BudgetHedgehog

Awesome, thanks for updating. I wouldn't be too sad about breaking compatibility - people using Goodspeed parts have the Goodspeed plugin and likely not this one. If they have this one, presuming this TweakScale can be used on Goodspeeds parts (simple MM config to remove the GS module from them), people can use this one instead. There should be no major problems - as long as people read that they can have either GS or yours, they can decide which one they want. So no sadness, just happiness for bugfixes

FAR will not create any drag (or lift for that matter) on parts contained in parts containing the words payload, fairing, shroud, interstage, cargo bay, bomb bay or service compartment in the title of their cfg. So if you put stuff in a cargo bay and that cargo bays title contains any of the above words, you're safe. I don't think there's anything to worry about though - most, if not all, mods that are bays/fairings etc already have them in there. If not, you can always add them in yourself in either the debug menu in game or the FARPartClassification.cfg

From memory, it's either in the OP or first post of the MM thread.

You read all those mods, but not this one?

First time playing with the debug options, I was in the aerostress tab and I think I selected or (accidentally) deleted the structural option. It hasn't happened again yet though, if that's worth anything.

But in the pictures, the root was a command pod. I just tired it again with literally just a command pod, same problem.

Sure, here you go. It's just a fuselage as the root part (the lander can was the root in the previous pictures), a probe core and battery on top with the 4 hinges around the outside. As you couldn't replicate the issue, I'm guess it's something I've done wrong then, hmm...

So, something's gone wrong and I don't know if it's me or the TweakScale plugin and I should be telling Biotronic.

Well, this little mod looks interesting. I've read through all the posts and am happy to see the progress made and everything. I, for one, would like to see this continued - not everyone uses pFairings and as you said, the thrust plate doesn't have a bottom attach node (at least yet). But yeah, texturing.. blackheart's pretty good (he did a few StretchySRB textures), or fusty or Porkjet... all really good at texturing things. If I needed some textures, those three would be the people I asked.

I think it could be related to Smokescreen. Verify with sarbian and if it is, he'll need an output_log.txt from you.

Bit of an over-reaction, isn't it? It's supposed to be a vacuum engine, for orbital manoeuvres.. what were you expecting, huge pillars of fire from the exhaust?

Little feature request: you know how the TWR of each stage is shown in the VAB? Well, would it be possible to show it in flight as well? Just the starting TWR of the next stage assuming 100% trust and throttle, possibly in the brackets that include the burn time (like "(1.02.8s, 1.4)"). Thanks for your continued work on this. I've certainly noticed it get a lot better at calculating dV in different situations so yeah, thank you

In the settings.cfg of your main KSP folder install, Ctrl-F "SHOW_PWARP_WARNING" and change it to True.

Wow, that all sounds amazing! Looking forward to the star occlusion in particular, lovely stuff. Hope your life things get sorted out for the best

ferram, I just tried to play with the debug options in the KSC screen and got more than a few ArgumentOutOfRange exceptions. Would you mind taking a look? output_log.txt First error: ArgumentOutOfRangeException: Argument is out of range. Parameter name: index at System.Collections.Generic.List`1[ferram4.FARPartStressTemplate].get_Item (Int32 index) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at ferram4.FARDebugOptions.AeroStressTab (UnityEngine.GUIStyle buttonStyle, UnityEngine.GUIStyle boxStyle) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at ferram4.FARDebugOptions.debugWindow (Int32 windowID) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at UnityEngine.GUILayout+LayoutedWindow.DoWindow (Int32 windowID) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at UnityEngine.GUI.CallWindowDelegate (UnityEngine.WindowFunction func, Int32 id, UnityEngine.GUISkin _skin, Int32 forceRect, Single width, Single height, UnityEngine.GUIStyle style) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 And a picture

Spoiler alert.. It's a game easter egg. From memory, ISA found the same thing.

