Zuthal

There appears to be an issue with the Rapier's plume. In vacuum, it clips through the vessel, and has weird visual artefacts. This is on a fresh install of KSP, with only Waterfall-Core, ModuleManager and Stock Waterfall Effects installed, running on macOS 10.14.6 with a Radeon Pro 560X. All other Waterfall plumes work perfectly fine.

I made a small modulemanager patch to, if CryoTanks is installed, add the option to switch the bipropellant internal RCS to hydrolox or methalox. This patch does not change the plumes, only changes the stats, by the same ratio as the switch from LFO to methalox/hydrolox for Near Future Launch Vehicles' heavy bipropellant RCS. I thought some other people might find it useful as well.

Thanks!

Given that Procedural Parts has now been updated to 1.8, are you planning to update this mod to 1.8 as well?

There is SMURFF, which adjusts parts to have a more realistic performance mainly regarding the propellant mass fraction of tanks and the thrust to weight ratio of engines. The full adjustments are to realistic values, and would definitely be OP in a 2.5x scale game, but you can set how much it adjusts in the config of the mod.

Problem is, IR parts don't work with FAR either - I have tried to make variable geometry planes with them, and they also do not behave nearly as you'd expect.

I use RCS build aid, and while the torques from engine thrust/engine gimbles/RCS it displays, as well as the dry and average CoM, are useful, it doesn't quite display the info I am looking for. But I found that FAR actually displays those values, so that's fine.

I would like to know if there is a mod to both a) display the vessel's moment of inertia tensor along the axes it will be controlled about when in flight (or along the axes of the root part), and to b) visually indicate these axes in the editor, to help with aligning the control component with the principal axes.

One question that is kinda tangential to this mod: Does anyone here know of a mod that works for 1.6.1 that adds small-diameter SRBs and probe parts that would go into the starting tech node? Because starting out with a Flea and a Stayputnik just feels kinda ehhhh to me, from a realism POV.

One thing you should I think definitely do is keep separate records for stock aero and FAR - since FAR seriously changes the aerodynamics model, and especially can make taking those tight turns a lot harder at high speed, due to your plane potentially just being torn apart by the aerodynamic stresses.

I have a question about the part variant switcher: Can it only switch part models and textures, or also other aspects of parts? If the second is true, then this addition might have just obsoleted all of the various fuel switcher/part switcher mods.

You have disabled Oxidiser, Liquidfuel, Monoprop, Equipment and Researchkits from being included in the calculation. Click the buttons next to the name of the resource to enable it again.

L4/L5, at least the exact positions (same orbit, but 60° in front and behind) work perfectly fine in normal KSP, however, if you do not get the exact same orbital period, they will eventually drift. It is L1 through L3 that do not work and absolutely require n-body gravity.

How would I go about putting together a profile to use with Sigma Dimensions rescale factor of 6.4? My main concerns are signal distance (as all distances will be 6.4x larger than in stock KSP) and anything time-related (as larger distances translate to much longer transit times). Additionally, I am not sure, but there might be issues with the magnetospheres, if their sizes are hardcoded and not based on the planet's size. Also, one thing I noticed without the rescale: On a Mac, with Intel integrated graphics, the magnetospheres/radiation belts do not render until you are quite far out (Kerbin's outer radiation belt, by the time it becomes visible in map view, covers about a fifth or so of the width of my 1280x800 screen).

Could you make the ECLSS maybe more granular (so one "unit" can support one Kerbal) and simply give any pod enough slots to support its full crew capacity? Since to me it would seem kind of silly to design a pod with an ECLSS that cannot support the full capacity.