fatbrother

On Linux, the picture is horrible: weird colors, concentric circles all over the screen. On win7 with similar graphic settings and same set of other plugins the picture is very good.

On fairing mass again. Stock fairings have following mass (according to their cfg) 1.25 - 0.075 base, 0.015 per area unit 2.5 - 0.175 base, 0.02 per area unit HRG 1.825 - 0.2 base, 0.1 per area unit. HGR fairing is 6 times heavier than stock!!! I hope, changing the .cfg wont break something?

Game crashes when I try to attach Trust Node Adapter to 0.625 tank in VAB I use 3.15 version of the piugin.

Great mod, 1.875 form factor really fills the gap. But I've noticed several problems/room for enhancement: 1. Fairing is too heavy (other posters also noted this) and fairing base is too thick 2. Both Radish and SoyJuce capsules are aerodynamically unstable 3. Heat shield is strange. When I'm reentering even from low orbit and aiming for 30km periapsis, it burns all the ablator in upper atmosphere. But it still works as protection even with no ablator. By the way, why it is in Construction section? stock heat shields are in Aerodynamic. 4. Any advice on how to actuate a SoyJuce soft landing engine? Real Soyuz has authomatic actuator 5. I seriously miss 1.875 and Radish-sized service bays. I mean a section with openable doors where I can put science stuff, accumulators, probe cores for SAS, etc, similar to stock Service Bay parts. May be radish-sized one must be also a convertor to 1.875? 6. Is it possible to add some logic to simplify use of 1.25 engines? When I attach 1.25 engine to decoupler, it is surrounded by 1.25 authomatic shroud. I must add an interstage fairing to cover it. I understand that this would require serious programming effort, but this would make the mod totally awesome. 7. (Visual) The bottom of SoyJuce service module has no engine nozzles. It is weird to see an engine exhaust going from nowhere.

The connector part is not showing in VAB nor in tech tree. Log file says: [LOG 17:24:52.883] Config(@PART[EVAfuelLine]:FOR[EVATransfer]:NEEDS[VenStockRevamp]) EVATransfer/EVAFuelLine/EVAFuelLine/@PART[EVAfuelLine]:FOR[EVATransfer]:NEEDS[VenStockRevamp] and later [LOG 17:24:55.532] [ModuleManager] Deleting Node in file EVATransfer/EVAFuelLine/EVAFuelLine subnode: @PART[EVAfuelLine]:FOR[EVATransfer]:NEEDS[VenStockRevamp] as it can't satisfy its NEEDS I do not want to install VenStockRevamp, is it possible to somehow remove or circumvent this dependence?

I did a clean experiment: launched the same rocket with fairing installed and with fairing removed (only fairing base remained), and watched MechJeb Delta-V loss statistics. With fairing I get 811 m/s loss, without fairing 820 m/s, which might be due to slightly changed flight profile with lighter rocket. And this is with very unstreamlined payload. 9m/s definitely do not compensate for extra weight and complexity. Also I noticed that with Deathly Reentry, fairing does not protect payload from overheating and does not heat itself when I'm going too fast in lower atmosphere. Is this a 0.90 compatibility issue or was it like this from the beginning?

Excellent idea and implementation! For me, it returned the fun of first days when I discovered the KSP! Didn't you thought about adding a stick stabilizer, like ones used in small fireworks? Small fins seem too big for your upper stage, even visually. And firework-like rocket with science payload would definitely look cool. Also, your big lower stage is good as a first stage for small LF rockets, I use it as a booster stage for orbital rockets. Don't you think it's somewhat overpowered? Or are stock SRBs overpovered and/or off balance?

Feature request: special support for long burns on low orbit It is well known that best Delta-V to kinetic energy conversion is deep in gravity well. So when you try to do an escape burn, it is best to do on a low orbit. When you have low TWR (like when you run a heavy ship with nuclear engines or not so heavy ship with electrical ones), time of the burn can be comparable to orbital period. I have seen posts of the people complaining on this, and the advice was to raise the orbit or make it more elliptical. But this is a loss of Delta-V. Also, in this case, most of the burn ship is accelerating on high angle to its velocity vector. This is also a loss of delta-V. Optimal (in terms of DV to energy conversion) acceleration would be parallel to current velocity vector, like when you do a gravity turn on ascend. Can we have a special mode for low orbit low TWR burns? I see two possible ways to implement this: 1. Split a maneuver node to several nodes placed along the trajectory. 2. A special "gravity-turn-like" mode of node execution, manually selectable or automatically engaged when burn time is > 10% of orbital period.

Autopilot disengaging every time I try to execute a node. No message on a screen and in the logs, node just disappears and nothing else happens. This suddenly started yesterday. I used 2.3.1.286 developer build and it worked [mostly] perfectly, but then in the middle of the mission it stopped executing the nodes. After this started, I upgraded first to a stable 2.3.1, then to 2.3.1.0-321 developer build. This happens with old and new saved games and with 32- and 64-bit KSP 0.24.2 and with different ships. Also this happens with Launch assistance: it works during vertical accent and gravity turn, but when it creates circularization node, node disappears and Accent Assistance autopilot disengages. May be some configuration file is corrupt? I did not changed any settings before this started. Update: it was probably my fault. I've noticed that Tolerance value in maneuver planning window was set to some high value. I probably did it by error trying to activate action group when window was active. But I still think it is an usability issue.