Kowgan

Passing here just to point that this mod has survived another update, and still works in 1.0.2. Of course, it probably needs to have its MM configs updated for the new parts, but I haven't had any trouble with other mods that use this plugin. Take care.

It's a pretty low priority request, but the feature can be lacking for a few mods that don't want to use third animation modules, such as the old AdvancedAnimator, or FireSpitter. I would like to suggest a line that allows us to set the animation speed in ModuleAnimateGeneric. I don't know how hard it would be to make it possible, but I imagine it wouldn't be so simple, as things usually aren't. Nevertheless, there's my suggestion. Best regards, Kowgan.

Not to be that guy, but there's already something like this in the wiki. But I think it would be a neat idea to turn this into a less formal dictionary, like the Dresteroids thing, which I consider a genius idea.

If you have a game key, you can go into your steam library » bottom left corner, click on the "+ Add game..." button » Activate a steam product » Put your key there, and the game should be added to your Steam library. If you don't have a key, you'll need to contact Squad.

I'm also refraining from updating the WAC's subway-style map until all this atmospheric discussion settles down and we have an official (and mostly definitive?) word from Squad regarding the future of drag and lift values. I'd suggest you take the advices from the guys above. That's what seems to be working for most people right now. And regarding Eve, I've heard reports about 7000m/s instead of the old 12,000m/s. I still haven't tested that myself, though.

@r4pt0r: This makes me a bit concerned about the crew's health... Or, was it even crewed?

I understand that wings will provide more lift and change the lift/drag ratio. But at the same time, I believe lift isn't the problem here. I think the direct problem is the massive drag. Shuttle design, for referece. The shuttle can keep its nose up and do a nice glide on as low speed as 80m/s, or even at 60m/s, given the right angle. So, it definitely has enough lift. But I don't think a shuttle like this should naturally slow down to 30m/s before touching ground, from a deorbit, without using any kind of airbreakers. For this example - as I would normally fly -, I came in a traditional approach. Not too shallow, not too steep. You can see that there's more than enough lift on the ship. Nevertheless, the speed is decreasing fast: 17m/s in less than 10 seconds, whithout any kind of speedbrakes. I noticed, though, that if I come in a pretty steep approach, and lifting the nose up in the last seconds, then I'll have enough speed to land without stalling to death.

Personally, the biggest issue that 1.0.1's new drag model brought me is that I simply can't glide any aircraft back to the KSC runway. This reflects majority in my shuttle orbiters. When deorbiting them, doesn't matter from what altitude, they always end up reaching the final approach under 60m/s - Sometimes even 30m/s -, and a major stall is always certain. I've also tried the 1.0 physics config, but as it has been mentioned, I think the 1.0.1 parts remain unbalanced to those physics files. Don't quote me on that.

It should be, yes. The original config file contains two parts; one 2.5m and one 5m. Apart from that, anyone who have tested it, have you noticed if any flipping problems persists while using Starwaster's patch? And maybe we could put some Ablator into it. { name = ModuleAblator ablativeResource = Ablator lossExp = -9000 lossConst = 20 pyrolysisLossFactor = 10000 reentryConductivity = 0.01 ablationTempThresh = 500 } RESOURCE { name = Ablator amount = 800 maxAmount = 800 } MODULE { name = ModuleAblator ablativeResource = Ablator lossExp = -9000 lossConst = 20 pyrolysisLossFactor = 10000 reentryConductivity = 0.01 ablationTempThresh = 500 } RESOURCE { name = Ablator amount = 1800 maxAmount = 1800 } MODULE Thanks.

