komodo

I think a pat yourself on the back is deserved, sumghai; these updates (and your mods) are outstanding.

In order: Interesting about new MM behavior, you learn something everyday. I'll keep that in mind! I haven't seen that on the Lima yet, but i'll keep an eye out for it. I saw it when loading a save file, yes. Still poking. (And an amusing image of a Kerbal bashing the side of the engine with a wrench comes to mind.) The textures look fine to me, but I don't have a superrig, so most of my textures would look like that anyway >< The small footprint is much appreciated here!

Double check that you've only got one modulemanager.dll in your files; (or only one realchute for that matter). They're supposed to detect it, but all kinds of wackyness can occur if they're fighting. The other thing is that a part placed on a craft, and then subsequently changed (i.e., an edit to the cfg made), I think it doesn't actually stick until you remove/add the part in the VAB. But yea, that looks real familiar to a problem I had, where ... It was due to a texture missing... Maybe do a clean install of realchutes (delete that folder, replace with the new one.) If they got merged, I wonder if something didn't land in the right spot/ there are two of something that shouldn't be. Check those and let us know! Also, the animated engines on the Edamame may be a little bit inconsistent. I'm still poking at it to find a good test case. In other news!, First use of the Lima pod: This one is called, don't jettison your service module on accident when you're docking at a space station. Lima makes a decent rescue tug, it turns out!

Agreed with the above, I dig it. Dirt/grime/scuffs/etc are going to be chaotic in nature in any case, so it seems appropriate for sure! (And I like the idea of a Kerbal in a back yard putting such a thing together. )

I haven't tried the mini RCS thrusters, that's an idea... I typically use the 'full size' stock ones, either the actual stock, or the 45 degree RLA models. (I tend to like a lot of RCS on my ships... a few hundred dV or so. ><) (I started a new save with a 6.4:1 sized Kerbin (RSS) for a lark, so i've not been able to test these guys in depth. I'm thinking of just starting a new save soon besides, now that RT2 is back in proper working shape.) Ah, the point I was going to make!: For the Lima pod, the only thing I can compare it against easily balance wise is the resupply pod from Fustek. They have a lighter pod with more life support, but no fuel. I split the difference on my install for resource quantities, but that's not the main point I was after; For the Lima, would it follow to have a 'matching' cargo onion module? I know its not realistic against the Progress, but who's got time for replicas anyway? The thought came up when messing with the fairings, which can be difficult to place without an Onion. (All it'd be is a palette shift, really. (I say this so frivolously ><) I imagine we can crowdsource the numbers here if needbe.) I guess the other question, is how have the rest of you guys been using the Lima? I've not had a chance to get it going full time, my space stations aren't permanently manned. (I'm sure that as soon as there is progress, we'll find out about it.) EDIT: Two modular girder sections are like, 5cm longer than an onion pod for the fairings to line up. A boring spacer might be a solution as well. Also had a chance to test the docking ports, and yes, it's fun if odd, they dock very well on stock ports, but a pair of them acts like a pair of rubber tires in the way they meet up. A bit of reverse rcs, and they mate. Maybe they're too magnetic? I'm not sure on the innards of ksp docking.

It's literally up the page a bit. post 772. As for the docking port, I really took a shine to it; I'll try docking a pair of them together, but the more rounded part blends much nicer with the Soy craft aesthetic than the clamp-o-tron. (Conversely, the clamp-o-tron jr matches the Radish nicely.) Even if the probe is only for looks, I'm all for RP elements, although I may be in a minority, i've never really thought about it. (i.e., I like the idea of the different 'companies' competing for the player's business, which hopefully soon will be in the game properly.) Disclaimer for the above, it may have been sleep deprived ramblings, but tl;dr, like the port, I vote to keep it!

Welp; There goes my free time. Kudos to those who've poured their assorted blood/sweat/tears/etc into this project. I really enjoy using it. (And yes, woo github!)

Huh. I wonder what that does to the engine vectoring. Does it throw everything at a 45 degree angle?

