BudgetHedgehog

Longer rockets are good, yes, but only if they concentrate the CoM near the top (for reference, I just got this easily into orbit - a 3.75m Expanded payload on top of a 2.5m stack). Your CoM is fairly low down and near the CoT which will make it unstable. Quick question - what is inside the fairing? And how big is this main stack? I think that's a KWR 2.5m engine on the bottom which means the RCS ports (which add to the drag at the top) are the right size, but the radial decouplers are pretty big, bigger than stock.. the scale of things is confusing me. I think, and I could be wrong here, but your CoD is too high up as well.. as I said, put some fins on the bottom and if possible, shield those RCS ports.

Then you don't need such a big rocket. That aside, I'd move the radial boosters up and slap some fins on the bottom. Also, I don't see any SAS units there, they'd help somewhat.

Yeah but I want it to be default and not tank the FPS.. Total dream, but it should be stock behaviour for all rockets on the launchpad. Like I said, one day.. :/

*sigh*... one day...

For future reference, anything that A, allows surface attachment to it and B, has at least 1 stack attach node will be made rootable by default. No coding or cfg definitions needed, it's just the way it is. Experiment a little, you'll be surprised what can be a root part - it comes in handy when trying to build subassemblies

My answer would be "... there's an inside to the fairing as well?" IMHO, there's no need to increase a texture size that A, won't be seen very much and B, when it is, the part will be likely be gone within a few seconds or minutes. Why increase memory usage on that? I don't see the need, even if it did look better. Hell, 64but's too unstable for me which means I'm running Aggressive ATM anyway, it's going to look fuzzy anyway

Start with the top fuel tank as the root part and build out from there.

I use both with no conflicts. All Coherent Contracts does is make the descriptions make sense by using better syntax and sentence fragments and does it brilliantly as well.

Check out The Wrong Brothers for inspiration but I don't know how well most of those creations will work with FAR

I had then when I installed KSPRC - using the NASA LFBs, viewed at a certain angle, would make the exhaust use the same texture as the current flag (for some reason). The fix is the delete the files in TextureReplacer/Default/FX, I think it is.. or just get rid of the FX folder entirely, not sure where it is. If you want awesome exhausts, use HotRockets instead.

If you want multiple quicksaves, there is.

This has been suggested before and every single time, there's been agreement it'd be a good idea. That's not to say it isn't, because it is, I'm just saying you're not the first person to suggest this.

How many copies of Module Manager do you have installed? If the answer is anything other than '1', that's the problem.

The output log told me off just now: 7/26/2014 2:17:55 PM,KerbalAlarmClock,Scene Change from 'FLIGHT' to 'SPACECENTER' (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) ARFlightController: Destroyed. (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) 7/26/2014 2:17:56 PM,KerbalAlarmClock,Destroying the KerbalAlarmClock-KACFlight (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) Destroying object multiple times. Don't use DestroyImmediate on the same object in OnDisable or OnDestroy. (Filename: Line: 1288) [FlightEngineer]: Destroying ActionMenu (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) Destroying object multiple times. Don't use DestroyImmediate on the same object in OnDisable or OnDestroy. (Filename: Line: 1288) [FlightEngineer]: Destroying DisplayStack (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) Destroying object multiple times. Don't use DestroyImmediate on the same object in OnDisable or OnDestroy. Could be KAC, could be KER, but I'm hedging my bets on KER. Nothing game breaking, just an FYI I guess.

Eagerly awaiting a usable release of this. I used ORS with KSPI and never really understood it, but that was on version 10, I think. But if SCANsat will have ORS support, well that's just groovy. This thread is so nice and and friendly, it makes me happy. RoverDude, you're a great guy. Looking forward to wherever this goes

What speed are you going when you break up? Yes most planes can withstand high G-force, but not at Mach 1+.

Second this. TSG, could you be a darling and re-up? 64bit doesn't seem to like me much any more and I miss my flare

It is in the Toolbar itself, it's at the bottom of the right click menu. Which means it's in-game and breaks the rules :/

Selective vision + I never really made the connection. I can be a bit slow sometimes

Sorry for not being clear. I went partless ages ago (I frequently cleanse my install so old ships aren't a problem) and used a MM config to add build and flight engineer to all command pods. I saw you mentioned that the part had been removed (and therefore KER was already added to all command pods by default), wondered if the config could now be deleted. But as Master Tao said, it's only the Build Engineer that's added, the Flight is still needed. Easy enough edit to the config though

A, no, it adds 40 and that's with everything - you don't have to install the strut decouplers or structural parts if you don't want to. The robotic parts are one part in the part list and can have the size tweaked in the VAB build area. B, stock has about 184 parts, so even if Rework had 60 parts, it would still be less than half the number of stock parts. C, the structural parts share a lot of the same textures to severely reduce memory usage (probably the robotics parts as well, but I'm not sure).

Just throwing this out there... I just saw the new addon rules thread and unless it gets changed, come August 21st, the Toolbar will be breaking forum rules, specifically 4b:

Does this mean I can delete the MM config that does this? That'd be nice if so. Oh and while I'm here, I've noticed the UI in 1.0.0.1 has issues when I mouseover another dialogue window, such as one from KAC. I'll post a pic when it happens again. It's just some font scaling/changing, nothing major just a minor distraction.

So I've been getting some issues with sentences cut off half way. Looking at the file, I see this It's no secret that [ObjectPredicates:Motivation] [Facts:Subject]. We weren't too [Adjectives:Concerned], but for [Characters:Mindset] [CharacterAttributes:Mindset], that was simply [Adjectives:Depreciative]. [Bridges:Dismissive] [BriefingConclusions] I don't think that break should be there as 'but for' is always the last two words I get (in this example). Would it do more harm than good if I were to just delete the large linebreak?

Just wondering, what was the reasoning behind changing the Spinnaker and LV-T5? Were they unbalanced?