komodo

Broad question to anyone playing rescale (~3.2x): Convince me that Titan isn't the best launcher series for almost anything? I'm not sure if it's me or not, but it has given me the best bang/buck of the rockets i've tried thus far. I launch very few Atlas based launchers, and struggle to find a payload that the Delta type launcher (which looks friggin' awesome) is suited for. The Titan III also outclasses the Saturn I, which is unlocked approximately the same time. I don't know if this is an artifact of the system scaling, a implicit bias on my part, or what. If it's the former, it can go into the input for future balancing, and if it's me, I would like to widen my horizons Thanks all!

That's pretty cool! is that the lander from Coatl as the landing gear? pack extra dV....

As it appears to be picture time, this is handy. (I was going to post these anyway ) (These shots are from a 3.2x rescaled system.) Just some Gemini ("TwinRider) things as that's where my career has gotten to thus far. First, I heard you made a Gemini lander. Well.... I did this. Minmus here we come. (Like, right now. I'm alt-tabbing back to the TMI after I hit submit!) Second, we have a little station that has been fun to put together. (Well. The current station was launched in one shot... you get the idea.) The docking ports are probably the interesting part here: The lower one is attached to the back of the unpressurized module, intended to receive supplies from cargo pods, mostly snacks in this case. Pictured docked is a SnackRider+ capsule/SM. The upper Docking port is clipped into the side of the airlock. The 'idea' here is that it is a short EVA from the docked pod into the airlock. The airlock itself is mounted to one of the 1.875 m docking rings. When the next station module is launched (a 5 way hub; It wasn't unlocked when this guy launched), the cargo tug will dock to the airlock, decouple it and reenter to burn up after the new hub/airlock is installed. Finally, we have this thing: The TwinRider M. The above craft were launched on a Titan 3. These are is pricey, even if the first two stages are recovered by parachute. So, for the low low price of only 15416 spesos, we have this budget model for going to space in a very safe and responsible fashion. (The capsule is equipped with seats, seat belts, a hatch, and ejector seats if the previous options are suddenly non-viable.) This is a four stage solid launcher ("Paxus", I think it is) which is actually pretty nice to fly. The total dV of the booster is ~5800 m/s, with 405 m/s for the capsule. The launch profile is a little odd due to minor stability issues: It needs a pretty high loft off of the first stage to get into thin air quickly. If a turn is started too quickly, it has a slight tendency to tumble which is bad if going to space is the plan. It actually has a bit too much dV for going to the station, leading to some interesting terminal burns. (Aim straight down, S-turn to try to match inclination, just anything but forward.) The Leo service module is the short model with some extra batteries clipped in, and has quite limited dV compared with the (admittedly OP) full size SM. It is best launched just before the station is going to come into line of sight over the horizon. Andddd that's what I got thus far! Val and Bill seem stuck in perma-JawDrop. They may also be sweating about the razor thin margins for return. One or the other. ... That the snack containers perfectly fit a kerbal helmet is a total coincidence. >_>

I had a different question, but the answer may be similar. I am trying to figure out a sane way to apply a different scalar to a particular mod's parts that is separate from the general lever(s). This is down to different methods of balancing parts among authors. (No harm, just tricky to make things play nicely together.) I am thinking of two plans at the moment: One would be similar to the quote, grab the parts in question and apply a separate patch to those, excluding them from the main pass. I would probably adjust the scaling factor here. The other is to ... pre-modify the masses by running ahead of SMURFF, but this seems like a race condition waiting to happen. Any ideas?

I don't know of the specifics for the content of your patch as I don't use those mods, but NEEDS takes a comma separated list for multiple dependencies. The documentation is helpful for fun and interesting MM party tricks.

The multiple command points feature is something that came in 1.6, right?

I went back and looked, (and had a 'duh' moment) at the rescale patches included in BDB, and remembered the following. While this is true, please note that you can do whatever you want to SMURFF settings, but BDB will be specifically ignored by it: Instead, there is a MM patch in the compatibility/rescale folder that detects the system scaling in use and adjusts numbers around to suit. (All credit goes to @JSO.) CobaltWolf is correct, that a finer hand is needed for driving rockets at larger scales. :) Is that a 4-S1C cluster first stage? I clearly need to expand my (not insane) horizons :D While I agree, the man has spoken. Having said that, if you look into this thread in the distant past, you will find photographic evidence that I once strapped a Buran orbiter to the side of a Saturn booster. It... worked as well as that could work. But, it did look cool. Being a Buran, it probably is pretty easy to search for in here tldr, it's currently possible* with the existing parts here, and those of Cormorant Aeronology. (* at least as of ~12-24 months ago.)

You may have/had one of the saturn rescale configs turned on/in your gamedata folder. That's the only thing that would really be able to do that from BDB that I can think of. (Especially if this isn't the latest version, this probably didn't go 'live' as depicted.) Looking at the commits, there is a vague chance that a tweakscale config isn't working correctly, so you may check that out as well.

