Shad0wCatcher

Nice work here Reign. Models and exhaust effects look fantastic. Definitely giving these a try. They look like they'll fill a niche between stock and even KW Rocketry (my go to anymore for lifters). I don't know that I'll personally use the generator / QVT as I already use both Near Future Propulsion and Interstellar but still

From what I can see from the low resolution version that's loading for me (yay awful internets \o/) KAS and novapunch. KAS winch toward the back; Novapunch for the tri-lateral adapters. Kerbpaint too maybe for the coloration of the other lateral connections, though I'm not sure if that's necessarily needed. Not sure if the connections to the track apparatus themselves are docking washers from Infernal Robotics or just regular SAS modules from stock; can't tell at the resolution on my end. MMRTGs from KSPX are also attached. Everything else looks stock to me (aside from the tracks of course).

Kerbals physically rowing? MADNESS! Besides, aren't mass drivers all the rage anymore? (In this case mass = Kerbal; driver = cannon).

Sounds good to me. They'll fill a nice niche then Kommitz (in stock).

Don't forget the fleeps, the sweeps, and the bleeps! *cough* I'll go to my corner now.

Full agreement with passinglurker here. Much prefer not having 3.75 meter stacks of "Hydrogen" for a 1.25 meter rocket (or 5 meter tank stack for 2.5; not even getting into tank length; I'd still like to launch the damn vehicle; not run a 150 meter telephone pole payload to obtain 4km of DV). I can only turn a blind eye so far at the aesthetic clash for so long before my suspension of disbelief runs out. Also Starwaster Water did not make the cut as a propellant; not in the stockalike config anyway; though it still remains valid for KSP:I thermal nozzles and thermal turbojets. With regards to your comment regarding compactness passinglurker; Ammonia (or its analogue) and Methane/Methalox (or its analogue) both function well as high density fuels and could (hint) be used instead of hydrogen and maintain the status quo with regards to stock tanks.

Which requires you to write your own configs for any mod-added fuel tanks as as far as I know firespitter only handles stock by default. And sorry m4v; my little mini-rant got off on something of a tangent there. Definitely agree with you with the wasted tankage on LF/OX tanks. You could however interpret that as the wasted space for "Hydrogen" due to its density though lol

What m4v said; looks like I'll have to keep the old configs around since I'm not personally a fan of Hydrogen(analogue) only NTRs. Would much rather use Hydrolox(analogue) for the stronger TWR if those are the only two options. Personally I much prefer Ammonia or Methane / Methalox for density purposes since with Hydrogen you end up with so much tankage for any decent amount of DV when launching larger ships it gets to be rather pointless. Granted you won't have as much of an issue using stock configurations but that's been my experience using RF (and part of why I don't like using it anymore).

9 NTRs? Where the hell is that sweet jesus gif when I need it? I pity the planetoid that eats those free radicals.

Should go rather nicely with the 6.4x RSS Kerbol rescale then; if only slightly easier. Parts are damn pretty, by the way Yanfret. Congrats to yourself and everyone that contributed to this pack.

My last post was a response for the last person that posted on the previous page; not a general response to the tree itself.

Honestly you don't necessarily need all the mods this includes; you'll definitely want a full Firespitter install however if you're going with a planes first approach.

Oh wow Nertea; those look fantastic.

@undercoveryankee affirmative.

@magico No biggie; with that info you posted I have somewhere to look at least; should be easy enough to edit the tree.cfg to remove the duplicate entries. I posted my issue (with the exact same symptoms as erbmur) on the general addon affairs subforum and someone stated it was an issue with either stock contracts or treeloader.

DropBox Link to image.(Literally my ISP flat out refused to load imgur) Agreed. What I meant by explicitly defined is the resources as opposed to the modules. But definitely will take the twin display (it's about as unobtrusive as a display can be anyway) over crashes any day. I just find it really odd that the module would fail to load on these engines alone. Hell I even tested your radial models (the opposing turboprop and radial jet) from Karbonite that run off kerosene(liquidfuel....stupid real fuels changing all the things) and they worked flawlessly :/

DropBox Link to image.(Literally my ISP flat out refused to load imgur) Agreed. What I meant by explicitly defined is the resources as opposed to the modules. But definitely will take the twin display (it's about as unobtrusive as a display can be anyway) over crashes any day. I just find it really odd that the module would fail to load on these engines alone. Hell I even tested your radial models (the opposing turboprop and radial jet) from Karbonite that run off kerosene(liquidfuel....stupid real fuels changing all the things) and they worked flawlessly :/

@erbmur Good deal having yours fixed so easily! That's one more mod on my "blacklist" then. Lucky jerk! Haha! Yea if you snagged your copy from any of the official sources (not one of the forum posts near the end of Treeloader's thread) you'd have the official copy.

