blowfish

That makes more sense. The community fixes do remove some redundant nodes, and it's likely that some of those were being used. There's a good chance that just re-attaching everything would fix it, but I'm not 100% sure.

@Synthesis There's absolutely nothing in the community fixes that touches the fairings, so I'm not sure what could be going wrong there. Previous versions did remove the engine shrouds but the current does not. Also, the last official KW rocketry release was for 1.0.2 (as the thread title says). Could you try to make a clean 1.0.5 install with KW rocketry and the latest community fixes and confirm that your problem still exists?

Not sure what in the community fixes would be breaking the fairings. Could you provide more info?

RF doesn't really deal with air-breathing engines. To my knowledge, there's no realistic model for such an engine in KSP.

The lifter vs sustainer distinction is more about Isp than thrust. You could put a massive nozzle on an F-1 and that would increase the vacuum thrust, while making it basically useless at sea level. Personally I don't give a flying frak about attachment sizes - if anything, more flexibility is better. I don't see a use case where you'd actually want to put a single vector on a 1.25m stack, so why argue about it? And to reiterate, Porkjet's current work may render the attachment size distinction obsolete anyway.

Found this in your log: [KSP Version]: 1.0.4.861 (WindowsPlayer) ==================================== So you are using KSP 1.0.4. If that's not the version you thought you were on, you might want to reinstall KSP to make sure everything is in order. Probably explains all the other issues you were having too.

What version of KSP are you on? That shouldn't be happening in 1.0.5. Also, in the future, it's probably easier to just put the entire log on dropbox or something. It's usually easier to find the problem if I can see everything that KSP is doing, not just the exception.

We can try to troubleshoot. First step would be to make sure all the dependencies are installed correctly. Second step would be to provide logs, instructions are in the first link in my signature.

If you provide that data, AJE will use it to fit those parameters on the engine. So if you provide drySFC, then FHV will be set so that it reproduces that SFC at static conditions, if you provide dryThrust then Area will be set to reproduce it, and wetThrust will be used to fit TAB (whatever values are in there already will be overwritten). Does that make sense?

I actually have a plugin that enables toggling of attachment nodes along with models and resources (and some other stuff), but it might be a bit heavyweight if you're just using it for just a few parts. Here's some more info, if you're interested:

I think most people use Procedural Parts. I usually don't use propellers at all, but when I do I'll just pick one that isn't scaled (the KAX turboprop isn't, for instance).

It would not affect thrust (or mass, or anything else except drag, which would be reduced somewhat due to the smaller cross section). It would be less realistic in the sense that the engines would be smaller than they are in real life.

You could remove the scaling in AJE's patches, that's about it. As per the previous page, stockalike vs realistic AJE isn't really a clean division at the moment. I've made a bit of progress toward resolving it for jets, but propellers are not really my domain so I haven't touched them.

Yeah, and that's with relatively mature technology, which the Hyperloop concept isn't.

Relevant analysis TL;DR interesting concept, but a lot of unresolved technical issues (lateral acceleration, safety, passenger capacity), and the cited costs look like they were pulled out of thin air.

Those are indeed obsolete. The only way to actually reduce drag would be give the part a custom drag cube, which is quite difficult. P.S. this isn't really MM related.

For everyone worried about attachment sizes, I'd like to remind you that this is something that Porkjet is quite possibly changing in a very major way (as per dev notes).

All engines should have the same fuel and oxidizer flow regardless of ambient conditions.

It reloads all the parts, effects, configs, etc. If it's stuck then something's probably throwing an exception - please provide logs if you want us to investigate.

I actually suggested that at one point, but someone brought up that it would complicate craft sharing between people with/without PP. One other feature that was requested was for a more "stockalike" experience where the jet engine physics would be changed but not the part titles or descriptions. I'm still sort of thinking about how to do this. My current thinking is to mark all the realism patches as :NEEDS[RealismOverhaul|AJE-RealEngines] (AJE-RealEngines so that someone without RO could install them if they want just by creating that folder). Without either one of those, all the (non podded) engines would conform to stock sizes and retain their stock descriptions and titles.

Unlikely that 64 bit will have any impact on load times or overall performance. The benefit will really just be in available memory.

Actually, since NFE reactors (which are often required to power the engines) do consume uranium, adding uranium consumption to NTRs might actually fit well.

It works for podded engines, but for stack-attached engines there wouldn't be anything of the right size to attach them to.

All the rescaled, stack-attached engines do currently. Currently we don't really have a clean solution for separating "stockalike" AJE from something more realistic as far as stack sizes go. I think it's generally a good idea to avoid rescaling stock parts, but sometimes that results in engines that aren't quite the right size, for instance the J-58 is larger than 1.25m in real life.

The Tunguska and Odin fill completely different roles (upper/vacuum and lower/lifter respectively). Do you mean a sustainer type engine with both acceptable sea level and vacuum Isp (but neither being optimal)? This is with the same vessel mass but all the oxidizer tankage replaced with LH2, right?