ArcFurnace

And here I was about to complain about RealChutes spamming the flight log. Seems to be working perfectly with the new version, no spurious flight log spam at all.

Excellent. I was just about to complain about the window refusing to remain in the same position and open/not open state like most Toolbar-based windows do (it was resetting to open/default position every time I switched between certain scenes), but this seems to have fixed the problem.

Short answer: Yes. Slightly longer answer: you could always delete TreeLoader, but the tech tree wouldn't be the same, and some upgrades would be inaccessible since they require you to have certain tech nodes unlocked, and said nodes no longer exist without TreeLoader. The MM config specified changes the nodes required for the upgrade unlocks (and also the nodes required to unlock certain parts) to make things work better without the custom tech tree previously used for Interstellar.

Those aren't true "extra" nodes; Squad added empty nodes to the end of the tech tree, costing 1000 science each. No stock parts use them, they only show up when there are mod parts that use them. These nodes are Experimental Rocketry, Nanolathing, Experimental Aerodynamics, Aerospace Tech, Automation, Robotics, Experimental Electrics, Experimental Science, and Experimental Motors. MechJeb and SCANsat (and a variety of other mods) simply add parts that use those nodes. Alternative Tree Configurator can move nodes around, change dependencies, and rename nodes, but for whatever reason it seems that adding actual new nodes is impossible (at least one person in the thread was trying to code it, and failing repeatedly). This means it's limited to the total number of nodes in stock (55). We could rearrange the stock tree, particularly those top-level "experimental" nodes, but that would break any other mod that uses them (IIRC KW Rocketry in particular has quite a few parts on the Experimental Rocketry node). Better Than Starting Manned uses this method, but it's unapologetic about being incompatible with other mods.

I like to delete old mod folders when installing new versions to avoid problems. Having multiple mods from one author in a single directory can cause confusion as to which folder belongs to which mod. One top-level directory under GameData per mod makes it easy to delete the old version and add the new version, so I approve of this change.

Are you testing them on the ground? Fractal has stated earlier in the thread that the magnetic nozzles have basically no performance in-atmosphere.

Apparently ActiveStruts has the ability to tether Kerbals to your ship, among various other uses.

The magnetic nozzle gap is a bug, something to do with node placement IIRC. They should function normally other than looking weird. TweakScale was something specifically added to Interstellar Lite, and is not present in this version of the mod.

Most things function, but the tech tree does not. 0.25 seems to have finally broken TreeLoader beyond repair. The old method of "install TreeLoader, ignore the broken Internet tree repository and manually drop the tree.cfg into your savegame" no longer works. This breaks quite a bit of the functionality, as certain parts and part upgrades require certain advanced tech nodes, which are no longer available without TreeLoader.

RCS Build Aid 0.5.1 has been released (version 0.5 recompiled for 0.25) and seems to be working for me.

PartCatalog 3.0 RC8 is out. Author says he only tested it quickly, but it's working fine for me in 0.25.

A few stock parts don't have heat shields but seem like they should, based on other parts. Specifically, the Advanced Canard and Elevon4 don't have heat shields (all other stock control surfaces do), the Protective Rocket Nosecone Mk7 doesn't (other stock nosecones do), and the CRG-08 long cargo bay has two heat shields (?) while the short CRG-04 cargo bay has none. Some of these may be intentional, but if not I wanted to bring them to your attention. EDIT: The cargo bays definitely seems to be a typo in the SPP.cfg- Mk2CargoBayL is listed twice. One should presumably be changed to Mk2CargoBayS.

In the part description, the D-30F7 is listed as having a max design speed of Mach 3.2 - if we say the speed of sound in 343 m/s, that's just under 1100 m/s. It's basically impossible for those engines to push you much faster than that. You get forward thrust by accelerating air backwards in an engine, but the engine can only push the air out the nozzle so fast- if the exhaust velocity is the same as the intake velocity, there's no net acceleration of the air and thus no thrust. Adding more intakes or more of the same turbojets won't change that. If the engines are running low on air, having a higher intake/engine ratio will help, but you'll still run up against the same VelocityCurve limitation.

