biohazard15

1) Go to Github from link in OP 2) Click "Bluedog-Design-Bureau" link on top of the page 3) Click the "Clone or download" green button, choose "Download ZIP", download ZIP 4) Open the ZIP you just downloaded, go to "Craft Files" folder, and here you go.

Request for 1.6.2: please take a look at Mercury LES. It cannot save craft at launch pad - not enough fuel\thrust to put it at safe altitude.

So, a couple of problems I've noticed... 1) Gemini lander - barely enough fuel for 2.5x rescale, at least on the Mun. Defintely not enough if you use it as supposed (i.e. using lander tank as launching pad) - you can't reach 20km x 20km orbit with 2nd stage tanks (but you can if you keep "landing" stage and use all its fuel!) 2) Juno IV - still can't reach orbit in 2.5x rescale. Nothing to add there, really. Any fixes inbound, or I can safely delete all these parts? They're useless, you know. Even for Atlas-Vega. Isn't this mod supposed to be optimised for 2.5x rescale? I've read this many times, I myself play and enjoy this mod in 2.5x rescale, but these little things really bug me.

Can anyone please point me at a MM patch that disables engine spooling? I swear I saw it somewhere in this thread. Spooling was fun at first, but now I'm kinda tired of it, especially on LR-91. This thing messes with MJ's ascent guidance too much (the latter does not shut down the engines at the end, it simply throttles them down - which can lead to botched orbit). EDIT: Nevermind, found it. Back to precise GLVs...

Was wondering if you can make a variable-sweep wing with Breaking Ground robotic parts. Yes, you can.

Was wondering about this myself. First: we definitely can, and they actually work. As you can see, I've used F-12 servos and swept wings. The angles on servos: -25 (full swept back) and 30 (straight). I set angle limit from -25 to 30, and then made a track in controller that moves servos from -25 to 30 in five seconds. I then mapped two action keys: one sets controller to play forward and play (set wings to straight) and the other one sets controller to play backward and play (set wings to full swept). Second: this thing is rather finicky, just like variable-sweep wings IRL. They are quite prone to wobble, especially at transonic speeds and\or hard turns. Locking servos help, but not always. Unfortunately, there is no known way to make them automatic. I'll try to play with dampening setting on servos, but I doubt it will work properly.

Any plans on US spy sats? Those gorgeous Titans just don't feel right without a proper Hexagon.

Can anyone point me to ideas on what I should edit in cfg's for old Arianes, so they would work nicely on 2.5x rescale? The main "problem" is the third stage engine (Zebulon) - it's simply too weak. Surprisingly, Ariane 5 works fine, if not overpowered.

After several flights, I must say: this is absolutely the BEST spaceplane out there. - Works great with BDB's Titan IIIC (as USAF intended). Perfect ascend, be it manual flight or MJ. (Tip: disable control surfaces before flight, and enable them shortly before reentry). You might want to use original plans for winged Titan II, though, especially on stock Kerbin and with career save - IIIC is sorta overpowered (and expensive) for it. - Glides very well both in passenger and cargo configurations. Landing isn't a problem, as long as you have some flat terrain. - Can take one passenger in its trunk (aka Silbervogel service connector), which makes it quite useful both for tourist and rescue missions. Suggestions: - Small payload parts. Simply cut the existing cargo bay and passenger bay in half. - Inline Clamp-o-tron Jr (as a "small" part, would be useful if you want to use X-20 as a small service craft for your satellites.) - Custom rack for science parts that fits into large cargo bay.

I do indeed use stock recover button. Thanks for suggestion, will try it next time.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1_iMjsVhkrMSM7kQvE-V9u1PrI6le1LfT What I did: Started a new career, all options are default, except funds (gave myself 500K for testing). I've also enabled logging both in OhScrap and ScrapYard, and disabled ScrapYard inventory. I then made four flights. All crafts were made from scratch (I've used new craft button each time). Flight 1: BDB probe, fuel tank, engine, 1.25m launch clamp. Engine is on top (means it would fire up). Engine and launch clamp were staged together. I let engine burn all the fuel, then recovered vessel. No changes in reliability rating. Flight 2: Same setup, except I've put launch clamp into another stage. Activated engine with launch clamp still active, let it burn all the fuel, recovered vessel. No changes in reliability rating. Flight 3: Actual rocket this time, with Mk16 chute for recovery. Chute failed at low altitude, craft landed on it, chute exploded. The rest survived and was recovered. No changes in reliability rating. Flight 3: BDB Obelix probe and BDB small SRB. SRB "failed to ignite" almost immediately after launch. Craft recovered, no changes in reliability rating.

Not sure if it works. I've been using the latest versions of OhScrap and ScrapYard, I did 10+ test firings with starting engine (BDB's Viklun-50, BDB's fuel tank, BDB's Obelix probe as core part) and got nothing - it's still level 1. Of course, this might have been some problem in BDB... but I doubt it.

It seems I've got it totally wrong... you have to re-use parts to get less fails, is that right? If so, this mod isn't for me, unfortunately. I was looking for something that increases reliability with every flight, successful or not.

Hmm. Maybe. I was (and still am) under impression that you don't need to use already used parts to increase reliability rating... I've disabled ScrapYard inventory for this save (I want a non-reusable career, except shuttles, which are covered by stock recover mechanic) - I've probably done something wrong, isn't it?

Tried this mod on my fresh career... and unfortunately, had to uninstall it. Maybe I don't understand how it works. But... I've testfired an engine at launchpad, like, ten times, without any failures - and it still says its safety rating is "terrible"? Come on? This isn't how it works in real life.