Orange_Ignition

Benjee, everything is looking fantastic, i'm excited to see more

i think that it looks great! having more variety in swappable parts like this is fantastic(i assume that's where you're headed, to use KAS). i could see this as a great way of moving resources around by hand rather than the alt fuel menu would you be looking to make your boxes compatible with the life support modules we have available? (tacls, or snacks! for example) maybe something like karbonite? edit* seems like you answered my questions before i even posted:)

lo-fi is right, anything with enough thrust behind it can produce lift. a school bus can take off if it has enough thrust or the wind speed is high enough:) it just won't fly very well... really the way the engine nacelles are curved downward will produce some lift. the air moving under them needs to go somewhere and if the craft is moving faster than the speed of the surrounding air, the air will literally have to push upon the nacelles, which would create lift at certain angles. because they are rounded it won't create too much/minimal drag. even the under body of the skylon will produce some lift. Think of a javelin being thrown at a target; the guys who can throw it farther angle it slightly up so as to use the body of the javelin for that extra lift. It has no wings but can be thrown a large distance by hand. Now strap a rocket to the javelin and you've got... well a missile

i'm going to agree with some of the posters here and say stock aero may be the problem with a true to life representation here(although the runway could still be too short), people playing on stock may not mind that their engines push a bit more air than their FAR/NEAR counterparts... maybe create a mm config for stock vs far?

Typically in real scenarios where aircraft applications needed shorter runways people came up with some creative ideas. With the advent of aircraft carriers, you had everything from take-off boosters to catapults like we use today, sometimes they tried(and failed with the launch boosters) to modify large aircraft to use shorter runways, but they got the most success when they lightened the big craft and/or used catapults. aside from velocity, your only other factors are weight and lift c.e.... catapults increase take-off velocity, so do launch boosters. but aside from a longer runway(not possible without other mod dependencies). What harm will adding more thrust to the Skylon really do? aside from that the only out of the box thing i can think of is to give the landing gear more powerful motors that can push it that extra 10m/s? that or do a global weight decrease little by little, or cheat with adding more lift to the front canards? Considering you want this to use the stock ksp runway, you don't have that many options, but im sure the community can get creative edit: also what about trying to roll the skylon all the way back to the start of the runway( when you load there is some room(usually) behind you. would that give you the extra runway you need? also does the engine take a long time to build thrust?

so according to the info on their website, the Endurance is powered by several tokamak fusion reactors that power plasma jet engines that would give it it's futuristic capabilities, solar cells are backup. the pods at 2,4,8,10 oclock positions are detachable to be carried down by the lander. is the project going in the direction where that will be possible?(possibly with a mm config to make it play with ksp interstellar for the fusion/plasma capabilities?)

I like to think of it more like trying to find a box of self-sealing stem bolts in warehouse 3, except i don't know where warehouse 3 is or what self-sealing stem bolts actually look like... Joking aside, I'm not sure if I'm as professional about it as i can be, but i find that im pretty good at breaking things(not the explosion kind, although that's bound to happen too) and know when i need to supply the info/opinion you (probably) will need. I'm familiar with how things work in ksp(on at least a basic config level), i frequently tweak my own game to suit my needs or change things in mods i use, so i can find my way around config files and the MM configs. But i'm new and untested here, so it's up to you I don't mind either way, im still going to be playing the game regardless whether it's testing some neat creation of yours or just trying to find something new to build/fly. But i do sense you are looking for some... specific testers so maybe i'm not exactly it.

i can help test, i use a few mods but can start stock and work my way up adding mods and see what breaks it if that is what you'd like.

I find that this new build uses a significantly more amount of memory, about 500mb loaded more for some reason also can't interact with anything once loaded :/ (got it working, i fresh reinstall) no clouds in main menu either in game the world is darker and hazier(zooming down into ksc as far as it goes gets to the bottom of the haze and ksc looks like its supposed to imo but only on a small portion of the screen in planet view kerbin is covered entirely with a single type of tile of cloud with a thick white band across the equator... will post pics when i can water is very transparent, at certain angles you can see very far into the horizon under water(this is from ksc view) this is spamming my log [Error]: Texture 'BoulderCo/Atmosphere/Textures/kerbin1' has no data

this contains an old version of KSPAPIExtensions.dll, any mods with other versions of this dll will cause serious conflicts... i had very strange issues of not being able to interact with any parts in the editor until i updated this dll. this mod also contains a firespitter.dll... not sure if this will cause problems, but every other mod i've seen that has firespitter packages it in it's own folder and not inside the file structure of a mod.

does this work in .25? i haven't played in a while and loved some of these parts :3

im having an issue with running tacls and Tarsier Space Tech Telescopes mod, Tac simply wont load in any save game or new game while i ahve tarsier installed, i went through all my mods one by one(it was a pita..) until i found what was messing with TAC, any ideas? also is this anything you need to know that's appearing in debug log? [Log]: Tac.AddLifeSupport[C9D3EB80][1203.63]: The expected exception is still happening when adding the Life Support part module to the EVA: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at Part.AddModule (System.String moduleName) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Part.AddModule (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Tac.AddLifeSupport.EvaAddPartModule (.Part part) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

i have the same issue along with the chute being deployed in editor.

Thank you! Would you consider adding a config to make Jool's hydrogen compatible with Near Future's? Ideally I'd like to be able to collect Argon Gas and Liquid Hydrogen using either KSPI's or Karbonite's parts, if that's possible...

this is fantastic! thank you for sharing this! if i may add an idea/request, would you consider adding a 'garage' of sorts to store parts inside and out(as in use KAS) or something like the vts mmu? also maybe a dedicated powerplant/solar array?

i posted this http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/81847-need-help-pinpointing-bug-realfuels-modular-tanks-tweakscale-related and i think it may be stemming from tweakscale... maybe you can use something there... this was with... 1.13 of tweakscale, 1.18 seems to have fixed the issue that i was having, in any case, thanks for the mod i can't see myself playing without it!

is there a tweakscale patch floating around anywhere for this?