nli2work

I would do one and use FXConstraint to match the rotation of the other engine transforms

The closest you can get to that right now is either make your own landing gear part to match the tail gear. or use TweakScale to adjust the gear sizes to match the height. There's nothing that allows independent XYZ directions for landing gears that I know of. Closest to that is BahamutoD's adjustable missle rail; but that's a set of preset lengths you cycle through, not scaling.

Maybe I'll try a SCRAMjet eventually. I'm not sure if KSP's mechanics will allow something accurate enough for some folks. A few of flat wide lifting body fuselage sections (like the X40s) might be cool, I need to know more about FAR drag models to get correct settings for them though. I'm focusing on getting IVAs into all the crewed parts right now. so new engines/bodies won't happen for a while.

great suggestions, but a lot has to change under the hood in KSP for those to work properly. Maybe Porkjet can push the developers to implement those changes. as KSP currently is, proper side deploying gears; gears that retract fully into the fuselage (without a fuselage section specifically built to house the gears) won't work.

No prob; changed it to "CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0"

Squad would have to fix the mirroring for side deploy gears to work correctly. For now you can only have gears that deploy directly to the side (front/back in reality), then when it's mounted sideways, it appears to deploy to left/right. parts aren't mirrored left/right, if you look closer at the inline main gear in RF, you can see the wheel brackets are both on the left side of the wheel, instead of opposite sides like they should be.

I've been meaning to do a video. probably in the next few days.

download RF in an hr or two. new version has TweakScale free mode for landing gears

I've been using this for a while. file size is medium, about 50mb/min @ 1600x900 w audio https://sourceforge.net/projects/screencapturer/files

Thanks for the bug reports. will fix them soon. @ctbram, I don't get the same effect with a test craft with parts you mentioned. Even if I change directions at full throttle the most oscillation I get is maybe a degree or two. @Mekan1k, that's the plan. X31 cockpit has been in development since 3 or 4 versions back, I really need to get it to a more finished state

Glad you like it! Don't get too attached yet. Looks like the size on the larger structural sections aren't settled on. I'm now thinking about rolling it back to ~2m as default and let TweakScale step it up and down to the standard 1.25 and 2.5m sizes. will get that settled tomorrow so I can get back to dealing with the backlog of IVAs.

It is indeed at the old size. Good points. So far I've only added TweakScale to things like Landing Gears, intakes, and some nose cone parts. nothing complex yet.

Thanks! And thanks for the heads up re TweakScale. So far I haven't had any problems with TweakScale, mirroring, mesh switch/fuel switch, duplicating and all; works well with FAR too. I'll roll with it for a version or two, and if it's buggy for a lot of people I'll drop it and set the scales back to v1.6.3. Just means I'll have to bite the bullet and build a collection of peripheral parts to support the 2m size. Doing my best to avoid sets of essentially duplicate parts except for size. But like Dragon01 said before, wide compatibility might not be the best thing to do.

so you don't use TweakScale at all? I plan on integrating more TweakScale in the future, not less. Otherwise it would become pages of essentially identical parts a different sizes. I think it's more reasonable to default at the common place step of 1.25; 2.5; 3.75; etc. and use TweakScale for intermediate steps like 1.8/2m. 2.5 is halfway, can step up or down without needing new textures or models. you're right single IVA won't work for two sizes in KSP; But two different sized INTERNAL{}s can share same mesh and texture just like any other part. Or I could just leave out the IVA altogether and stick TweakScale on everything. The gears were too large for me, Stow Gear especially; it was clipping through the floor and walls. Even at 2.5m I have to scale them down to 70%. It was an experiment to see how far I can push the side deployment design, it worked well enough that I kept it, but it was far from ideal. I may phase it out or completely redesign it in the future. I intended to make some pontoon gears more suitable for the new parts, but didn't get around to it yet. Here's an MM patch that sets the sizes to what they were in 1.6.3. I'll see how TweakScale integration plays out for a version or two. If it gives people alot of trouble I'll drop it and stick to narrower scale ranges and just build peripheral parts to support it. @PART[med2m*]:FOR[RetroFuture] { @rescaleFactor = 0.8695 }

Thanks, gave it a go; with and without ~; no luck.

I'll add TweakScale to bring back 1.8m option later. There're really no peripheral parts that fit the smaller format at the moment without TweakScale; radial tanks look too big, landing gears look too big. Just need to figure out MM syntax to exclude parts with CrewCapacity. Eventually there will be a 1 kerbal cockpit for the 1.8m scale; current 2 kerbal cockpit for the 2.5m; and a larger cockpit for 3.75m or larger. The 2.5m IVA might even work for 1.8m without modifications. one side effect is you'll have to put up with odd sized attachment points. a 0.625m attachment point at 2.5m will be small on 1.8m. a 0.625m attachment point will be too big on a 2.5m

Retro-Future v1.6.5 (sorry for the quick bump in version #, one small fix was needed to get the pulse jet working again) New Parts: Radial Pulse Detonation Ejection Thrust Augmentation engine Radial Linear Aerospike Structural section with integrated PDETA system. Configurable as cargo bay or fuel section Half-length Utility section SAS Module with crew passage. Changes: med 2m parts scaled up to 2.5m width as default size improved functionality for retractable Docking port jr initial pass TweakScale integration fixed attach node for ED051 some stuff didn't make it in. They'll have to wait till after I get the IVAs done.

how would I exclude all parts with CrewCapacity? I've tried following variations no success so far. @PART[*]:HAS[!CrewCapacity[]] @PART[*]:HAS[!~CrewCapacity[]] @PART[*]:HAS[!CrewCapacity] @PART[*]:HAS[!~CrewCapacity]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/41290

@AntiMatter yar, doing some final tests and the like @SmiteZero I had thought about it, but probably won't implement texture switch. it's too expensive memory wise.

one can hope... with Unity 5...

any one know what these two settings do? deployAnimationController deployAnimationTarget

who knows... it's just an MU import though. doesn't mean the original was done this way.

sorry, I wavered back and forth between keeping them separate or together. in the end it was easier to update one mod on kerbalstuff/mediafire instead of 2 or 3 it's easy delete the other parts. the ED and Aerospikes use the same textures, all start with ED*, rest the textures you can safely delete. FX and Audio are descriptively named. anything without "rocket" in the file name is not referenced by the rocket engines.

I don't intend to adding free scale to most parts, only greeble parts like landing gear. fuselage sections are locked to two scales, maybe 3. no tweakscale lifting surfaces.