Lexx Thai

Alnair needs remake of Khrunichev Center logo

I updated my previous post with another picture. I think, were several variants of LK construction. And the second picture I saw at one site with Landing Radar Unit photo.

No. -> And not so big. Really, KSP have lack of really small things, especially ullage engines and separation engines. No, that is not landing radar. At this picture landing radar shown as #17. But on this picture, landing radar placed at "front" side of LK, and marked #1

Oh, I missed station name. MIR core module of course, not ISS, in Space Museum in Moscow. But ISS mockup would be very interesting.

Ha! The last two images of the Interior of "the world" looks authentically. I was inside the station mockup in the Space Museum and it looks exactly, but interior at pictures and photos looks bigger than real. If I can find the pictures from there, then I'll post them. Added later:I think, can't do that. Damned photogarbage:mad:

Beale, all color variations is awesome! Put them all in alternative textures pack or make the Firespitter texture switcher config.

That's image taken from article about "Vilyuy". It's just project by space-fan (I think so) like we all on this forum:D. One of the feature of that project is asparagus staging (in original manner):

N-11 - the N-1 without first stage (medium lifter, like Soyuz, if I remember it right) N-111 - cryogenic upper (3rd) stage for N-1 and N-11. One picture from Internet, just for fun:

You're not alone. N1 is very... strange machine. I think, it had not future even with success of lunar program. In some construction features it was a step back even with R7 family (too many engines on first stage... for 75tons payload is simplest example).

It may be funny, but the closest (IMHO) the word is similar in pronunciation to "Angara" is the Hangar. Differences in the absence of the "H" clear "R" and long "A", as in "car".

As someone posted before (long time ago), PPTS even bigger than VA diameter. So, diameter of the "Tantares-style" capsule is closer to 2m.

Ah, so that's how it works! Thanks alot. But what about TLTWR?

Beale, can you make animation tutorial?

It's alive! ALIVE! Thanks, Raptor. Variant A is better, but in that case I can't vary ISP by TechLevel. In variant B it's possible, but ISP values for engine replaced by values from RealSettings.cfg:confused: (Nathan, what are you overcoded there? Latest sources is difficult as hell! )

Nathan, how RealSettings.cfg TechLevel parameters affects on engines? For example, part of my engine config (0.64x scaled RD-111): @PART[liquidEngineconstelacion]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] //AIES Constellation-C6 { @mass = 0.390 @cost = 325 @maxTemp = 1740 @MODULE[ModuleEngines] { @maxThrust = 666.5 @heatProduction = 155 @atmosphereCurve { @key,0 = 0 317 @key,1 = 1 275 } !PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel] {} !PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] {} !PROPELLANT[MonoPropellant] {} PROPELLANT { name = Kerosene ratio = 27.39 DrawGauge = True } PROPELLANT { name = LqdOxygen ratio = 72.61 } } MODULE { name = ModuleEngineConfigs type = ModuleEngines techLevel = 2 origTechLevel = 2 engineType = L+ origMass = 0.390 configuration = Kerosene+LqdOxygen modded = false ...and so on And slightly changed RealSettings (I think what TLISP defines MINIMAL edge values for engines): TLISP2 { key = 0 357 key = 1 304 } TLTWR2 = 57.3 TLTECH2 = generalRocketry TLTHROTTLE2 = 0.8 But ingame I saw correct max thrust value (666.5), but strange ISP ranges (304 - 357). What's happen?

I have a question about RealSettings.cfg: Nathan, can you explain me about MFS_TECHLEVEL structure fields (TLISP, TLTWR and TLTHROTTLE)?

I think both options would be wonderful.

RCSBA is incompatible with ModuleRCSFX. It seems to the KSP ModuleRCS and ModuleRCSFX classes do not look the same.

It's not a problem. In most cases we already have several "copies" of some pods. It's not bigger docking port, it's just standard small port with conic adapter. HA! I think, if you make the 1m (that size better for your mod) port, Niemand303 or someone else build proper craft (ISS-like station already posted). WANT IT! NOW! If you split OM into two seperate models - cylinder and cone, I will love you even bigger.

No! I think, it now bigger than needed! Or not bigger than needed... Added later: Hm, Beale, how do you think about bigger (something about 0.8m - 1m) docking port for TANTARES pack? Can you make it?

Beale, can you make an alternative version of FUJI (may be with modular OM) with 1.25m docking port placeholders?

Is it bug in KOSMOS, not in TweakScale?

Awesome! (this message has been appended to post:))

Beale, can you make the "fairing" adapter for bottom side of Fuji to mount it on "standard" cylindrical service module. By the way, the "real-life" Fuji maximal diameter looks like same on TKS or future PPTS (PTK NP).

Original KOSMOS part config: http://pastebin.com/rJA1DKq7 I think, the KOSMOS tanks config file from RF don't needed for you. Except RealSettings.cfg: http://pastebin.com/PZbEqzdf And my patch for that part: http://pastebin.com/sr8Mf1Tr Is it correct?