[1.02] KW Rocketry v2.7 Available - 1.02 Compatibility! - 16/05/2015

[B787_300]

just a small request, can you please do KW NERVAs? or at least make a fairing for the stock ones, in my all white KW rocket, the stock fairings look very out of place

[Dante80]

Could a interstage part solve that problem?

I know this kinda goes against the whole Kerbal mantra of "MOAR POWAR," but is there a smaller 1.25m engine in the works? I find that the Vesta is massive overkill for some upper stages and even the LV-909 can be too much of a good thing. Something along the lines of the 48-7S but in a 1.25m package would be awesome.

I would like to echo this request too, for another reason though. All KW engines are very tall, thus making their use on landers a little hard to implement. I think a series of 1,25-2,5-3,75 low height/lowest thrust per tier engines would complement the existing KW offerings very well and provide total functionality to the set.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Dante80

[M5000]

Could a interstage part solve that problem?

I would like to echo this request too, for another reason though. All KW engines are very tall, thus making their use on landers a little hard to implement. I think a series of 1,25-2,5-3,75 low height/lowest thrust per tier engines would complement the existing KW offerings very well and provide total functionality to the set.

Make that another echo, sounds like a great idea to me. I love using the baby Vesta for OTVs, but it does provide a lot of thrust that may not be necessary for OTV application, and could subsequently be turned into a smaller, higher Isp engine. One more set to really round out the otherwise perfect selection.

Also, B787_300, for your NERVA needs, why not check out Kommitz' Nucleonics engines for at least the time being? They're modeled to the same standard of quality and actually a similar modeling STYLE to the KW pack, and the fairings that auto-create for them are white with black checkers. Very cool.

-M5K

Edited November 20, 2013 by M5000

[NathanKell]

On the semi-contrary: low power engines would be nice, but please don't make them short. The real SPS was twice the size of the KW one, but delivered only 91kN of thrust; vacuum-optimized nozzles are BIG.

[LameLefty]

Also, B787_300, for your NERVA needs, why not check out Kommitz' Nucleonics engines for at least the time being? They're modeled to the same standard of quality and actually a similar modeling STYLE to the KW pack, and the fairings that auto-create for them are white with black checkers. Very cool.

Ditto this suggestion. The only big parts packs I use at all are KW Rocketry and Kommitz Nucleonics. They are modeled beautifully and are sized (and massed) appropriately to keep the game well-balanced in both lower- and higher-thrust options.

[wasmic]

Yeah I have also figured out that my RAM can possibly be the issue. I have 32 bit Windows XP and theoretically 4 GB rams but afaik 32 XP doesn't support more then 3.smth RAM memory. I have just enabled PAE but idk if it really works. This is my first mode so i think it shouldn't be too much to handle. Thanks I have already thought about downloading reduced pack but haven't really thought about lowering textures resolution.

The reduced pack is actually just a version with lower-resolution textures. It contains all of the normal parts. The problem with 32x systems is that they take up a lot of ram for the system itself, leving you with less than 4gb of ram. You might very well have less than 3gb of RAM available for KSP. On top of that, KW is a very high-resolution pack, meaning that it take up a lot of RAM. You should really install the reduced textures pack, it might just make you able to play KSP with KW.

[Garek]

On the semi-contrary: low power engines would be nice, but please don't make them short. The real SPS was twice the size of the KW one, but delivered only 91kN of thrust; vacuum-optimized nozzles are BIG.

I would like a low-profile engine (or pre-build cluster), not for orbital operations, but for landers. Because currently, KW offers no engine that actually works well within the cleareance of landing legs. For orbital operations I'm fine with the current ones, and if I need significantly higher Isp/lower thrust, I would get me some nuclears.

[Goozeman]

I would like a low-profile engine (or pre-build cluster), not for orbital operations, but for landers. Because currently, KW offers no engine that actually works well within the cleareance of landing legs. For orbital operations I'm fine with the current ones, and if I need significantly higher Isp/lower thrust, I would get me some nuclears.

It isn't so much higher Isp that we need, though I agree that a low-profile lander engine would be nice. It's a small, relatively high TWR upper-stage engine with ~30kN of thrust. Such an engine would weigh about .2mt and allow higher mass fractions for upper stages. Such an engine would also be conceivably small enough to mount on a lander with the standard landing legs. My upper stages typically have about a 1.5-2.25 TWR when using a Vesta engine. Ideally, upper stages should need a .5-75 TWR.

[Dante80]

A question, I've been having this problem with one (and only one) of the engines. Its the lowest thrust 2.5m engine.

The fuel burned looks completely 2dimentional and flat. Am I doing something wrong?

[wasmic]

A question, I've been having this problem with one (and only one) of the engines. Its the lowest thrust 2.5m engine.

The fuel burned looks completely 2dimentional and flat. Am I doing something wrong?

No, you're not doing anything wrong. It's due to the SPS using the RCS thrust effects, and they're 2d. Sadly, there's nothing that Kyle nor Winston can do about it, other than coding a custom plugin, and I doubt that tey're willing to do that for suc a relatively minor issue.

[Firov]

No, you're not doing anything wrong. It's due to the SPS using the RCS thrust effects, and they're 2d. Sadly, there's nothing that Kyle nor Winston can do about it, other than coding a custom plugin, and I doubt that tey're willing to do that for suc a relatively minor issue.

Out of curiosity, why not simply use another one of the other engine exhaust graphics that are available?

[Dante80]

No, you're not doing anything wrong. It's due to the SPS using the RCS thrust effects, and they're 2d. Sadly, there's nothing that Kyle nor Winston can do about it, other than coding a custom plugin, and I doubt that tey're willing to do that for suc a relatively minor issue.

