[1.02] KW Rocketry v2.7 Available - 1.02 Compatibility! - 16/05/2015

[Motokid600]

Boamere I will do that, but should I maybe make a thread in addon affairs?

[Boamere]

Boamere I will do that, but should I maybe make a thread in addon affairs?

Don't worry it does still crash... 64 bit is driving me mental

[Motokid600]

Yea tell me about it. All the mods that didn't work last night now DO work. I did nothing different.. there even the same folders I left on my desktop. Just started dropping them in one by one today and now.. they all work. I even installed Texture Replacer and a few HD textures to go along with my new found stability. Tried moving in and out of all the buildings at the KSC, tried moving back and forth from flights to the KSC.. Just trying to induce a crash. Nothing! It's running great.. w..t..f. Oh Well.. just hope this doesn't bite me in the ass like.. tomorrow.

64 bit mood swings confirmed.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Motokid600

[Temeter]

Yea tell me about it. All the mods that didn't work last night now DO work. I did nothing different.. there even the same folders I left on my desktop. Just started dropping them in one by one today and now.. they all work. I even installed Texture Replacer and a few HD textures to go along with my new found stability. Tried moving in and out of all the buildings at the KSC, tried moving back and forth from flights to the KSC.. Just trying to induce a crash. Nothing! It's running great.. w..t..f. Oh Well.. just hope this doesn't bite me in the ass like.. tomorrow.

64 bit mood swings confirmed.

Yeah, i have the same weird issues. At one point a mod will cause a lot of problems, and then starts to work perfectly fine. Atm procedural fairings started crashing my game for no reason (might be an issue with KPIAEX or however it was named, still using 0.24). I'm having more weird crashes than ever before atm. The module manager dll caused a similar behaviour, even if that things wasn't supposed to load/ patch anything at all. Problems are even easy to track via the error logs, they just makes no sense.

I'm a bit hesitant to upgrade to 0.24 because of reported issues and KW rocketry, though. I'll probably duplicate the installation first.

[Motokid600]

well KW works fine for me, but take that with the smallest grain of salt you can imagine. Uhm.. time.. this update was devastating for mods and modders so id like to say give it a month and everything should be in full swing... hopefully.

[Temeter]

well KW works fine for me, but take that with the smallest grain of salt you can imagine. Uhm.. time.. this update was devastating for mods and modders so id like to say give it a month and everything should be in full swing... hopefully.

I'm going safe, made a full copy of the KSP folder. The issues can't be that bad.^^

Guess now we'll know why SQUAD didn't have the 64 bit version high on the list of priorities. I would bet some issues/instabilities are caused by the current 64x unity itself, at least the right mouse button thing was confirmed.

edit: Interesting, works perfectly fine for now. Only had to manually update KSPAPIE and Firespitter. Lets see how long that holds.

Ofc aside from the known ksp bug that radial decoupler shoot empty booster inwards. Which can be worked around by the ingenious rcs cones (to bad they are half as expensive as the booser itself^^).

Edited July 28, 2014 by Temeter

[Lei07]

Hello everyone. Just a quick question about shroud fairings 'cos I've never been able to figure this out correctly. And now with the new KW update (which is awesome thanks to both Kyle and Winston for the new version!) the petal adapter allows the same functionality, but I'm suffering the same lack of understanding.

Its just positioning. Assume you have an Apollo like craft, with the CSM up front and the LM on it's tail, connected with a decoupler to a docking port. To do the classic turn-about maneuver, you undock, turn round, blow the decoupler to reveal your main engine, dock, and then pull away the lander from the final "S-IVB" section of the rocket. In the VAB, where is this sequence would the new petal adapter be placed?

After playing with it for a while there were several ways I could get the lander to sit inside the adapter, but none seem to be obviously correct. I understand how the adapter otherwise works, with the "open shrouds" and the two "decouple" options, I get that part, just not where to place the thing for sure ^^;

Any comments or suggestions will be appreciated! And if required, I'll see about some screenshots, should they really be needed. Thanks!

[Temeter]

Hello everyone. Just a quick question about shroud fairings 'cos I've never been able to figure this out correctly. And now with the new KW update (which is awesome thanks to both Kyle and Winston for the new version!) the petal adapter allows the same functionality, but I'm suffering the same lack of understanding.

Its just positioning. Assume you have an Apollo like craft, with the CSM up front and the LM on it's tail, connected with a decoupler to a docking port. To do the classic turn-about maneuver, you undock, turn round, blow the decoupler to reveal your main engine, dock, and then pull away the lander from the final "S-IVB" section of the rocket. In the VAB, where is this sequence would the new petal adapter be placed?

