BudgetHedgehog

Seriously dude, don't sweat it. Bugfixing is way more important, you concentrate on that

Excellent news! Thanks for fixing it so quickly! I don't really mind about the adapters (yet), I was just trying to make a mock up of some 2.5m-5m-2.5m heavy modules I'm planning on lifting soon. I was actually just making the skycrane for it, so yeah, it's not a big problem. However, I would like it if, when you sort them out, you add in compatibility for Near Future Construction too, as that has some excellent structural pieces I'd like to tweak in size, including adapters. Not too fussed about the propulsion/solar/electrical side of things, as it already has a good range of sizes, but the structural side of things would be nice. To be honest with you, I don't know why the fairings have that additional attach node in the middle there. I might as Kyle or Winston next time I see them. Thanks again!

This. I don't see how it'd be a problem, seeing as reverting erases any progress. To think that reverting should penalise you is absurd, it's no different to reverting now.

A, if it's happened to you before, what did you think would happen now? B, this isn't a bug, it's PEBKAC error. Not a lot of help now, but next time you quickload, quicksave first. If you have Kerbal Alarm Clock installed (and the option enabled), you can back up your persistent from the time of the last 'Jump To Ship'. Using Alt-F9, select it to load it. If not, then well, you're screwed. And not by the game, by you forgetting to quicksave before doing something significant. I agree that having a quicksave that is 100s of hours old is a little odd, but that's why the game autosaves every few minutes. You might be able to recover it if it hasn't already autosaved, but you quickloading AGAIN and going to the R&D centre and everything has likely overwritten it. Next time it happens, pause right away and hard-exit the game with Alt-F4. Autosave won't have time to overwrite the persistent.sfs. EDIT: That won't work. As I said above, it's likely that's been already overwritten.

EDIT: it's already on Curse.

Yeah, I've been doing some unrelated testing and found that exact thing. I think the expanded fairings shroud the next size up (3.75m ex = 5m). I did think I'd have to install pFairings and NP for this, but then I realised that once Biotronic fixes the bug with TweakScale that breaks the KW fairings, I'll just tweak them up a size, no worries. I did try it and a 5m fairing fits comfortably. Anyway, any idea yet on the rough weight? I want to start preparing my landing designs now

Hey, just thought I'd let you know three things: 1 - excellent plugin, I've been just using it for the IR rework, but realised it's immensely helpful getting 5m things without installing Novapunch or pFairings. Hooray! 2 - (though now I think about it, that's likely related to the adapter problem you already mentioned)3 - (at least I'm pretty it's TweakScale... The fairings were working fine last time I checked and the only thing I've changed since is removing CoolRockets and updating TweakScale)EDIT: Yep, confirmed, it's this breaking the fairings. Note that no fairings were tweaked at all, in both instances, the 3.75m expanded fairings were used and unchanged. Oh, and this is with 1.13.

I'm not sure SQUAD can do anything about 3rd party add-ons..

Yes, he is.

- When you don't strut across stages because you don't know they'll disappear. I actually had to look that up because I was honestly confused how to have a big payload supported by just a single 2m core.

Then make the intercooler actually do something. Interstellar models this - if you don't have one attached to a RAPIER or SABRE, it'll overheat at high speeds and explode.

I'm almost 100% positively sure that might possibly work. Oh and you won't need to delete the debris as deleting the mod will make the part not be able to load so it'll be deleted for you. Just get your payload off that part and you're golden.

You could remove all the textures and whatever plugin pFairings uses. That would make all pFairings parts have no textures (no memory used there) and unable to use them. However, for a vessel in flight, you don't need to change the size or whatever, you just need the part (see: in Manley's Interstellar Quest, he removed the RT2 plugin but kept the parts and the craft loaded fine). I don't use pFairings, but I imagine the part you're currently using has a decouple module on the top - make sure that's in the cfg, remove all modules related to pFairings so you're left with basically a structural element in the shape of the fairing base. Once that's gone, you can safely delete the entire pFairings folder. At least, I think that should work. Make a backup of your persistent.sfs and the pFairings folder first, to be safe. Another way is to delete everything from pFairings except the part you're using and the plugin as well, though that would use more memory. As it stands, if you remove pFairings entirely while that ship in orbit, it will be permanently removed from your savegame.

To be fair though, driving in higher gravity environments is easier.

Dat skycrane.. it's times like these when I realise I have no imagination.. that is one sexy delivery method, I must say.

The day Duna gets biomes will be the day I hope rovers start becoming useful and usable.

Ooh, nice. A decent LS mod with no part/resource bloat (hexcans, hexcans everywhere!). I'd like to install it now, but then I'd end up killing everyone in my current save Subscribed for updates for when I get bored of this save. Guh, KSP really needs a way to disable/enable different mods per savegame...

