ola

I'm using DR, FAR, FinePrint, KJR, StageRecovery and RealChute. I'll clean up and try again. Also, I'm using MM 2.5.1, FYI. edit: -rw-r--r-- 1 4008898 Oct 7 22:20 MechJeb2-2.3.1.0-337.zip -rw-r--r-- 1 4324184 Oct 8 03:40 MechJeb2-2.3.1.0-337-2.zip Uuuh. I might have downloaded something I shouldn't have. edit edit: It seems to be working better now that I'm actually running 337, instead of some sort of half-breed between 337 and 338. Funny, however, that the 338 DLL seems to be about half the size of the 337 DLL and that the Assembly-CSharp mod version is 0.0.0.0 in 338.

I'm not getting a MechJeb interface at all, neither with 337 nor with 338. I see the AR202 case both in career and sandbox mode and I can use it, but to no avail. I have some funny errors in KSP.log, though: [ERR 20:00:49.202] Cannot find a PartModule of typename 'MechJebCore' [ERR 20:00:49.202] Cannot find a PartModule of typename 'MechJebAR202' [WRN 20:02:36.077] [Part]: PartModule FARBasicDragModel at mumech.MJ2.AR202, index 2: index exceeds module count as defined in cfg. They might be harmless, however. edit: added the FAR warning message.

Chill mode engaged.

I wonder if Active Texture Management broke because I updated to MM 2.5.x. I'm looking at it at the moment, but my lunch break is almost over. Anyone else?

Might it be a ModuleManager problem? I started my 0.25 game without any problems this morning, using ModuleManager 2.3.5. I upgraded a couple of mods and I have now tried both MM 2.5.0 and MM 2.5.1 to no avail.

Good explanation, and I guessed as much.

I love this mod! I had grown tired of launching SSTOs, mainly because of the, well, launching part, but with AJE it's tricky but definitely doable to reach a higher altitude than I used to reach pre-AJE. I really like the slow-but-careful approach one has to take now, with balancing skin heat, altitude, speed and intake to find that optimal trajectory. I scanned through the thread quickly but I couldn't find an answer to my question - it might be there, however: Why are the inlet areas usually too small for their corresponding engines? I'm thinking AJE RAPIER / SP Shock Cone intake here, I need to add several other inlets as well, which makes my Skylon copy kind of strange-looking. I don't mind, really, but those extra inlets add drag...

You guys aren't using Deadly Reentry, are you?

I haven't used NEAR, only FAR, so bear with me. The usual problems with rockets tend to be either the centre of mass, drag/angle of attack (AoA) or wobbly rockets - especially payloads. I tend to RP a bit - those poor ground crew kerbals probably don't want spent SRBs raining down on them. Probably. I try to design my rockets so I start the gravity turn at about 500 metres. I nudge the rocket just slightly, slightly towards the east and I try to keep my AoA down to a minimum, at least way past max Q which usually occurs around 7500 metres or so. Max Q is usually very close to mach one. Having a very wide fairing creates drag, it's almost like having a drag chute attached at the top! This can be avoided by using control surfaces (aka movable fins), but you'll have lots of other problems with those, so try to avoid them. Keep your AoA down and your TWR at reasonable rates, around 1.50 is usually good. I find that egg-shaped fairings tend to give less drag. Centre of mass (CoM) changes during ascent. As the first stage fuel is burned, the CoM starts climbing upward. To me, this tends to be a problem around the 20km mark, give or take 20%. Also, it depends on your ascent profile as well, if you're at about 80 deg pitch at 20km you won't have this problem. You're not making a very efficient ascent either, but that's beside the point. If you're at, say, 40 deg pitch at 20km you may very well run into this problem while pitching. The AoA is too big for the reaction wheels and the engine gimballing, so your rocket keels over. You might save the situation if you shut the engines down when you're pointing the wrong way, enable SAS and try to kill the spin and wait for the atmosphere to get thinner so you won't have any external forces pushing your crate around. Wobbly payloads are a bane. That's why I use Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, which I really recommend. When your payload starts to sway you try to counteract, which makes the payload sway even more the other way, and presto! You're wobbling. I try to do the following: fairing diameter should always be within twice the size of the rocket diameter. Min TWR at launch should be around 1.50, TWR through 20-25km should not be over 2.50 TWR. Throttling back or capping the engine isn't really good, since it lowers the efficiency of gimballing. Try to use an engine with a large gimbal range. The vernier engine added in 0.24 is really nifty, but expensive! Adding it to a tiny rocket tends to make it oversteer, and adding it to a 5 metre 2000 ton monster won't help you much. Make your rockets long and sleek. Look at examples in real life, like the SpaceX Falcon 9 and other rockets of similar size. Do any of them have fins? Stuff protruding? What kind of fairing shapes do they have? Etc. Oh, and about the ascent profile: about 80-75 degrees until 12-14km, then I slowly start my pitching until I hit 0 about at 50km or so. -10 degrees at 65km depending on where I'm going, my delta-V budget and what my staging layout looks like.

Today, I passed yet another milestone:

*cough, cough* there is, of course, ProceduralParts, the successor of StretchySRBs. *cough, cough* While running 0.23.5 I found myself forgoing any fixed-size tanks, I was just using procedural SRBs and procedural tanks with NP engines and ProcFairing decouplers. A 3.125m rocket with a 2.865m payload? Why not?

Yeah, I was somewhat premature in my celebrations. Sorry.

I created a pull request for a Makefile.

There we go, pull request away.

Please ignore if you're not a developer-minded person. I've made it work by recompiling against the new KSPAPIExtensions. I'll make a pull request towards the git repo.

Please ignore if you're not a developer-minded person. I made it work by recompiling against the new KSPAPIExtensions. I'm about to create a pull request for a Makefile.

I'm seeing this on a Mac as well.

win64 scratchpad built.

Sorry guys, but I sincerely doubt that we'll even put a dent in Steam's infrastructure. KSP might be a rather popular game, but it's not close to the big ones.

Scratchpad! We have a scratchpad!

It could mean that the developers are so full from eating pizza, that they can't even get the release out.

It could mean that they found a really nasty bug that they can't fix, thus neither a scratchpad build nor a new experimentals build. Or it could mean...you know...

But that's an experimentals release, not a scratchpad one.

No scratchpad builds yet today. Hm.

It should be today. It must be today. Yup, I have a very good feeling about today. Or tonight, since I'm on CEST time.