[1.12.x] Freight Transport Technologies [v0.6.0]

[RoverDude]

Re Symmetry - nothing I can do about that one.

[somewhatcasual]

Re Symmetry - nothing I can do about that one.

Posted a quick question regarding this on the firespitter post: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/24551-Firespitter-propeller-plane-and-helicopter-parts-v6-3-5-%28Sep-1st%29-for-KSP-0-24-2?p=1754227&viewfull=1#post1754227

Perhaps they will know more and can fix the issue.

Thanks for your time!

[Tarheel1999]

These have already been fixed, just not released yet. If you download the part configs from github they'll work just fine.

TCFirebird,

They all appear to be fixed in the Cargo Pods except for the first resource (Ore). The tankcost value is correct but Firespitter doesn't seem to be updating the value in the editor or in game. So an empty cargo pod of Ore will still return negative values. I think this has to be fixed in the Firespitter code and not the part cfg.

[Ramarren]

They all appear to be fixed in the Cargo Pods except for the first resource (Ore). The tankcost value is correct but Firespitter doesn't seem to be updating the value in the editor or in game. So an empty cargo pod of Ore will still return negative values. I think this has to be fixed in the Firespitter code and not the part cfg.

Application to first tank was fixed 22 days ago, and the version including it should be in the main Firespitter repository.

--

Regarding the symmetry issue: actually, the plugin works fine, but KSP is case sensitive about field names, and a bunch of parts with multiple FStextureSwitch2 have a field 'moduleId' instead of 'moduleID' as they should be (note 'd'/'D'). So the texture switch is applied to all texture switches in symmetry parts.

[RoverDude]

Which ones? Easy enough to sort

[Tarheel1999]

Which ones? Easy enough to sort

Thanks Ramarren! The new Firespitter fixed the first tank issue. That's a newer version than was recently distributed in MKS. I doublecheck the symmetry issue later. Thanks again

RoverDude - its FTT_Cargo_375_01 and FTT_Cargo_375_02. I don't think any other parts have multiple texture switch modules combined with a fuelswitch module.

[smjjames]

Application to first tank was fixed 22 days ago, and the version including it should be in the main Firespitter repository.

--

Regarding the symmetry issue: actually, the plugin works fine, but KSP is case sensitive about field names, and a bunch of parts with multiple FStextureSwitch2 have a field 'moduleId' instead of 'moduleID' as they should be (note 'd'/'D'). So the texture switch is applied to all texture switches in symmetry parts.

I've replaced the dll and the FSfuelswitchtweakscale bit in the firespitter folder (only ones that came packed with MKS, and that I have anyway), so I'll check it out.

[Tarheel1999]

Okay, symmetry is fixed but you need to do more than change moduleId to moduleID. You also need to remove the semicolon from the end of the moduleID lines. One of the Cargo Pods is also missing a moduleID = 0 in the first FStextureSwitch2 module. For consistency with the FS documentation I also placed the moduleID line under the name value/key.

So the working Cargo Pod had values like this (with the ID increasing for each texture switch module):

name = FStextureSwitch2

moduleID = 0

The broken Cargo Pod had values like this (note the semicolon):

name = FStextureSwitch2

moduleID = 0;

[smjjames]

Symmetry is still broken, but I didn't do anything other than put the newer Firespitter DLL and the FSfuelswitch thing in.

Not sure if I should go ahead and edit it like Tarheel is saying, but then again, I'm not 100% sure that I'd know what I'm doing. Unless it's just a matter of deleting one character?

Edited February 25, 2015 by smjjames

[RoverDude]

If someone can put that on GitHub as an issue or pull request you'll get it in the next patch.

[Tarheel1999]

If someone can put that on GitHub as an issue or pull request you'll get it in the next patch.

Issue submitted.

[chrisl]

Just downloaded this mod and have to say it looks really cool. But I'm concerned that I've got a problem or possibly a conflict with another mod. I did my best to put together the starlifter as a test based on the blueprint int he image on the OP. 1101.654t of lifter (two carge racks are actually empty as I don't yet have MKS/OKS). 400k units of Liquid Hydrogen, 8 2.5m Nuclear engines and 1 3.75m nuclear engine. Those engines seem really efficient (900 vaccum isp) but Mechjeb is telling me that I'm only going to get 1055m/s with all that fuel. Less then 6 minutes of burn. Barely enough to fly, one-way, from Kerbin to Mun or Minmus. Is that accurate? Looking at the stats, I'm going to burn 305.5 LH/s at max thrust with the GNR-2500 & 733.2 LH/s with the GNR-3750. Seems like I'd be better off using a standard LFO engine.

[somewhatcasual]

RoverDude, I'm having some trouble in that the starlifter radial hydrogen tank does not seem to be able to pass fuel to whatever it is attached to. The only way I found to make it work is by connecting a fuel line to the main tank... but as far as I know you shouldn't have to do this in this situation. Here is an example of build I was testing where such problem happens:

http://i.imgur.com/4aWHeHN.jpg

A very simple craft. Nothing complex. No clipping parts. Total of 7 parts.

I have the CrossfeedEnabler plugin (came with B9). Maybe that is messing with the tanks?

Just curious, Does anyone know which mod the radiators came from?