After playing with it for a while there were several ways I could get the lander to sit inside the adapter, but none seem to be obviously correct. I understand how the adapter otherwise works, with the "open shrouds" and the two "decouple" options, I get that part, just not where to place the thing for sure ^^;

Any comments or suggestions will be appreciated! And if required, I'll see about some screenshots, should they really be needed. Thanks!

Not exactly, It should be like this:

KW engines have two overlapping nodes on the top of their engines. So the CSM connects to the petal adapter top node with it's own node between engine and fuel tanks.

The lander is not connected to the CSM. It's normally connected to the lower part of the petal adapter (might need a decoupler inbetween), with an open docking port at the top.

For the maneuver, just follow the part instructions: Put the petals 1st decouple and open function on one button, this will free the CSM and open the petals. Then you'll just turn and dock to the lander's docking port. Finally you use the second decouple to disconnect the Lander(+ the now docked CSM) from the adapter.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Temeter

[Winston]

Here, have this garbage drawing if you're still having trouble picturing it

you do not need any decouplers

[Guest]

Here, have this garbage drawing if you're still having trouble picturing it

you do not need any decouplers

http://puu.sh/atXQP/8c9a89edd4.png

This, exactly. I sorted this out days ago to make a KW Saturn V/Apollo 11 recreation. Works like a champ!

Right click -> first "decouple" command, kicks loose the CSM.

Spin round and dock.

Right click -> "decouple", springs the LEM and you're free to extract.

Easy peasy!

Edited July 28, 2014 by Jack Wolfe

[Winston]

This, exactly. I sorted this out days ago to make a KW Saturn V/Apollo 11 recreation. Works like a champ!

Right click -> first "decouple" command, kicks loose the CSM.

Spin round and dock.

Right click -> "decouple", springs the LEM and you're free to extract.

Easy peasy!

And don't forget to open the fairings before doing anything

[Drew Kerman]

Any reason this

The node is in the wrong position as well

http://i.imgur.com/L9z4Ges.png

is happening?

I've seen it before with TweakableEverything when paired with HotRockets.

[MelancholyFlapper]

Hi, I'm having a strange bug. Despite ensuring I didn't install the no-autoshroud configs, I'm still getting no autoshrouds. I double checked when installing the new version after wiping the old because I've been having this issue for a while. I just want shrouds! Any idea why it's happening or how I can fix it?

[Lei07]

Here, have this garbage drawing if you're still having trouble picturing it

you do not need any decouplers

http://puu.sh/atXQP/8c9a89edd4.png

Thanks for the overnight replies! The diagram is exactly what I needed. I'm not too worried yet about upgrading to all the current versions as I'm still running my .23.5 modded build waiting for various mods to be updated for .24.2. Last night I made a duplicate of my install to test out this new pack, loving the new parts!

For those interested, this is the CSM and LM of my Wocketship Six (spelling deliberate).

http://i39.servimg.com/u/f39/14/32/24/62/ws6_110.jpg' alt='ws6_110.jpg'>

And it sits ontop of the launch stages pretty much as seen here, naked to the world. Once I get into the newest build of the game and mods I hope to be able to put some clothes on her!

Thanks again for your replies and for your diagram, Winston.

Cheers!

[Bomoo]

Here, have this garbage drawing if you're still having trouble picturing it

you do not need any decouplers

http://puu.sh/atXQP/8c9a89edd4.png

See, there was my problem. I was trying to use the petal adapter with a Poodle-equipped crew vehicle, and it wasn't able to attach as you show here. This is likely because the KWR motors appear to have a second top node where stock motors do not.

[Winston]

See, there was my problem. I was trying to use the petal adapter with a Poodle-equipped crew vehicle, and it wasn't able to attach as you show here. This is likely because the KWR motors appear to have a second top node where stock motors do not.

Yeah it will only really work with the KW SPS because the tolerances are pretty small, plus it has the node. Also your lander needs to be very minimal, like the one in the video (probably not two-stage) else it won't fit.

The new SPS runs on monopropellant so that pancake tank is going to be dead weight, but you probably realise that

[Lei07]

The new SPS runs on monopropellant so that pancake tank is going to be dead weight, but you probably realise that

Aye That pic is from before the recent update, my mod stable .23.5 build. Infact have just been playing with the new SPS, very cool idea switching it over to monoprop! Is that to more reflect the real world equivalent?