It's not the same size as RSS, but the pack is balanced around (about) 3.2x rescale (I think, is it still such?) as far as performance goes. It also however scales upwards nicely if that is your preference. (I always was a 6.4x'er, but i've been trying 3.2x this time around... It's sooo much easier to get around )

It's a hurdle, but a smaller one: W10 has the Subsystem for Linux ("WSL") as an installable feature. It's getting slicker with each release, but offers a real working environment without needing cygwin. But it's W10 only, unfortunately. What is the nature of the tool? (i.e., what's it need to run? :p )

@CobaltWolf S'all good. You do you, enjoy the holiday as much as you can! Also, $%^& packing. I understand.

It's very neat code! I am from the opposite camp as my fellow poster: perl makes my head explode, but this is all reasonable. What I wanted to note: It works perfectly fine in python 2.7 or 3, as no unique features are being called. Math and argparse did not change their basic functions between versions. Something to note perhaps: For the print functions, the parenthetical form works just as well in 2.7 as the old print statement does. So, the same code can be used equally well on either 2 or 3 with that in mind. I also don't see anything that is platform specific; I suspect python 3 automatically sorts out line endings based on platform, but since it is specifically being handled here that is not an issue anyway.

Fair enough, I don't ever think to double use the fairings like that. As at a premium is texture space is, I won't request the blue option, as stylish as that'd be

Well, who can say no to +8twr? AJ 10 would be something like the alphastar or delta upper stage? I'll tell you why for me at least: Shrouds. It's a vanilla failing that you only get one size barring part wizardry. I don't know how bad that wizardry comes out on your end. If either of those parts could do a 1.5 m shroud, I'd use that thing all the time. I could demand "FIX NAOW!", but I'm way too nice The MOL version, got it. If it were actually blue in game (watch it be blue and I just don't remember) I think my brain might have clicked in. Thanks much!

Well that's shiny. I saw up the thread mention of it, but i've always scratched my head at what they used for OMS on this concept. I know the OMS as is on the 'regular' SM has a lot of liberties made for gameplay, so I guess it doesn't really matter what the original vision was in that context! A question or two though: There currently exist two 'typical' Gemini service modules, the so called 'normal' one, and one that is about half length. I've never understood how the smaller one came to be. It isn't that I have no use for it, I just don't have a use *yet.* The other is on the 1.5 m service module: I would *like* to use it, but I have never found an engine that seems to go with it, power and/or shroud wise. (Or what booster to stick it atop of, for that matter.) I stuck the Titan 1 upper stage on it once; The crew and the backs of their seats became exceedingly good friends.

Huh. Coincidentally, I too, long time no see everyone.

I'll just leave this here... Courtesy of @CobaltWolf and @Beale, with a dash of accidental irony: I had intended this station core as, well, a generic station core, ISS/Mir type, but on fairing separation, it ripped off the entire port solar array. So, I think i'll make something interesting out of this in the end...

*Slow impressed applause* This is really neat, I didn't know there was even a way around this, trickery or otherwise. Very clever!

Of small note on the S1F tank, due to the rescale method, either the nodes need to be resized manually, or node_attach tweaked, but attaching an S1F to another radially leaves a large rescale-sized gap. This is a minor thing, I just didn't catch it last night. (I also wonder what Nosecone would work in this case... p-fairings?)

Looks good to go to me, only one gotcha: One the S1F tank, you have it multiplying the fuel volume by 0.24, when you need 1.24. I'm loading it up now, but it looks cool otherwise.

On the mission module at least, there is both scale, model scale, rescale factor, and some manually scaled node heights, thus the confusion No problem, moar parts = moar better. (Is that on a flag somewhere? This mod needs that slogan.. )

I'm looking it over now, although slowly due to... ethanol... >_> But, question: In the S1F tank config, you have the y axis scaling by 1.28, but then the entire thing also scaling by 1.28. I don't think this will work as intended, although I need to load it up yet to see. KSP rescaling is my oldest and most savage modding friend >< It often doesn't do as expected. Similarly in the SRB7Seg, i'm not sure what the effect of stacking the scales does in this version of KSP. It will be much easier to pull them into the repo as either legit or extras if the new parts are either in one MM patch, or at least broken out of their parent part config. It also allows for ease of scaling things like masses/dimensions with the arithmetic operators. But, looks shiny on the whole! Something like... Dis.

I think MM packs of that ilk are allowable, as no alteration of the original work is performed. Is the original version of this mod still up for download anywhere? That's often the big trick in these cases. Praise be to sarbian for the MM-goodness possibilities...

For whatever it's worth, I just checked the numbers for the BDB Dev repo, and the numbers have been retuned to reflect the new values in CX, but only quite recently.

Depending on your preferences, there were/are some patches posted up the thread, circa nov 20 for adjusting the ratios used for these tanks c.f. other hydrogen using mods. They are nice tanks though!