings.

For example, 6 tons for the largest fairing base? That's just ridiculous. I reduced the masses of all the fairing bases larger than 1.25m by a factor of 5, just for balancing issues.

Any other useful rebalances made to the pack?

Principally at least, the weight if the expanded 3m fairing base isn't that off for a real construction, or at least it wouldn't be if the payload didn't sway about like a twig in the wind, as they are large re-enforced structures designed to hold the weight of the payload (which can be in excess of 10 metric tonnes on Ariane 5 and close to 20mt on Delta IV Heavy) BUT I agree for the game they are too heavy. KW Rockets generally seem to be a lot less efficient than others. I suspect the weight of the parts has not been slashed down to the magic 64% correctly. That would reduce the large fairing you were using as a reference there to 3.84t, which for the game is much more reasonable.

I really just love KW for it's fairings and large rocket parts so I keep using it. I can create much smaller stock rockets that lift the same mass easier but they don't look nearly as good I don't have sources for the real weights of individual sections of various rockets so I've no ideas if they are realistic, but they did always seem heavy to me. I'd also like rebalances if possible.

EDIT: I did some comparisons of stock parts and KW's and actually they are mostly reasonable, all the other fairing bases are much lighter and the fairing shells are very light too, I suspect there may just be a couple of parts that are weighted wrong? I think 2.5mt is a reasonable weight for the 3.5m Expasnded base, anyway. The 3.5m base is 2mt, so it makes it a little heavier or the extra weight carrying ability.

Edited May 31, 2013 by MDBenson

[lpam]

lpam-- I don't think you can change thread subjects, but if you can, it would be mighty helpful if you referred to "KW Rocketry" (with a space).... will help with people trying to search the forum for support info using the author's name for it. I posted a link to this thread over on Spaceport to help others out.

Fixed! Thanks for the advice, I thought it was all one word.

How about a parts modification?

As I don't actually own the pack, I can't make modifications other than making the mod compatible. Feel free to make changes to your personal download though.

Edited May 31, 2013 by lpam

[MDBenson]

Actually, calling it KW (space) Rocketry is a pain, as the forum rejects short keywords so it makes it harder to find

[Guest]

Actually, calling it KW (space) Rocketry is a pain, as the forum rejects short keywords so it makes it harder to find

Unless you enclose your search item in quotes (i.e. "KW Rocketry"), then it's just fine.

[MDBenson]

Unless you enclose your search item in quotes (i.e. "KW Rocketry"), then it's just fine.

*facepalm* I can't believe I didn't try that :\

[Guest]

*facepalm* I can't believe I didn't try that :\

No worries! I haven't had a drop of caffeine yet, so it's a bit of a miracle I remembered.

[Julexus Quandem]

Hmm, I'm reading this whole *update* thing differently. Winston said in the comments:

Attachment node issues are resolved in 20.1.

suggesting to me that the 0.20.1 patch to KSP solved the problem, not anything that the creators of KW Rocketry did and that other than the directory structure KW Rocketry is compatible with KSP v0.20.1 (or .2).

What the OP has done is change the directory structure to the 0.20 standard.

[MDBenson]

The attachment issue was due to the requirement of the 'scale=1' IIRC. I added it to all the 0.19.x fairing parts and they worked fine in 0.20.x (albeit in the legacy folders)

[Winston]

... what are you doing?

[Deltac]

... what are you doing?

The better question, winston, is what are you not doing?

[Winston]

The better question, winston, is what are you not doing?

Having tested the mod in the latest KSP revision and found no bugs whatsoever, I don't see what it is you're wanting me to do.

If you find bugs, post them on the Spaceport page and we will read through them and see what we can do about it in our own time.

The readme also specifically states not to redistribute the mod, which people seem to repeatedly ignore.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Winston

[KhaosCorp]

The better question, winston, is what are you not doing?

You act as if mod devs are obligated to make/update mods....

[Canopus]

Having tested the mod in the latest KSP revision and found no bugs whatsoever, I don't see what it is you're wanting me to do.

If you find bugs, post them on the Spaceport page and we will read through them and see what we can do about it in our own time.

The readme also specifically states not to redistribute the mod, which people seem to repeatedly ignore.

I have no problems with the latest update.

[Deltac]

Having tested the mod in the latest KSP revision and found no bugs whatsoever, I don't see what it is you're wanting me to do.

If you find bugs, post them on the Spaceport page and we will read through them and see what we can do about it in our own time.

The readme also specifically states not to redistribute the mod, which people seem to repeatedly ignore.

What I meant was you didn't tell us about yours and Kyle's absence. Your sudden disappearance left us without much information. We had no real idea if you and Kyle were just busy are if you two had left KSP for greater pastures. We also have no idea if you two have continued work on this mod, or if you're going to keep it as is, only updating as KSP updates. I know I'm asking a lot here, but I think I represent the community when I ask that if you create something a plethora of people enjoy, keep us updated as to whether or not you'll be busy for any length of time. You don't have to be specific, just "Going to be busy for a couple of months or so." will suffice.

[KhaosCorp]

What I meant was you didn't tell us about yours and Kyle's absence. Your sudden disappearance left us without much information. We had no real idea if you and Kyle were just busy are if you two had left KSP for greater pastures. We also have no idea if you two have continued work on this mod, or if you're going to keep it as is, only updating as KSP updates. I know I'm asking a lot here, but I think I represent the community when I ask that if you create something a plethora of people enjoy, keep us updated as to whether or not you'll be busy for any length of time. You don't have to be specific, just "Going to be busy for a couple of months or so." will suffice.

Mod devs go MIA sometimes, something you have to deal with playing a game like this.....

refer to DYJs post to see why your arguments don't matter and this thread is in error

I think you can get em to lock it Winston

[lpam]

... what are you doing?

Apologies, as your mod wasn't compatible with 0.20, and your thread was closed I decided to make your mod compatible.

Now you are back this thread will be closed.