The fins on RTGs are heat radiators, and need to be able to "see" the outside (there must be an unobstructed sightline from the flat side of the fin to, preferably, deep space, or somewhere else that's not producing much thermal radiation) in order to function properly, as they expel heat in the form of black-body radiation. You could, however, stuff a bunch of RTG cores into the fuselage and then set up some heat pipes/coolant plumbing to larger external radiators. I'm not quite sure why stock RTGs (or even real-life RTGs used in the Apollo missions) have so many fins, though. The way they're built, it looks like a lot of the area just radiates heat from one fin to another fin, which accomplishes absolutely nothing in terms of heat rejection.

Is THAT why ATM brought a B9-only install down from ~1GB above stock RAM usage to a few tens of megabytes above stock? (Before this release, of course)

See first post.

I believe this is because the "cost" defined in the part.cfg, for any part containing resources is actually the total cost of the part including the price of a full tank of any resources it contains. At the very least, this is how it works for tanks that start full. Given the negative prices you're getting, it looks like it works the same way for tanks that start empty (the antimatter tanks do start empty, yes?). If you have a specific "dry cost" thought up for your tank, you need to add the total cost of resources (calculated by resource units*price per unit) to that dry cost and input the total as the "cost" in the part.cfg file.

Not sure if this has been reported already or not, but the cost of the ST-25 2.5m side tank is inconsistent with other fuel tank costs. For other tanks in both stock and KW the cost of the fuel ends up being 23% of the total cost of the tank. For the ST-25 the fuel costs is 51.6% of the total cost (i.e. the "dry cost" is abnormally low). This results in said tank costing less than a Rockomax X200-32 despite holding substantially more fuel. To match the cost ratio of other tanks its total cost should be 12,960.

The MJ pod should have an integrated reaction wheel, RTG, RCS, engines, and landing legs. No heat shield, though.

The FsFuel Switch module in the S2 6m crew tank is overriding the TAC Life Support resources that were added by the MM config (I have TAC-LS installed, no RealFuels or ModularFuelTanks). The life support supplies are listed in the tooltip description, but when you actually place the part you get the part options for Structural/LF/LFO/RCS tank setups, and none of them have the life support resources.

I was using the build of MM from B9 Aerospace just now. It was working fine, with a load time of under 2 minutes, until I installed the Universal Storage TAC pack, after which the load time skyrocketed to 20 minutes. Why? I have no idea. However, upgrading to MM 2.3.4 fixed it, load times are now ~2 minutes again, even with the pack installed.

As far as I know, multiple docking ports work just fine, so long as everything is lined up properly. I've heard of things like using quadcouplers with docking ports on them for extra rigidity/ensuring correct rotation.

A quick note while you're here, your current DefRPM.cfg patch file references the "RasterPropMonitorExampleMFD" prop. In more recent versions of RPM this has been replaced by the "RasterPropMonitorBasicMFD" prop (with essentially the same functionality), and your patch file may need to be updated to reflect this. EDIT: Tested it, and it seems to work without the change (at least on the Command Pod Mk1). You might still want to do it anyway.