Hadn't looked using one fairing, clever trick! It may just be a just-so thing, if its a collider issue. (Also, how's that Kerbal saying go? Real Kerbins burn up on take off? ) Most importantly though, these parts are a riot to play with, a thousand thanks for their creation. (It's the little things too; the 1.825 decoupler texture came out very nicely, if i've just noticed it.)

I did do a clean install. (I run on OS X, so its pretty much the default anyway. (No issues with OS X either, but none should be expected.)) The Edamame isn't acting funny at all, once I figured out the logic. If you haven't staged it, and it's closed, hitting activate engine will give the 'pft' sound, but deactivate it right away. If you hit open, and then activate, all is well. Similarly for closing it, it wouldn't close unless deactivated (I *think*.) Staging worked fine, and it opened up without issue. My FAR may be whacked out, for all I know. On closer inspection I'm not getting 'shielded=yes/no', but it's certainly not stock soup either... Ill do further testing on my part, I wouldn't rend your hair over it. After getting the RCS ports and solar panels in the fairings proper, it *did* calm down. It took a little bit of angling the panels; it was due to my odd placement of them off center to clear the RCS. (i.e., This is simple user error.) I'll try the attach node adjustment as well, that's a good thought. The Pogo-ing may have been my engines, yes; I had just switched them out, and it occurs to me that I might not have adjusted the thrust limiting on them. I'll recheck that one. By all means, use any suggestion I offer here without worry; I release them to you to do with as you wish. (Latch-o-Matic was just the first thing that popped to mind, but i'm stoked if it was a good thought bubble ) EDIT to add, the RCS I was bumping the fairings into was a set on the center 'line' of the Onion module. There's just enough space if they're at the bottom limit of that flat spot, but not at the center or top. I don't know if this is a typical configuration or not. See http://imgur.com/yRC7oBV for screenie.

I too love the parts pack; Initial impressions of the latest revision are somewhat energetic, in the best way. I'm still testing, but at first blush it looks good. I really like the new strapon boosters, they're much easier to work with than the prior versions. EDIT: The docking clamp is a perfect addition, love it. (Might rename mine the Latch-o-Matic to differentiate it from the Clamp-o-Tron, but that's a quibble.) The animation/detail on the Edamame engine is very nice, love it. How did you get it to link against the animation, the engine activation? It took me a minute to get it, but it correctly won't activate unless the engine is open, and won't close unless it's shut down. Kudos. The fairings (*ducks*) had a couple issues; When attached with symmetry, the second fairing acted... weird. I'm going to test this some more, though. It looked as if it wasn't attached correctly/flapping about a bit. Maybe a fluke. The new base may be a little low in weight, as I understand KSP physics. When I hit GO on the boosters, it compressed a bit, which surprised me. I'm going to play around with some numbers and report back. (I may just need to strut something). EDITEDIT: The fairings I think it's a FAR Thing. They should be acting right if the word fairing is in the part name, but they don't seem to be shielding the interior. (watched my panels disintegrate, etc. I'm not sure if this was from hitting the fairing or the wind.) This may be due to the solar panels/rcs ports poking through by a pixel or two. I'm testing without such frivolous items now.-- Seems that was it. Without those items poking through, everything calmed down fairing wise. Now, how to sneak the solar panels in... Hrmm. Changing the mass of the fairing base to 0.6 from 0.06 stiffened it up quite a bit. Also, changed the tower fuel to 60, from 30, making it possible to do a pad abort. (Not sure if this is just a personal issue or not ><) I'm going to mess with the fairings some more and see what they may be up to. (I'll make a new post, this one is getting ridiculous ><)

Agree on the panels, they work just fine as is. (I like the double functionality as well, with the transmitters, a good touch!) I don't have craft/subassembly files yet, but I do have a new mission report! This was literally a 777 on the slotmachine of KSP. Lets see if these tags work... TL;DR: Booster family launches three different craft; also, Went to Minmus, found a new moon(!)

That looks to be a fun ride. Can't wait! (Well, I can and will wait, but you know what I mean.)