Aha got it. Its really a bummer, that engine has good looks, a great vacuum optimized bell and terrific thrust/isp for upper stages. I find myself always making a stage for it, and then removing it because it looks very bad when running...T_T

Why not use one of the existing animations from another engine for it?

[Traches]

It isn't so much higher Isp that we need, though I agree that a low-profile lander engine would be nice. It's a small, relatively high TWR upper-stage engine with ~30kN of thrust. Such an engine would weigh about .2mt and allow higher mass fractions for upper stages. Such an engine would also be conceivably small enough to mount on a lander with the standard landing legs. My upper stages typically have about a 1.5-2.25 TWR when using a Vesta engine. Ideally, upper stages should need a .5-75 TWR.

Seconding this. There's room in this pack for a small, light, low thrust engine with moderate efficiency (if Mr. Kickass is up for it!). The VR-1 frequently has way too much thrust for small interplanetary stages; more often I use it as a second stage engine for smaller payloads.

[Guest]

No, you're not doing anything wrong. It's due to the SPS using the RCS thrust effects, and they're 2d. Sadly, there's nothing that Kyle nor Winston can do about it, other than coding a custom plugin, and I doubt that tey're willing to do that for suc a relatively minor issue.

Of course they can do something about it. Namely stop using this stupid effect. This engine would run with a normal, blue flame just fine. This stopped looking acceptable around 0.16.

[wasmic]

Seconding this. There's room in this pack for a small, light, low thrust engine with moderate efficiency (if Mr. Kickass is up for it!). The VR-1 frequently has way too much thrust for small interplanetary stages; more often I use it as a second stage engine for smaller payloads.

I think that that's actually what it's meant for - launching small probes into space. I, however, think that it's overpowered - it's got 400 seconds of Isp in vacuum, and the higher atmosphere (>10km) is almost as good as a vacuum in KSP. It also weighs less than the lv-909, it has higher thrust AND it gimbals. Its only downside is that it takes up much more space, which is a horrible downside for spaceplanes, but not so much for rockets.

[Traches]

I find myself always making a stage for it, and then removing it because it looks very bad when running...T_T

You should know that I'm judging you for this.

Of course they can do something about it. Namely stop using this stupid effect. This engine would run with a normal, blue flame just fine. This stopped looking acceptable around 0.16.

Seriously? You just used the word "acceptable" in relation to engine effects in a cartoon space game.

[Guest]

What version are you running? It's far from cartoon anymore. After the art pass, the engines look much more realistic. I think that it's no longer "cartoon", but rather "Disney animation" kind of graphics. And this one, single effect looks just plain bad and out of place, especially on a KW engine, which takes realism even further. This effect works for small RCS, nothing more.

[Traches]

What version are you running? It's far from cartoon anymore. After the art pass, the engines look much more realistic. I think that it's no longer "cartoon", but rather "Disney animation" kind of graphics. And this one, single effect looks just plain bad and out of place, especially on a KW engine, which takes realism even further. This effect works for small RCS, nothing more.

I'm not saying the effect is good (though, I don't think it's bad either. I like that it's different.), I'm saying you're taking it too seriously. It's one thing to say you don't like it and think there are better alternatives, it's another to call it stupid and unacceptable. especially when we're talking about a free mod to a game where you play little green spacemen.

[sarbian]

Just change the fx ...

@PART[KW2mengineSPS] {
!fx_gasJet_white = DELETE
fx_exhaustFlame_blue = 0.0, -0.8, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, running

[Winston]

Of course they can do something about it. Namely stop using this stupid effect. This engine would run with a normal, blue flame just fine. This stopped looking acceptable around 0.16.

What version are you running? It's far from cartoon anymore. After the art pass, the engines look much more realistic. I think that it's no longer "cartoon", but rather "Disney animation" kind of graphics. And this one, single effect looks just plain bad and out of place, especially on a KW engine, which takes realism even further. This effect works for small RCS, nothing more.

All of the available effects are far from realistic looking, and I'm personally sick of the sight of that big inverted blue cone.

Using the RCS effect was, in my opinion, the best of a bad situation.

Seeing as the SPS based on the AJ10-137 used in Apollo, a hypergolic motor (essentially a big RCS thruster), the RCS effect is the closest to realistic that there is, at least in a vacuum.

If it really bothers you, just change it in the cfg, it's not exactly difficult.

Also frankly nobody could give the first crap what you think is "acceptable", we have to make do with what's available.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Winston

[Camacha]

Seriously? You just used the word "acceptable" in relation to engine effects in a cartoon space game.

I find it strange to model so much of KSP after reality - or something obviously inspired by reality - only to change the looks of certain engines completely when it comes to their functionality.

It is quite strange to have engines look like they should perform as x, but actually perform y. While y often looks like x.

[Deltac]

Sometimes x looks like z, but that's okay. You really should be worried when x looks like w. That's a bad sign. Also, when y looks like o, you better get out of your chair and run for the hills as fast as you can, cause that can only mean one thing: Jeb figured out what dark matter is and how to use it.

I love variables.

[Virtualgenius]

You forgot about V its usually ends in BOOM

[Icycrysis]

Cool. Looks like there is another mod to chock up.

[zsanderson3]

Hey, I'm new to installing mods and all, but this looks awesome. I seem to be having issues with it though.

All the parts show up, can be selected, and are rendered fine. However, I seem to be having an issue where the engines burn and consume fuel but won't move any rocket, no matter how small, at all.

I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling. The KWRocketry folder is in the GameData folder. I haven't had any major issues with any of the other few mods I've installed, so I really think I did that properly.

I haven't seen anyone else mention having this problem, so I have no idea what is happening...

Thanks for any help you can give.