SpacedInvader

So basically, if the engine is throttleable, thrust limiter works wonders, if its not, then its just a useless slider? I guess I'll have to go back and have a look at which RftS engines are throttleable and which aren't.

I'm not actually using the current RO. I've modified a version which uses most of the tweaks to part functionality (RCS, weight offsets, heatshields, etc) without the size and mass increase because I was tired of being limited to using RO parts, spending hours trying to resize the parts I want, or just having it look weird. Anyway, as a result, I haven't actually been using the new TACLS config.

KIDS? Yes, MJ is usually a little off, but in this case we're talking about 2k - 4k DV. I think I may have an idea what it is now though. The recent TACLS update added a MFT module to all command pods, but so does the modified RO pods config that I'm using. They are conflicting and as such one was wiping out the other. The catch though seems to be that I was using a loaded crew vehicle on top of my rockets, which had the old tank from RO, and I think KSP was trying to apply the new tank from TACLS to that, leading to the whole thing getting bugged. Going to try editing the TACLS file to not use MFT in this way to see what I can get out of it.

So I'm running into an odd problem and I'm really not sure what could be causing it. The issue manifests itself like this: I have a large tank as a long burning primary stage which is then boosted off the pad by liquid or solid boosters. I've got the fuel quantities and thrust limiters set so that as the boosters expire, I've still got about half of my DV left in the core stage with about 4-6 mins of burn left and a TWR of between .7 and 1 (yes, I know that's still high, but it seems to work for me). All of the DV / TWR values are established using both engineer and MJ together. Anyway, with certain engine / fuel configurations, I'm getting all sorts of strange behavior. First off, the fuel in the core stage drains much faster than it should, leading to the vehicle losing first stage DV AND second stage DV at the same time, sometimes depleting a 500,000L tank in about 2 minutes even though the thrust limiter is such that the tank should give an 8 minute burn. In addition to this, I've noticed that rockets with TWRs as low as .8 can lift off with acceleration akin to a vehicle with a TWR closer to 1.5-1.7. I'm not really sure what's going wrong here. The only time I've ever seen something like this is when I wrote a MM config to add the crossfeed enable module to all the procedural fuel tanks, which led to a situation where my core stage was feeding my booster stages in a reverse asparagus arrangement, but I've since removed that config and anyway this occurs with solid boosters as well as liquid, meaning its unlikely that the solid boosters would be stealing liquid fuel from the core stage. I don't think this would explain the mismatched TWR either. This also only seems to happen with certain engines / configurations, so I'm wondering if it might be an issue in the configs for those specific engines. Anyway, any thoughts / help would be appreciated here as it's getting quite frustrating trying to build launch vehicles when the DV shown in the editor and on the pad isn't the same DV experienced in flight.

Am I just blind, or aren't those greenhouse models the same?

... Sometimes there are not words ...

I think that was referring to me. That being said, I should have a beta version of the RSS config ready to go in a day or two.

My best suggestion would be to simple start over on that craft and see if that fixes the issue.

So, I've noticed that KAC tends to spam backups of the save files... Any chance of getting some cleanup code put in?

This is exactly what I did

Ok, so apparently it's got something to do with the order of the modules. By switching them so that the module which carries the charge value of 400 is the first, the problems disappeared.

Sounds like a problem with your KAS installation...

I am using RSS, but that doesn't really explain why the single panel will produce ~150 EC but the double only produces ~70.

For some reason I can't get the Balka double wing to produce more than about 70 units of charge, even with the updated config from the post above. The single panel easily produces much closer to its limit of 200, but the double just refuses to produce its rated amount. Can anyone offer any help / guidance on fixing this?

Modder-ator?

For the record, realism overhaul isn't actually required, but it is highly recommend.

The issue is of course that if I make it for ORS, then anyone with KSPI will have both, though I guess I can just include instructions to delete that folder from KSPI...

I do have experience with lighter parts breaking... I tend to use small conic tanks on the bottom of larger diameter cylindrical tanks to make them look nicer and every now and then the smaller tank just blasts off through the larger tank when I ignite the engine its attached to. As for the tanks I'm putting into this station, they won't be Kethane, but fuel / oxidizer only as the Kethane tanks will be either on the surface of the Moon or in orbit there. That all being said, the question was more regarding which types of fuels are best for long duration storage and for long duration missions. It seems that the most realistic propellant to be able to extract from other places in the solar system would be hydrolox in the form of electorlyed water, but LH2 seems like a bad choice due to its cryogenic nature. On the other hand, production of complex molecules like MMH or UDMH seem like they shouldn't be possible until much later tech levels, so I'm kind of caught between the two sides, if that makes any sense. PS: On a side note, it might be interesting to force the kethane converter in RF to function based off tech levels this way...

This may be a stupid question, but why aren't they large versions of the recyclers at least twice as effective instead of only 12.% more effective?

I also have one that is out for Mercury, Mars, Venus, and the Moon, and have been working slowly on the Jovian system as well, but after seeing what Diamond has produced, I'm considering shifting focus to things like resource maps, height maps, and PQS edits, which I'm much better at than hand drawing planets.

Luckily I play with KSP on an SSD, so I didn't really notice it, but either way, it sounds pretty bad so I've dropped FF out of my install. That being said, if DO isn't causing too many problems, I'm probably going to keep it since it's really a nice addition. On a different note, I'm thinking about putting together resource maps for RSS to work with KSPI's resource system so that the maps will match up with the RSS planets. Do you think it is worth the effort?

So I'm building an orbital refueling station that is going to serve as the assembly / jumping off point for long duration interplanetary missions, as well as a stopover between Earth and the Kethane base I'm going to be building on the Moon. Anyway, the question is, what fuel(s) should I configure it to carry? Since each tank must be configured prior to launch, I want to make sure that I'm supplying the proper fuels for such trips. I should also point out that I've not yet discovered any of the more advanced propulsion methods (Nuke, Ion, Plasma, etc.), though nukes at least are next on my list. The station is quite modular so I'm not really locked into anything once its up in orbit, but it feels wasteful to launch a tank and then never really use it.

It's working fine on my test install which includes RSS. What I've described specifically affects those who have realism overhaul because that already places a MFT tank in most pods, resulting in one of the tanks being left out.

There may be a problem for anyone who wants to use this version while also using Realism Overhaul mod. The issue is that this is adding a modular tank to all of the pods and other parts with a crew capacity and many (if not all) of the pods at least have already had a modular RCS tank defined by RO. Currently, there is no way for one part to contain two tanks in this way, and as a result, one or the other of these tanks will be excluded from the final part. I would suggest adding a &!RealismOverhaul to the NEEDS line, and then adding another definition which would apply the fixed resource amounts from the other config to the parts instead.

Does distant objects tend to cause problems? I've been using it recently and rather like it, but don't want instability as a result.