Captain Sierra

These prop engines (like almost every one in existence) are powered by the Firespitter plugin. Verify your Firespitter is up to date. If that does not solve your issue, come back to us.

Cant say I can confirm as a standing cryo engine bug. Used it for a while and don't recall that ever being an issue.

The water ISRU concept brought up is an interesting one. While arguably out of scope of NF NTRs, that certainly opens some cool doors.

1) I want that flag. 2) I want that plane. How do I satisfy both of these?

That looks massively overpowered (there's a word you don't see too often in the context of KSP), haphazardly assembled, unstable under rotation, and like every other station I've seen or buit that wasn't meticulously planned ahead of time. I award you the totally pointless Kerbal Space Alliance Seal of Approval.

SWEET! Wanna try it but stuck at work until 7:30-ish. Business is so damn slow today they're literally paying me to stand around and do nothing.

Ignoring the poor phrasing there at the end ...... the tanks are part of the trusses. Same part actually. The entire thing is constructed with the Near Future suite of mods. This particular craft uses NF Construction for its main structure, Electrical for the reactors, Propulsion for the engines, and Spacecraft for some RCS blocks.

He mentioned earlier that it basically cheats. It determines how much fuel should have been lost while the vessel was unfocused and subtracts that quantity all at once on load.

NTR tractors? I got one better than NTR tractors. While intended as a puller, you're dealing with hot plasma on one end, deadly radiation on the other. There's nothing safe about this.

On the same page now.

At this point what incentive is there to use the LH2O engines over vanilla? They're high ISP engines. If they're performing 10-20% worse by delta V then what would be the reason to use these engines over stock?

Wow. That there is one of my personal favorite heavy fighters and that's a damn good recreation.

Re EC: Oh dear. I know this crowd of people. We love complexity and if you give us an inch, we'll take a mile. Give us EC usage and before you know it, people will be asking for full thermal sim. @Nertea you're the one who gets to draw the line on how much feature bloat is acceptable feature bloat. Boiloff rate: Based on the data you displayed in that thread Fraz, I concluded that an arguably ideal rate to make Duna one way sufficiently awkward and also difficult was 0.065%. That, however was based on when the model was linear rather than exponential decay. With the exponential model it could go as high as 0.1% to be reasonable. I would definitely advise targeting 0.08% currently.

I ignore the restriction on end-placement, because using modded docking ports that are made out of unobtanium (ridiculously heavy but very stable) and KJR means that part wobble is nonexistent at docking connections when using 2.5m. It results in things like this (massive image warning): For heavier payloads (20+ tons i.e. Eve ascent vehicle), I tack those onto the front of the propulsion stage, opting to push rather than pull (pendulum fallacy becomes slightly less of a fallacy when the no. 7 tensile truss is in use).

Given the previous discussion, its doubtful you'll notice significant losses after a week. Its meant to make anything interplanetary sufficiently awkward while not hindering any kind of Kerbin SOI applications. I need to run my own tests (hindered by work, migrane, and Monster Jam) but I suspect the current rate is in a good place.

Are the things labeled as "Not Planned" simply things you havent come up with ideas for and aren't slating for this update or things you're blotting out of the workflow indefinitely? As for names, sometimes a good name can come from a witty description.

@Wotano How does the system handle me suddenly focusing a vessel currently set to autorove and is in-route? I assume you've set it up to automatically adjust the vehicle's position to just above the terrain on physics load.

They said it could not be done .... They're idiots.

that wouldnt change the docking port transform though, which is what the problem is tied to.

Because of how my missions end up being designed, revert is usually not an option past LKO. Quicksave early, quicksave often. All kerbals take up two crew slots worth of space for missions spanning one week or more. Connected Living Space rules apply even without the presence of CLS. Launch vehicle upper stages must deorbit themselves after L/HKO insertion.

Okay I'll bite. Graduated high school, assorted honors. Got into Southern Polyechnic declared to Mechatronics Engineering. Second semester, switched over to Computer Software Engineering/video game design. Had a nice little life happened moment over the summer that has delayed me going back (totalled a vehicle, got my face busted up just a bit). Am currently jumping through a few bureaucratic hoops involved with going back to continue my studies.

Jet engines can pull from all parts evenly but now respect no-crossfeed parts. This was something that was an artifact of using monopropellant flow rules on them in 1.0.4 and myself and others fought tooth and nail to have the lack of respect for crossfeed recognized as a bug. In the end we evidently succeeded. @Nertea TY very much! And lol at album pic 4. I think that one quite nicely summarizes why we regularly ask for larger wing parts. EDIT: Am I the only one who thinks the CUTLASS just screams Interstellar? I'm getting that kind of vibe strongly off it. EDIT 2: It appears the deploy limits on the cargo bays is backwards. Very minor issue that warrants nothing more than an afterthought until next update. Just a quick FYI. EDIT 3: A more significant reporting of functionality as I got an SSTO run in. Efficiency of scale translates to SSTO spaceplanes better than it should because it was too damn easy. Now onto the issues I noticed. Vulture Hypersonic Cockpit: Both Control From Here buttons switch it to the docking port's orientation. Neither one reverts it to its default. Will dig into .cfg to investigate potential fixes. BROADSWORD: Not an issue that you can necessarily fix, likely a deficiency in the animation plugin you use as a dependency. The bypass doors do not animate to correctly reflect the mode if the mode is switched while the engine is off. It did not seem to update when the engine was reactivated. All Parts: Max temps are way too low across the board. I nearly blew up on a standard reentry (15km periaps, 100km starting orbit) at 60% reentry heating. Note that increasing max temps is more of a stopgap measure to fix the fact that vanilla reentry is handled in a terrible way that means with a heat shield it is trivial but without one (read: all spaceplanes ever) it is beyond merciless.

Its far from a 1:1 replica, but the long tensile truss, twin plasma engines, and giant radiator arrays are definitely pulling inspiration (the last one though is hard to see without a good orbital shot).

@selfish_meme ISV Venture Star. Designed to be my flagship interplanetary vessel for moving things long distances. While quite suitable or stock, its designed with OPM in mind, packing a whopping 28k dV in the pictured configuration.

We're now up to the second iteration: