CoolBeer

Sure, sounds fine so far. Well... If you want it more like reality(further down on your list) then a rocket engine is way more complex than a few pipes and a nozzle. (And very rarely are rocket engines cheap or simple). Gimbal range doesn't really make sense, a gimbal can be as simple as a swinging the thrust chamber with a hydraulic arm(or two if you need two axis motion, pitch and yaw), it's basically the same if you allow 1 degree or 10 degree motion. You could have the same engine, one with and one without gimballing, where the one without is lighter. This can also be solved with not gimballing, but the A-3/A-4(V-2) way with carbon tungsten jet vanes in the exhaust(first firing of the A-3 was in 1937), which results in basically the same thing, a deflection of the thrust to steer the rocket. Also, unlimited engine starts depends a bit, if you use the J-2 approach (engine used on the Saturn-V), you basically have unlimited firing with the Augmented Spark Ignited, which is basically a couple of spark plugs mounted in the combustion chamber. It makes no sense to limit the system to 1 or 2 firings. It also makes no sense to put this on an engine that will fire once only from ground, as anything you put on the rocket will mean less payload capability. (Granted, that's a much bigger deal in real life, where you need close to 10k m/s DeltaV for orbit). And then we have hypergolic fuels, which means that restarting systems are not needed, you just mix the two fuels together and magic happens. A thing to also take into account though is that most rocket engines are not rated for multiple starts, the few that were restarted are more of a rarity than anything. Sure, we already have something similar in RealFuels, where it is, as far as I can tell, already somewhat realistic(and overpowered for standard KSP, it's better in a real earth size system). First: Doesn't make sense, how come the engineering team comes up with great ideas suddenly after you pass 10km altitude? Second: Granted, does make sense. Third: Sooo, put the engine on the lauchpad, stap it down, connect LOADS of fuel to it and let it run for an hour or two while you afk in your bath? (Or if you want to do it realistic, static test firing of rockets are a real thing, just not for hours and hours). Needs more thought on how you want it to work in game, if "beating" the system this way is allowed. Please don't take this as "I hate your idea and want it to die!", it is not my intention at all. I have to admit I tend to go for realism over gameplay, which isn't always the right way. - Kolbjorn

But it does fly, as long as I don't use radial decouplers or liquid fuel engines everything works great. Staging works, SRBs fire and steering is locked and guided according to the code(even if I run a gravity turn profile). I was under the assumption(yes, I know, assuming things is a great way to kill kerbals) that the scriptable control system could work without a probe core, the only difference would be that I would have no control after liftoff (Which is great, if your program is without errors). If it is intended that you also need a probe core, I will of course adjust my rockets to that, it just puzzled me that some things work and some don't.

I THINK I have stumbled upon a bug... Let me explain. I have this rocket, it's basically just a capscule, CX4181 Scriptable Control System, fueltank, engine(LV-T45), decoupler and an SRB(BACC). If I empty the capscule(as in no pilot) the LV-T45 does not fire when staging occurs. It does fire when I have a pilot on board with the same code. lock throttle to 1. set mode to 1. lock steering to up. until 0 { set myspeed to ship:verticalspeed. wait 1. if(myspeed > ship:verticalspeed) { stage. } } Another thing I noticed, also without a pilot, is that the TT-38K Radial Decoupler does not eject at all when staged. Is this just me doing something stupid, did I not read the documentation? Miss a meeting? Link to craft - Kolbjorn

You could release a drop in very simple wedge model, say just an outer shell of a wedge, that people with crappy computers could use as a replacement if it became a problem. It could probably be done in less than 250 triangles and with some clever normal mapping you could even keep a lot of detail. This way the people that want a bit of extra performance of their 2000 part rocket could get it and the ones wanting bling gets that as well. - Kolbjorn

You can adjust all of those in the cfg file that is generated(GameData\ThunderAerospace\TacLifeSupport\PluginData\TacLifeSupport\LifeSupport.cfg) after you start up the game for the first time. 1. The EVA resource amount seems to be based on the EvaDefaultResourceAmount variable(looks to be in seconds). 2. Mod handles it fine as far as I can tell, the in-game settings is the one stuck at integers(as far as I can tell from looking at the code it is loaded from the cfg as a double). 3. Modulemanager handles parts only as far as I can tell, so that's out. At least we got a cfg to play with. - Kolbjorn

The stock radials burn up nicely as well. As I stated, I just tack on an extra heatshield on the bottom of the pod, it looks derpy, but at least I'll have chutes for landing. - Kolbjorn

Sure, but then the pod heats up and the chutes I tend to use(the radial ones) burn up, attaching an extra heatshield fixes that issue. (This is not an issue from LKO, it did happen to Jeb coming in from the Mun, may he rest in peace). - Kolbjorn

Hehe, kerbal engineering indeed (On the other hand, it's not like we have solar radiation in game anyway, I seem to recall someone taking a 2HOT Thermometer very close to the sun, and it still read very little. Hmm, seem to have found something here and here). - Kolbjorn

I like the look of it and the option for it, but I do seem to find the "realistic space station" comment a little bit funny, would you really want high-pressure tanks exposed to the heat from the sun? (I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but it does seem "ill-advised" from a realism standpoint.) I do love the option for it though, as I find myself putting these things inside of fairings where it wouldn't matter(not that I would see them in that case, but hey...). - Kolbjorn

It is the latest version from the GitHub repository at least, so unless TaranisElsu has un-pushed commits it should be the latest(0.8 was released 23/12/2013 according to *THIS*, latest git commit was 27/12/2013(appart from some TacLib changes up to 20/01/2014), so it may even be bleeding egde(and therefore experimental, which it were anyway)). - Kolbjorn

I did a pull of the git repository and replaced all occurrences of "this.Log" with "//this.Log", which should take care of the debug info, the "this.LogWarning" and "this.LogError" are still present, but those are probably nice to have. No testing have been done, just a straight recompile of the current git tree, so no warranties given, no changes made other than commenting out the logging calls. (Doubt it'll make a difference in speed, but at least you can check if it does). Replace the TacLifeSupport.dll file in GameData\ThunderAerospace\TacLifeSupport with *this* one. - Kolbjorn EDIT: Do note that this will naturally make debugging a much harder task, so if you need support for the mod you should absolutely change back to the official one before even asking.

While Kerbins atmosphere is certainly strange, the jet engines are as well, this forum post/mod tries to explain/fix the issues. - Kolbjorn

You need to do the gravity turn in a totally different way(not that the "10km straight up, yank it to 45 degrees" is anything you can call a gravity turn), I usually start to pitch over when I'm going between 50 and 100m/s, I try to make it so I'm around 45 degrees pitched over at 10km and fully pitched over when I hit 45km apoapsis(which is around when I hit 30km altitude usually). I also find it helps a lot with fins on the first stage and RCS thrusters on the last stage(I run my rockets without reaction wheels as I find them silly, but those can help as well). - Kolbjorn

As far as I recall it's not possible to make a pure electrical rocket in KSP, you can however have an engine with a moduleGenerator module that takes electrical charge and converts it into fuel that you can burn. It does not have any basis in reality though(which is a no-go for myself). (And yes, the nuclear jet engine basically sucked in air, compressed it, passed it over a reactor to heat it up(and therefore expand) before throwing it out the back. So yes, air was the reaction mass. *SOURCE*). - Kolbjorn

It matters if you want to exit the pod, which is nice sometimes(if only for planting a flag and grabbing a surface sample). - Kolbjorn