Both my current physics.cfg (original 1.0.2) and the one provided by OP (supposedly 1.0 configs) seem to be exactly the same. Not a single character out of place. So, I think OP is providing the 1.0.2 physics.cfg file, instead of the 1.0 one. Now, this post provides a code claiming to be the 1.0 physics.cfg file, and here are the differences: dragMultiplier = 8.0 dragCubeMultiplier = 0.1 angularDragMultiplier = 2 liftMultiplier = 0.055 liftDragMultiplier = 0.025 bodyLiftMultiplier = 10.7 aeroFXStartThermalFX = 2 aeroFXFullThermalFX = 3.5 aeroFXExponent = 3 thermalMaxIntegrationWarp = 100 spaceTemperature = 4 solarLuminosityAtHome = 1360 solarInsolationAtHome = 0.15 convectionDensityExponent = 1 convectionVelocityExponent = 3 convectionFactorSplashed = 300 fullConvectionAreaMin = 0.2 fullToCrossSectionLerpStart = 0.8 fullToCrossSectionLerpEnd = 1.5 machConvectionStart = 2 machConvectionEnd = 4 machConvectionExponent = 3 partEmissivityExponent = 4 radiationFactor = 1 convectionFactor = 40 newtonianConvectionFactorBase = 2 newtonianConvectionFactorTotal = 3 NewtonianVelocityExponent = 1.5 conductionFactor = 10 internalHeatProductionFactor = 0.03 aerodynamicHeatProductionFactor = 1 standardSpecificHeatCapacity = 800 The ones marked in blue don't exist in the following code. dragMultiplier = 6.0 dragCubeMultiplier = 0.06 angularDragMultiplier = 2 liftMultiplier = 0.038 liftDragMultiplier = 0.03 bodyLiftMultiplier = 8 aeroFXStartThermalFX = 2 aeroFXFullThermalFX = 3.5 aeroFXExponent = 3 thermalMaxIntegrationWarp = 100 spaceTemperature = 4 solarLuminosityAtHome = 1360 solarInsolationAtHome = 0.15 convectionDensityExponent = 1 convectionVelocityExponent = 3 fullConvectionAreaMin = 0.2 fullToCrossSectionLerpStart = 0.8 fullToCrossSectionLerpEnd = 1.5 machConvectionStart = 2 machConvectionEnd = 3.5 partEmissivityExponent = 4 radiationFactor = 1 convectionFactor = 40 newtonianConvectionFactorBase = 1 newtonianConvectionFactorTotal = 1 conductionFactor = 10 internalHeatProductionFactor = 0.03 aerodynamicHeatProductionFactor = 1 standardSpecificHeatCapacity = 800 Edit: Double ninja'ed.

As long as the operating vessels stays loaded (close enough to the physics sphere; more than 2.5km now?), the game won't have problems calculating the TCA physics. It would be interesting to watch you fly one of these rockets away from the others' physics sphere, and see what would happen when those other rockets unloaded, though.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to stupid_chris again." Damn. As always, your effort is really appreciated, Chris.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Addle again." Why, oh why? Thank you for the continuous rock'n'roll, Addle!

Weird, I can change keybinds normally. Have you tried clearing the key and then changing it?

Thanks for the tweak support, Starwaster.

I've followed your instructions, and tried a few other ways as well. Unfortunately, got no luck here. Would someone else using Windows be able to replicate that bug as well?

Unchecked the boxes, accepted and went testing. Confirmed: That's not just graphics. I have both "Launch/Stages" and "Switch Translation/Rotation" commands bound to Spacebar. - Loaded a craft; - Switched to Docking mode, Translation activated; - Pressed space; - Stage occurs, and Translation mode switches to Rotation.

Just passing by to report this bug, as it can bring to several other problems. Whenever you try rebinding a key, the game gives you three additional options, asking you on which flight modes do you want that keybind to work: Staging, Docking (Translation) and Docking (Rotation). Problem is, (un)ticking those boxes have no effect at all. They will always go back to their default configuration, as soon as you hit "Accept". Take care.

Thank you for the super fast update, Addle! You rock!

Well played.

Aaaand, we've reached 400!

So, that's how people get thousands of posts! I mean... HYPE!

It wasn't exactly today, but turns out I've forgot to post it on that day: Yes, my very first time visiting the memorial. That took me long enough.

I believe it's intended, Tater. And you're not alone in this.

Logs, please.