Edited July 28, 2014 by Lei07

[BadManiac]

So the 5M parts are a bit... powerful. The "new" stock Nasa ARM engines are OP enough. What are we supposed to lift with them!?

[BudgetHedgehog]

What are we supposed to lift with them!?

You know those big refuelling stations you see in KSP? With 3m parts, labs, crew cabins, loads of tanks etc.. well, that, but all in one go.

[smunisto]

So the 5M parts are a bit... powerful. The "new" stock Nasa ARM engines are OP enough. What are we supposed to lift with them!?

It depends what mods you use. Stuff like MKS/OKS is the perfect payload for 5m for the outer planets. That's why there's 5m. It's not for the stock users by any means. IF you run mostly stock and some small mods that don't require much dV investment, then yes - the 5m parts will be an overkill for you.

[Lei07]

Sorry to pester again, just noticed something unless I'm being blind. Alot of the 3.75m KW fuel tanks are missing. All I can find is the SC-1 LFT (the darker tank). Did you remove them and allow the newer 5m parts to be adjusted with Tweakscale?

I assume thats the case, though my selective blindness couldn't find anything in the changelog.

Thanks for any response

[Kickasskyle]

So the 5M parts are a bit... powerful. The "new" stock Nasa ARM engines are OP enough. What are we supposed to lift with them!?

Hey man, I give you the tools. It's up to you to figure out what to do with them.

They're powerful sure, but they're not op by any means due to efficiency flaws etc.

Sorry to pester again, just noticed something unless I'm being blind. Alot of the 3.75m KW fuel tanks are missing. All I can find is the SC-1 LFT (the darker tank). Did you remove them and allow the newer 5m parts to be adjusted with Tweakscale?

I assume thats the case, though my selective blindness couldn't find anything in the changelog.

Thanks for any response

It's all there

[SciMan]

What to use the new 5m parts for? Launching more 5m parts, of course!

They should make building motherships actually viable, because of the amount they can reduce part count.

For some reason I'm considering a plan involving a 6-stack Griffon Century + V-35 tank based asparagus launcher, with a Titan-V engine + V-35 for the core.

Why I would NEED a launcher that large isn't something I'm concerned with right now. I'm sure I can come up with something that would need that much tonnage in orbit, like shunting a class E asteroid out to Jool orbit or something.

Here's a couple of less crazy ideas of what to do with them:

I've already got a Saturn-V with a stretched S-IVB stage acting as a fuel tanker.

The tanker stage consists of a KR-2L engine, unpainted 3m fuel tank, stubby 3.75-2.5m adapter, 2.5m probe core, and a Sr. docking port stacked together (list starts at bottom). Radially attached to that are 2 RTGs, 2 pairs of 3m radial SAS units arranged fore and aft, and 6 Vernor thrusters for docking translation.

Even when full, it handles like a dream, never runs out of power, and can dock to anything that has a Clamp-O-Tron Sr. docking port.

It takes a little bit of fuel from the 3m tank to get to my standard 125km circular 0deg parking orbit, but once it's up there it has 6km of delta-V without anything docked to it. Having more fuel is the best backup plan provided you have enough thrust to take advantage of it in a timely fashion, so I decided to send one of these out to Duna along with my first interplanetary mission in 0.24 as "Plan B" in case something's off with my orbital maneuvers, and to provide enough fuel to ensure that I can get the guy back.

That interplanetary mission also launches on a Saturn-V variant, with the 3rd stage's engine replaced by quad LV-N engines. I call that stage the "S-IVN" both because its a nuclear S-IV stage and because it has IV(aka 4) LV-N engines on it. The lander is a single stage direct ascent design, and the S-IVN has something like 9000 m/s dV with the lander attached and fully fueled, without drawing on the landers fuel. The lander has ~2500+ m/s worth of dV all by itself, and can re-dock to the S-IVN after landing via Sr. docking ports on the top of the S-IVN and lander.

To be honest, I didn't take cost into much consideration on either vessel, even tho I'm in Carreer mode, because firstly I don't believe in stranding Kerbals if possible, and secondly I don't expect to be disposing of the S-IVN or lander anytime soon so their costs can be amortized over several missions.

[Lei07]

Thanks Kyle, I do love the paint jobs on those 3.75s. I'm just totally part blind at times! ^^;

[lordlundar]

Well, after some futzing around it seems like there's still some memory issues with the x64 version similar with x86 one. Installing Active Texture Management (something I was avoiding and was why I was opting for the x64 version in the first place) resulted in the mods playing nice together.