Creat

I can confirm this, removing "Part Group & Filter" from the plugins fixes the issue (with nothing else changed). I have one more problem: The "..." button is missing. I haven't removed all plugins, to test this, but I've tried without Subassembly Manager, which made no difference (so it's not that they're blocking each other somehow). Edit: I've checked without any active plugins except this, and the "..." button is still missing. So it isn't even any interaction with other mods.

I'm sorry but I find it highly unlikely that it's KW Rocketry. It doesn't even contain a plugin, which means there is no actual code there that could crash. KW Rocketry is basically the only mod I always use, and I haven't had any crashes, either lately or ever. KW Rocketry can of course have bugs, but that would just mean something not aligning correctly in the VAB and similar things. It should never EVER cause a crash (if it did, it would technically be the fault of KSP itself). Anything that contains a plugin (which includes a .dll) is much more likely to cause crashes, there is actual program code in it that can be faulty. So please don't go blaming poor old KW, it may not be perfect, but it really doesn't cause any crashes!

This should be a thing of the past. The new SAS doesn't jitter about, fluttering with all it's control surfaces and/or gimbals. It should in almost any case just hold the course, maybe the most extreme craft reach the limits of this system, so far everything seems to behave quite tamely.

You don't need to read through anything except the first post. It clearly says in bold letters that the spaceport version is outdated. Use the download link in the first post, just extract the .zip to the GameData folder (as with all new plugins that conform to the new plugin structure) so that you have a KSPX folder inside that GameData folder. Enjoy all the lovely modules

And another +1 from me for this, but I'll also add an explanation in case the poster of the original comment (who wants the sides attached first) is wondering why the hell anyone would prefer this... While attaching the sides first might be more intuitive for a completely new user, the problem comes when you want to attach the nose: The nose is always the most limiting part as it's placement is dictated by the size of the payload. You would attach one side at a time, grab the nose to see if it fits, if not then return it and grab another side and so on. With the nose added first you can place it to the first/best place and then fill in the sides. Since the anchor points are spaced correctly this always works out and makes constructing the noses just a whole lot faster. Might be insignificant for small payloads, but it for larger ones it makes quite the difference... Also: YAY Winston is BACK! Looking forward to the version using the new directory structure and/or reducing memory usage by incorporating Taverius' advice/tips. Also, since the old thread is gone now, another big thank you from me for making this pack. I can't even imagine KSP-ing without it, it's just essential! Seriously, THANK YOU!

@Ziff: He uses the small ones that come with MechJeb. They are the grey rings that are in there Well it\'s kinda hard to give you specific tips. I\'ve rebuild your design from your screenshot (as you didn\'t attach it). Also, I have no idea what your settings for the ascend autopilot are. What is the orbit altitude, when is it set to start/end the turn (click \'edit path\' to see those From some test I can only guess that you the autopilot is still turning when the initial stage (meaning the four \'bosters\') is separated, and that one of them ends up above, so the next stage basically turns into it, clipping the middle engine in the back. Obviously what 'Amoral' suggested won\'t work as you want mechjeb to be able to do the separation. What is the tank right at the top (below the capsule) doing? Is it even connected to anything that uses fuel? There isn\'t anything on the screenshot... There are quite a few solutions to this, it\'s basically a bit of a dangerous design with such a long central stage that isn\'t separated with the surrounding ones. A) Use different parameters for the ascend autopilot. The default settings turns way too early anyway (try 25 km turn start, 60 turn finish). Target at least 100 km orbit with those settings obviously. Use radial decouplers. They push away whatever is decoupled, so you\'re less likely to run into the stuff. The TT-38K (ejection force 120) is better than the lighter 'structural pylon' here. I tried this, but as long as stage separation occurs while the vehicle is still turning, it won\'t help. C) include the five tanks that make up your second stage in the top, meaning you have 8 tanks surrounding the center (well, it\'s one less, but whatever). You\'ll actually have more thrust (4*50 = 200 instead of 175 with the exact same fuel consumption for speed gained, basically 25 thrust for 1 \'fuel usage\' unit). This works of course (also tried it). See screenshot and attached craft. Reached orbit @ 400 KM with about 1.4 tanks per engine remaining (meaning 5.6 total) so about out of the initial 9, 8 surrounding the center one which is drained first with the fuel pipes. D) remove the central engine, not the tanks though. Connect them to the outer tanks with four fuel lines. Decouple simultaneously. Will use more fuel to reach orbit as your design (or as answer C) as the central tanks will have to push more weight. Keep in mind though that the final vehicle is lighter in comparison to option C, so it can do more with that amount of fuel. In my test it reached the same 400 KM orbit (also same settings for autopilot) with close to 4 tanks remaining. E) If you want to keep it at three stages, make the stage less long, but wider. Example also attached. will behave exactly like yours in terms of fuel consumption as it\'s the only change that is only arranged differently. EDIT: forgot to add about option E, it only barely reaches orbit with the middle stage as it\'s a bit low on thrust. It will work as is with a higher 'turn end' though! Otherwise more thrust is needed as the gravity turn isn\'t completed before the initial Apoapsis. EDIT2: also, the outer tanks apparently explode (due to colliding with each other) when they are dropped, so you either need to reduce the 'stage delay' or combine separation of outer tanks with ignition of middle engine. I\'ve updated the attached file accordingly. Sidenote: what on earth are you doing with all those RCS tanks? why 5? isn\'t 1 enough? Only turn on RCS once you\'re out of atmosphere, it tends to slow you down (at best) before that... also I only see RCS thrusters at the bottom of the central unit, but not the top part. Intentional? Sidenote2: you can use all basic engines interchangeable, they have exactly the same fuel efficiency (25 thrust per fuel usage). Bigger will burn fuel faster but give you the same total acceleration per fuel unit. This only applies to flying in space, where you have no drag, of course.

I\'m sorry for resurrecting this rather old thread, but is there a chance you\'ll update the advanced decoupler for 0.15? I\'ve only recently discovered KSP and have been playing with the Demo (meaning version 0.13.3) for a couple of days. I loved the advanced decoupler there, but some geometries seem to have changed in 0.15, so since I\'ve got the pre-order version now I can no longer use it as the shrouds won\'t fit anymore. At least that is how it looks to me (wider tanks, shorter engines or something). You parts were among the first I discovered and I\'ve been using them from the start with much delight. After renaming the small fuel engine my rockets stopped blowing up on the launchpad (for no apparent reason) and I\'ve come to love them as well. I did do some minor tweaking so the numbers are in line with the stock-engines and tanks: I\'ve changed the mini fuel tanks weight to 0.75 (full) and 0.2 (empty). This means it\'s a least a tiny bit lighter than a normal tank (which is much bigger) and the fuel weighs the same (as it\'s clearly the same fuel). Additionally I\'ve reduced the fuel consumption of the mini fuel engine to 2, which means the thrust is still slightly lower (per consumed fuel unit) than all stock engines. Especially with the LV-909 (providing 50 thrust for 2 fuel consumption) it seemed silly to leave it at 4 for 45 thrust. Just my thought should you ever update the parts again. I do hope you update them (if only to make the mini fuel engine work without reniming the .dae and editing the .cfg accordingly), so new players don\'t disregard those great parts instantly because stuff blows up without apparent reason on the launchpad. In any case, thank you for all those great parts and I hope they\'ll see some updating Creat