[Pectus Solentis]

RoverDude. How about adding rectangular-and-radial docking port (shapes like stock radial decoupler, but decouple-and-reattachable joint) next update?

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I made my karrier just a few hour before, but there is no rectangular port, i had to attach side pods directly to central cargo pods, and i coudn't do decouple-and-reattach performances test now. as a replacement i had KAS ElectroMagnets on my on-duty ship but that i can't roll out my ship as a complete (decouple-and-reattach-able) state makes me a little disappointed.

(sorry if my words are impolite. I'm not a native english speaker...)

[RoverDude]

Sure, log me a Github request

[goldenpsp]

RoverDude. How about adding rectangular-and-radial docking port (shapes like stock radial decoupler, but decouple-and-reattachable joint) next update?

http://imgur.com/a/9BH4o

I made my karrier just a few hour before, but there is no rectangular port, i had to attach side pods directly to central cargo pods, and i coudn't do decouple-and-reattach performances test now. as a replacement i had KAS ElectroMagnets on my on-duty ship but that i can't roll out my ship as a complete (decouple-and-reattach-able) state makes me a little disappointed.

(sorry if my words are impolite. I'm not a native english speaker...)

Cool ship. What mod are you using for the tracks?

[smjjames]

Cool ship. What mod are you using for the tracks?

Looks like Kerbal Foundries maybe?

[goldenpsp]

Looks like Kerbal Foundries maybe?

that has been mentioned, but I was hoping to get confirmation from Pectus himself.

[Pectus Solentis]

Cool ship. What mod are you using for the tracks?

kerbal Foundries.

Roverdude : I have one question. why HB Cargo Pod doesn't facilitate RM / XM (RareMetal / ExoticMineral) cargo?

Because HB Cargo Pod doesn't facilitate these valuables, I have to load these on the TOP of SPs (using your Radial Supply Cargo) and my SPIKs (side pod of IK) are filthy instable.

Heavy weight (80t per fully loaded one SPs (of RMs) ) will be one thing that I should bear on, but High Mass Center (being loaded cargo positioned at TOP of SPs) makes me irritating. If your HB Cargo Pod facilitate RM / XMs, this problem won't be occured.

Is it your intention that HB Cargo Pod doesn't facilitate RM / XMs?

PS : My intention is, while IK transfer in LKO IK simply detaches all of SPs and SPs Themselves re-entry on their own (using FMRS) so I made all of SPs have their CPUs and caterpillars, to come KSCs on their own when a few of these were dropped slightly away from KSC Launchpad.

The nutshell is, my SPs are intended to move by its own caterpillar on surface. so being stable when surface crawling (especially when fully loaded!) is important.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Pectus Solentis

[RoverDude]

Happy to add them - same deal, Github Either that or I may make a much smaller storage tank that fits into the indentations built into the HB cargo pods

[Pectus Solentis]

Either that or I may make a much smaller storage tank that fits into the indentations built into the HB cargo pods

Isn't it already possible using your radial cargoes TweakScaled(at 62.5cm size)? what I want is inline RM / XM container.

[Pectus Solentis]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

it seems that KAS ElectroMagnet doesn't catch the attaching edge of FTT Outrigger.

I was on field test to assemble my IK on just back of Runway, but EM doesn't work and my test failed...

and it seems that rectangular docking port (to attach to THAT edge of FTT Outrigger) must be needed...

Edited February 26, 2015 by Pectus Solentis

[chrisl]

Just downloaded this mod and have to say it looks really cool. But I'm concerned that I've got a problem or possibly a conflict with another mod. I did my best to put together the starlifter as a test based on the blueprint int he image on the OP. 1101.654t of lifter (two carge racks are actually empty as I don't yet have MKS/OKS). 400k units of Liquid Hydrogen, 8 2.5m Nuclear engines and 1 3.75m nuclear engine. Those engines seem really efficient (900 vaccum isp) but Mechjeb is telling me that I'm only going to get 1055m/s with all that fuel. Less then 6 minutes of burn. Barely enough to fly, one-way, from Kerbin to Mun or Minmus. Is that accurate? Looking at the stats, I'm going to burn 305.5 LH/s at max thrust with the GNR-2500 & 733.2 LH/s with the GNR-3750. Seems like I'd be better off using a standard LFO engine.

Anyone have any idea if the numbers I'm seeing with the starlifter are correct? If they aren't then I'll go through all the mods I have and see if one is throwing things off but I'd really rather not spend the time doing that if the 1055m/s dV is correct.

[Akira_R]

Anyone have any idea if the numbers I'm seeing with the starlifter are correct? If they aren't then I'll go through all the mods I have and see if one is throwing things off but I'd really rather not spend the time doing that if the 1055m/s dV is correct.

Doesn't sound like it, but I haven't played much with the starlifter recently, not there yet in my career, I would suggest checking to make sure all your engines can access all the fuel, you may be running into a fuel flow issue. Try adding fuel lines, or you could hyper edit the thing into orbit and do a burn and see if it is pulling fuel properly.

[RoverDude]

Also what folks tend to forget is the ratio of ship mass to fuel tank mass. A 6KT ship with a single spherical tank is just not going to cut it, despite the high DV. Hence why you have some pretty large tanks. So a comparison of fuel mass to your ship's dry weight is likely in order