Or they could just not do either. Spaceplanes already have their limitations - it's pretty hard to get a sizable payload into orbit with one. For some things, you simply have to use a rocket. For everything else, there's Mastercard spaceplanes. And speculating about how the cost and budget will be implemented is pointless right now, because we don't know. For smaller payloads, it might even be cheaper to send up an SSTO rocket than a whole plane (think about it - enough fuel to get into orbit, one strong enough engine to lift it and one decoupler could well be cheaper than intakes, jets, rockets, wings, cockpits, control surfaces etc etc)

Excellent work, can't believe I hadn't seen this already. Slightly annoyed that it appears I'll have to install pFairings and NovaPunch just to get this thing into orbit.. Will they not fit into a KW 3.75m expanded fairing? PFairings + NP + all the other mods that give a point and use to Konquest = a dead Gamedata folder. Also, something you appear to have overlooked which I fully agree with: Given the game struggles with high part counts, any decent base will quickly become unusable thanks to various necessary connecting parts. I mean, just look at the hub - you have that Rockomax 90 degree adapter, 4 x 1.25-2m adapters around the outside, 2 docking ports per 'leg'.. That 12 parts right there. If I could suggest a part, how about a Konquest-styled 2m hub with docking modules on each surface?

As I said, in this case, the bug lies with a fault in the KSP code, not the values given by the turbojets. A turbojet with an Isp of 2500s is comparable to a real life turbojet. The fact that they may be OP isn't down to that, but it is down to the fact the game has a bug concerning their fuel usage. It is not the fault of the turbojets and their given stats.

Translational parts, for sure. Give me gantry rails, the normal rails and pistons so the set can take one step closer to completion (if the idea is to replace IR parts, not just expand on them). I can't think of any part suggestions aside from those that you've already made/designed though. Aside from free-moving hinges but they'd only really be useful once KSP stops using the tree-based craft construction and not a looped method etc...

I would recommend not using it all.

I've seen others mention this before but I've yet to see the source of it. Could you provide it? EDIT: And if that statement is true, the jets still aren't OP when their given values are taken into account. The fault lies in a bug in KSP code, not the jets efficiency. And my SSTO plane has a fuel fraction of 50%. What point are you making here? Yeah, you need a boat-load of fuel to go far, I'm not denying that (as that screenshot will show you). I'm not doubting that. Yes, my plane has a takeoff TWR of 1.1 which is entirely unrealistic/unnecessary, but if it was heavy enough (24 tonnes vs 251 tons, hmmm....), then yeah, the take off TWR would go down. What I'm trying to say is that with 4 turbojets on a 250t plane with >40% fuel fraction is possible in KSP. Yes, turbofans are ridiculously efficient. However, I'm talking about turbojets and KSP doesn't have turbofans. Why bring them up? I could counter argue that ion drives are even more efficient, but that has nothing to do with the facts at hand. We're talking about turbojets, not turbofans, here.

Have you reset trim with Alt-X? Disabled FARs flights assistance toggles if you have it installed? Do you currently use, or have you at any point in the past used, a joystick for control?

I'd like to see some evidence, please. Granted, the turbojets ISP of 2500s is a little bit higher than most jets which are around 2000 but it's still not unreasonable (EDIT: looking at modern day turbojets, the upper limits of the Isp seem to be around 3000s or so, so I'd say 2500s is entirely acceptable). But yes, I'd like to see you fly around the planet on a few drops of fuel. And you are aware that long-haul real life non-stop flights from Sydney to Dallas (a journey of 13,804 km) are not only possible but frequent, right? And that Kerbin has a radius of 600km? So to travel completely around Kerbin is 1885 km, which is, you'll notice, a lot less than 13,804. Even considering stocks soupy atmosphere, it's completely believable. No, the game mechanic being abused is the unrealistic atmosphere. The turbojets, as I just pointed out, are fine. The fact that the pictured craft can fly at all points to the atmosphere being unrealistic. Try flying those with FAR, you won't make it past 10km. But that aside, the jets are still fine. The only thing wrong in the game is the fact that air and fuel can flow through parts whose mass and drag aren't factored into any equation and that aerodynamics don't affect the crafts - only the mass and available IntakeAir do. As a though experiment, consider a turbojet with one intake. Put a chair on it with some fuel. Guess how far and fast you'll be able to go. Hint: It's pretty far. This is my biggest pet peeve when people complain about OP parts - they intentionally misuse them. You can make a 3 part SSTO rocket with a probe core, Jumbo-64 fuel tank and a Skipper. Is the Skipper OP? You can easily escape the Suns gravity using the biggest SRB and a chair. What on earth did you expect to happen..? You have 650kn of thrust pushing about 200kg. It's like putting a Formula 1 engine in a Mini and then saying it's too powerful and should be nerfed. You're correct, but that's only if your craft is aerodynamic. As I said, the pictured craft wouldn't reach 10km with FAR because they're extremely unaerodymanic. FAR is not a magic 'less-dV-to-orbit' mod, it rewards you for making believable rockets and punishes you severely if you don't. FAR would, for the pictured crafts, make getting to orbit extremely difficult. Hell, I would give £50 to anyone who could do it. Swear down, right now.