I'd like to see your evidence for that. Ask people who have played with FAR if they prefer that or stock. And I'm not a real life rocket engineer, but I think FAR is immensely fun and a lot better than stock. Also, 8/15 is just over half - not exactly a wide spectrum. I am sick and tired of this 'argument'. Yeah, if someone wants a specific thing, by all means, say 'there's a mod for that'. But that cannot be the answer to everything, nor should it be. For a start, the game is 32 bit so installing really anything over 70 mods will make things unbearable (ATM and reduced texture packs can only do so much and are powerless against plugins) so eventually, at some point in the future, the answer to 'get a mod for that' will be 'I can't, I have no room' and they really don't. There are some things that SHOULD be stock. Off the top of my mind, Enhanced Navball. Harv has said it was supposed to be included in the stock game but for whatever reason, it still isn't. But that aside, there are things that the devs promised, like re-entry heating. That's been forgotten about and swept under the rug so the modders have to pick up the slack until Squad can catch up. I repeat - this is a feature that the devs said would be included in stock. The modders are just doing what Squad has failed to do i.e. deliver on their promises. See above. Yeah, I'd like FAR, (an updated) B9, KW, DRE, Interstellar, EPL, Kethane, the inflatable habitat pod, Modular Kolonisation System, KAX, FASA, AIES, CoolRockets, EVE, Chatterer, TextureReplacer, HotRockets, Soundtrack Editor, DistantObjectEnhancer, AntennaeRange/RT2, Hullcam, RPM and oh wait, I ran out of memory 6 mods ago. And it'll stay that way until KSP becomes 64bit. I know it's out of Squad's hands and really depends on Unity, but still though.. you can't say you can have almost everything you want when in practice, you can't. Now that I agree on. Just because I want aerodynamics/re-entry heating/etc, doesn't mean that everyone, I recognise that. I've been a long time supporter of different 'difficulty' settings. You can kind of see it in the settings.cfg with crew respawn (permadeath) and using stock craft in sandbox, so I honestly hope it'll be fleshed out and expanded on in future updates.

SAS wheel will always provide the same amount of torque no matter they are placed, according to the CoM. What will affect the overall torque is that SAS always wants to rotate itself. Put it at the CoM, it'll rotate the whole ship most efficiently. Look at this: The reaction wheels (green) are placed as far from the CoM (red) as possible. They want to spin around. On a fairly rigid ship, this won't be a problem, but on one with many docking ports and connections, the ship will bend like the picture. Of course, you'll still get some rotation because physics, but it won't be as effective and could possibly be more destructive.

This is what happens:

Nope, doesn't work. As I said, it just puts a cursor right at the top of the box.

It's a quick reply. It shouldn't take me longer to scroll to the bottom than it did for me to write the reply. How can I make it like, 1/4 the length? I know there's an option to resize it in the bottom left, but clicking and dragging does nothing, and double clicking it puts a cursor right at the top.

Do you have an active SCANsat part on your craft?

All looks good to me, mate! Though I think you swapped the description of the big map projections - the polar one you said is equator-focused and vice versa. That's the only thing I see wrong here, otherwise, a great job done by all. What's the word on SCANsat and MJ working in RPM? I saw MJ will start not breaking MJRPM thanks to a report by blizzy, but does this have any effect on it? Have you contacted Mihara to see about updating his release of SSRPM (though, I suppose it's not entirely necessary)? But yeah, so happy to see this mod in the showcase Thanks for all the hard work you and DMagic put into it, it was exciting reading about the progress.

I, as a member of the community, want re-entry heating, a proper aerodynamics model, dynamic damage model beyond 'exploded or not' and the crew stats actually doing something meaningful/the crew flying the ships themselves. Basically anything that was promised ages ago but has been swept under the rug and forgotten about.

The texture is something I've been meaning to ask you about. People say sirkuts parts aren't stockalike, but these parts.. I'll just say I'm happy to read the texture isn't the actual final one you'll use. I don't mind the untextured parts being released, not at all, but could I possibly request a plan/picture/texture of what you had in mind for the 'final' release?