Infinity00

I was referring to the Mk2b Drone Core, which has a torque of 3, while the Mk2b Cockpits both have torque values of 15. I totally understand the sentiment that reaction wheels feel cheaty, and since it's your guys' mod you can balance it however you wish. I was only advocating balancing it to be the same as the cockpits. I always saw the high torque as being necessary to overcome some of the game's early limitations, like needing to offset the torque from not being able to fire through a spaceship's center of mass, and being unable to easily build a balanced RCS-based attitude control system. Which i suppose brings me to the R12. Thanks for the clarification. It's not immediately obvious that more nozzles means more thrust, just from the part information. Thanks for clearing that up (again, likely, as it's probably been asked before). My complaint with the Mk2b cockpits is that they would explode on the way out of the atmosphere, rather than coming back down. The 400 degree difference in heat tolerance between your cockpits and the stock Mk2 cockpit was enough to get a plane into orbit without the cockpit exploding and killing Jeb. Anywho, thanks again for all your hard work. P.S. I had the same issue, where KSP would lock up at the same point as all the others. It wasn't because of KSP though. When I tried to delete the parts in question, they were "opened in another program," that program being Windows Defender. Perhaps the Windows 10 Antivirus saw something in MM .23 that it didn't like. I dunno. It went away due to a combination of Steam updating to 1.10.2 and breaking my game entirely, forcing me to uninstall and reinstall entirely. /shrug.

First, I'd like to say that I've loved this mod since I started playing KSP around the .23 days. It's pretty much my favorite KSP mod. Having said that, I've noticed some stuff that, to me, doesn't really make sense balance-wise. First off, the Mk2b cockpits have 15 torque for each axis, but the probe core only has 3. This makes it hard to build an unmanned spaceplane without using one of the manned cockpits for torque or sticking a reaction wheel inside of a cargo bay somewhere. Second, the cockpits only have 1000/2200 internal/skin heat threshold before they explode, while the stock Mk2 cockpits have 1400/2500 heat threshold. Pretty much every spaceplane I built with the Mk2b cockpits exploded, while the ones I built with a stock Mk2 cockpit made it into orbit. The probe core has a higher heat threshold as well. When I combine the probe core with a Mk2b nosecone I can get my planes into orbit, but then they are essentially uncontrollable without RCS or that awkward reaction wheel. Third, and this isn't necessarily a balance complaint, but a request for clarification...are the R12 RCS thrusters included with this pack intended to have lower thrust output than the smaller ones, or is that just an oversight? The R5, for example, has a thrust of 1, and a resource consumption of .098/sec. The R12 has a thrust output of .75, and a resource consumption of .0735/sec. From the item description and size of the model, one would think that it would be higher performance. Am I correct that this is a mistake in the part file, or does it really perform better than the R5 thruster and that's not obvious from the VAB part info? Finally, I'd just like to say, Amazing job on the Mk2 texture update. Keep up the fantastic work guys.

It's a long shot, but I noticed you are building a turboprop plane; is the natural torque of the propellers modeled. If so, that's what is causing your instability. Propeller driven aircraft naturally exhibit some roll, which is typically compensated for in the airframe's design (See Sopwith Camel for early aircraft builders' experiences with torque). Like I said, a long shot, but possible.

I must have missed the monoprop wedge. How about that Xenon gas wedge? Jamming one of the radial tanks into a science bay doesn't work too well. They tend to stick out.

I love this mod. I love the in-line nature of it. It's a much more elegant solution than just sticking stuff to the side of the ship. Praise out of the way, I have a couple of requests. The first of which, probably easier to do than the second, is to get some US wedges with batteries, xenon gas, monopropellant, and other such goodies in them. I know there's a full sabatier process set of wedges for all of my power generating needs, but I'd rather just jam a set of batteries in there and call it good. Simplicity and all that. The second, is for a double height octo-core with a double height KAS wedge that can fit 80 or 100 units in it. My request for both of these comes from a desire to not have to stick KAS boxes or other bits to the side of my sleek rockets (and FAR doesn't like it). A double size KAS wedge allows me to pack things that don't fit in your short wedges, things that are otherwise very useful to a kerbal on a long distance voyage. Especially when I have a habit of breaking things on accident (incompetence and impatience make for the best gameplay moments).

I have encountered a bug. Maybe. I don't know. I've built and flown (mostly successfully) three separate shuttles. I've done a runway launch and return test, and a pair of successful orbit and return (ok so I crashed within sight of KSC both times, but that was more because I suck at SSTO landings than a design flaw or bug). So, my bug is this: In the SPH, I am attaching your wings to a B9 6 meter cargo bay. Once I get both wings attached, the center of lift node is off to the right of where it should be. Here is an image of what it looks like with just the cargo bay and both wings attached exactly the same (thanks Part Angle Display). It's very clear that there's something odd going on. Here is an image of just the left wing attached. Here is an image of just the right wing attached. As you can see from the two images, the game appears to be calculating the center of lift correctly when only one wing is attached (at least, the lift ball appears to be in roughly the same spot above each wing when only one is attached), but when both are attached, something odd is going on. For reference, I am using FAR, and have had no problems flying with it. In fact, your wings are amazingly stable. That's what is bugging me. In the SPH, the lift ball is off center by quite a bit. But my experiences and the FAR data suggest that nothing is really wrong. Here is a screenshot of my assembled shuttle design, with FAR stability derivates, along with Mechjeb vessel Info. Mods used: B9, Mechjeb, Klockheed Martian SSE, Novapunch. The B9 flap under the engines is probably helping move the center of lift back towards the center, which is why it's not as offset in the assembled craft as in my examples, which are literally just the wings and cargo bay. Any ideas on what's going on would be great. EDIT: It appears that it has something to do with where they are attached. I have been messing about with them, and they attach fine when you attach them near the center of the fuselage. If I attempt to attach them near the bottom of the airframe, the center of lift ball moves away from centerline. If I put them back in the middle, the lift ball realigns. How level they are appears to have no effect on the center of lift. So long as they are attached near the middle of any fuselage section, the center of lift is centered. Attach near the bottom, or god forbid the top, and the lift ball moves to one side of the craft. It could also be a bug with the B9 Cargo Bay, but B9 wings attach fine to it, at any angle and any location. I also noticed it on the S2 Widebody cargo bay, not just the standard cargo bay.

If only it were possible to have just one standard wing surface, that you could mirror across to the other side of the fuselage. It would solve a lot of my frustration with building spaceplanes with slightly misaligned parts. I understand that the textures make that a little unrealistic, but hey. A boy can dream, right?

I didn't think Station Science stuff was so far down the tech three that it was impractical to use, because it's in the same nodes as the ones you'd have to get to unlock better science experiments anyway; it's that it relies heavily on clamp-o-trons to assemble a usable station, and clamp-o-trons are bizarrely far down the tech tree compared to where you start unlocking Station Science stuff. To top it all off, you really need the larger sized docking ports, and that's pretty much at the end of the tech tree. If docking ports were more obtainable in the mid game, there would be more point to assembling giant orbiting stations for conducting science. If you play with KSP-Interstellar, Station Science is totally worth it.