Is the FL-R200 monopropellant tank supposed to have a dry mass of 0.08 tons? That's less dry mass than the FL-R15 tank. To me, it looks like you meant to type "0.80" (twice the dry mass of the stock FL-R1) and had a typo. Also, the monpropellant tank mass ratios and tank cost per resource mass are all over the place. That's not technically your fault, however, as you clearly based them on the stock tanks, and the stock monopropellant tanks are also all over the place in terms of balance. Relevant data (stock tanks, then your tanks): [TABLE=class: grid, width: 977] [TR] [TD]Monopropellant Tanks[/TD] [TD]Total Cost[/TD] [TD]Dry Mass[/TD] [TD]Resource Units[/TD] [TD]Total Mass[/TD] [TD]Resource Mass[/TD] [TD]Resource Cost[/TD] [TD]Dry Cost[/TD] [TD]Mass Ratio (total mass/dry mass)[/TD] [TD]Tank Cost Ratio (dry cost/resource mass)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]FL-R10[/TD] [TD=align: right]400[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.05[/TD] [TD=align: right]50[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.25[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.2[/TD] [TD=align: right]60[/TD] [TD=align: right]340[/TD] [TD=align: right]5[/TD] [TD=align: right]1700[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]FL-R25[/TD] [TD=align: right]800[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.15[/TD] [TD=align: right]100[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.55[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.4[/TD] [TD=align: right]120[/TD] [TD=align: right]680[/TD] [TD=align: right]3.666666667[/TD] [TD=align: right]1700[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]FL-R1[/TD] [TD=align: right]1300[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.4[/TD] [TD=align: right]750[/TD] [TD=align: right]3.4[/TD] [TD=align: right]3[/TD] [TD=align: right]900[/TD] [TD=align: right]400[/TD] [TD=align: right]8.5[/TD] [TD=align: right]133.3333333[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Stratus-V Sphere[/TD] [TD=align: right]800[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.075[/TD] [TD=align: right]40[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.235[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.16[/TD] [TD=align: right]48[/TD] [TD=align: right]752[/TD] [TD=align: right]3.133333333[/TD] [TD=align: right]4700[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Stratus-V Cylinder[/TD] [TD=align: right]400[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.15[/TD] [TD=align: right]150[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.75[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.6[/TD] [TD=align: right]180[/TD] [TD=align: right]220[/TD] [TD=align: right]5[/TD] [TD=align: right]366.6666667[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]FL-R15[/TD] [TD=align: right]800[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.15[/TD] [TD=align: right]100[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.55[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.4[/TD] [TD=align: right]120[/TD] [TD=align: right]680[/TD] [TD=align: right]3.666666667[/TD] [TD=align: right]1700[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]FL-R50[/TD] [TD=align: right]1600[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.2[/TD] [TD=align: right]200[/TD] [TD=align: right]1[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.8[/TD] [TD=align: right]240[/TD] [TD=align: right]1360[/TD] [TD=align: right]5[/TD] [TD=align: right]1700[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]FL-R200[/TD] [TD=align: right]2600[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.08[/TD] [TD=align: right]1500[/TD] [TD=align: right]6.08[/TD] [TD=align: right]6[/TD] [TD=align: right]1800[/TD] [TD=align: right]800[/TD] [TD=align: right]76[/TD] [TD=align: right]133.3333333[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Stratus-V Capsule[/TD] [TD=align: right]100[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.011[/TD] [TD=align: right]10[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.051[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.04[/TD] [TD=align: right]12[/TD] [TD=align: right]88[/TD] [TD=align: right]4.636363636[/TD] [TD=align: right]2200[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] If you fix the FL-R200's dry mass, all your tanks would be within the stock range. Personally I would recommend picking a mass ratio and cost ratio and balancing things around that, but it's your call (if you want to do that, you really ought to have a MM .cfg to redo the stock tanks as well so they match, and that's not necessarily something you'd want to get into, seeing as how nothing else in the mod uses ModuleManager currently).

These are the values in my copy of the 0.9 prerelease: RESOURCE_DEFINITION{ name = Food density = 0.0010000000 flowMode = ALL_VESSEL transfer = PUMP isTweakable = true unitCost = 0.022017094017094 } RESOURCE_DEFINITION { name = Water density = 0.0010000000 flowMode = ALL_VESSEL transfer = PUMP isTweakable = true unitCost = 0.0001 } RESOURCE_DEFINITION { name = Oxygen density = 0.0000014100 flowMode = ALL_VESSEL transfer = PUMP isTweakable = true unitCost = 0.000055836 } RESOURCE_DEFINITION { name = CarbonDioxide density = 0.0000019510 flowMode = ALL_VESSEL transfer = PUMP isTweakable = true unitCost = 0 } RESOURCE_DEFINITION { name = Waste density = 0.0010000000 flowMode = ALL_VESSEL transfer = PUMP isTweakable = true unitCost = 0 } RESOURCE_DEFINITION { name = WasteWater density = 0.0010000000 flowMode = ALL_VESSEL transfer = PUMP isTweakable = true unitCost = 0 } If your copy is really 0.9, it looks like its config files got overwritten with the 0.8 values somehow.