Just to chime in on the point of medium launcher classes, I too find that they're useful for anything from 10-20 tons of mass (in FAR at least) without being too excessive. As it is, I usually end up with excess dV that i'm not sure what to do with. (Particularly when launching a 3 ton lander for a KOR mission, but I digress.) I'll post some booster craft files when I get a chance; they're fairly well refined, other than the boosters tending to explode on jettison. ... Only in KSP is that sentence perfectly sane, hah.

I'm testing the realchutes code further. The only bit i'm unsure of after comparing the configs to the realchutes documentation/configs is the texturelibrary (textureLibrary = StockReplacement). Is it possible that you have this defined somewhere outside of HGR/it's a realchute thing and i'm just blind? (Probably the second one, but you never know.) I'm'a bash on it more and report back. (Actually I like debugging things, so this is Fun too ^^) EDIT: It's definitely something to do with the textures; I comment those lines out, leaving just name = ProceduralChute and all is well, although I have a invisible parachute. Realchutes was at version 1.0.5, i'm just blind Silly. Works like a charm, maybe a bit on the big side, but hey, it's tweakable!

Not positive results on the realchutes MM, unfortunately. Decoupler works still, but then the kracken appears; the camera goes nuts and the log is filled with "NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at RealChute.RealChuteModule.FixedUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0". I am on my way to bed, and don't have the time to try to debug it though Guessing that it's not expecting a decoupler module in the same part. Everything works fine in the VAB though. Realchutes is another 'nice to have' but not something that is core to the mod, I think, if it's taking up time.(It's working very well with the other two big 'optionals', DRE and FAR, though. Very smooth with both.)

Oh my. This sounds delightful. Not to recommend it for the mod proper, but be sure to try at least one landertron rocket only landing. The looks on their faces is priceless. Looking forward to the next update, even if it might be into next weekend by the time I get a chance to look for it ><

I think the advice from FASA is applicable here; it's not a replica of a real rocket, just inspired by it. I really like the look of that LES tower, even if it's not 'realistic'. ("MOAR Boosters!") As for fairings, yours look great along with the rest of the stack. The PFairings are working very well here still though, even if (horror), I have to eject them during an abort. (I'm content with this deviation from reality; parts flying everywhere just adds to the fun of a bailout )

Stab fins could be interesting, depending on how ones booster is designed. If it were me, i'd say they'd be 'nice to have', but no real priority job. Also BBQ, jealous

Thanks! Cacteye is a lot of fun, if for nothing else then the RP factor. I do use FAR/DR because i'm craz--- Because of the challenge/RP factor. The best iteration on the booster thus far has used the midrange engines for the boosters (so I imagine it's 50% limited the hard way), but it's keeping it together like you say that is the snag. Maybe it's just me, but I found 0.23 + KJR to give very solid rockets. Even with KJR now, the noodle factor seems to have returned. Anyway. I'll mess around with the launcher some more, and see if I can hone it down. The last model worked almost perfectly, leaving the Edamame with just the last bit of insertion (to avoid spent boosters junking up the skies.) Almost perfectly, because the stage 1 was a bit of a wild ride. All that said, the important part is it's a total blast to play with; it's KSP, if rockets aren't exploding randomly, something has gone very wrong.

Finally a smattering of photos to share! The pod is very successful to the Kerbal's space program. The launcher.... Still has some issues. Once it's spaceborn, it's very successful, lets say that. This may work, i've never tried it before. Success!

Looks better and better each iteration, Orion; I don't know how you do it, but kudos!

Are you guys attaching the tapered boosters directly to the core stage, or using separators? I've been using the separators and having to strut it, but i'm not entirely psyched up about it. otherwise, i'm picking up all kinds of good ideas from the other boosters posted, so thank you guys for that as well!

I don't have any pictures to share, but i'm seriously enjoying the latest update. The new lifter engines are just the thing needed to spontaneously reconfigure the spacecraft as needed. ( --> They push quite hard very well.) Loving the naming of the parts as well. I'll report back in when i've had a bit more weekend time with the parts. (And maybe a station to dock them to as well ^^) Thanks again for all your hard work!

The wet tank skylab (Pielab?) is a nice construction as well! (Pockrtplanesairways: Be considerate. Please.)