Just IntakeAtm. I saw you had intake air defined explicitly; but no; just intakeatm showing twice. I took a SS; I'll see if it'll upload to imgur.

Tested Experimental Two. Completely broke the game. Propellers didn't render at all; and a couple seconds afterward the entire GUI went haywire. Altitude, ElectricCharge, Navball, basically anything that had a numeric value showed Nan/value. Entire Flight scene stopped rendering. Exact same issue that occurred the first time. Only new thing is that the props failed to render. Waiting on DropBox to connect to upload the output_log. Also same as last time broke any subsequent flight scenes without errors (had debug window up for both flights). Basically flight scene stops rendering entirely. Link to output_log Testing experimental One now. Will Edit with results. EDIT: Experimental One works! No errors; flight scene loads without incident. Only funkiness occurring is IntakeAtm is appearing twice on the engine's right-click menu. That's really confusing though; since KSP-I Should be adding the atmospheric intake automatically. I wonder what's causing it to fail on these engines and to (not only) succeed and double when explicitly set in the config.

@erbmur Unofficial update (recompiled DLL someone posted)? Or the latest "official"? If the official version you've been rather lucky. If unofficial I haven't the faintest (installed it myself and had randomm locked nodes available to be unlocked). Basically the further you get in a modified tech tree the more likely it is that you'll run into problems with recovery (if using something basic like KSP Interstellar's tree you won't notice much difference; if using something more dramatic like the Engineering Discipline / Ackander's / Realistic Progression Lite you'll quickly run into issues with recovery with the exact same symptoms you're exhibiting.)

In your pack or Firespitter's? I have no engine in either pack named such. Attempting to pull down 6.3.4 now (am on a connection that's worse than dial-up and less stable; was hoping to avoid downloading 40 megabytes as that will take upwards of a half hour [if it even works]). Will check the Firespitter DLLs themselves for versioning changes. Like I said I'm using 7.0 PRE2 released on June 19 and all the engines in it work perfectly fine with KSP-I-E. (noseEngine, noseEngineElectric, oblongTailJet (tested/deleted), PROpeller, PROpellerElectric, propellerFolding, swampEngine (tested/deleted), turboProp, VTOLengine (tested/deleted), all the helicopter rotors / tail rotors, lancasterEngine/lancasterEngineGear(tested/deleted)).

My sentiments exactly! I'm sitting here literally scratching my head (boring a hole is more likely; flying firespitter engine powered planes right now in the background; I have most of the engines from 7.0 PRE2 deleted [kept the electric stack mounted ones and the "Pro" versions {FS Tweakable ones; including the FS1TP - The one with the canted props and vacuum cleaner looking intake - Literally flying one right now without any problems}]). I really don't understand it. I built a regular helicopter (using canards it flips...not sure if it'll work better without) and this monstrosity I'm flying now (just under mach 1 capable with propellers....I'd hate to be anywhere within 30 square miles with how loud it has to be).

Ugh; sorry for the confusion there then! KSP-I is installed; Wave's latest release. Loading up to check now for issues between FS / KSP-I-E(totally using that acronym from now on). Really funky because your turbine models for Karbonite work flawlessly EDIT: Ah yes, I think I still have that game lying around somewhere. Always enjoyed the long center tailplane / twin rear ailerons (elevons? Yaw-control-surfaces, damnable aircraft terms and the engineers that came up with them! Descriptions work much better for laymen! lol) w/ pusher motor. (I think it was painted all red)

@Commissioner Won't hurt anything to give it a shot! Like I stated my game is heavily modded (VERY heavily modded; ~4900 (4912 I believe) modulemanager patches loading with I forget how many plugins running). It could just be an issue of Unity not handling things smoothly (if it's anything like Java).