SpaceHungryMan

Sounds wonderful! Looking forward to your usual level of quality

Thanks. If there are any problems, please let me know.

Sorry for the run-around. I've submitted a pull request on GitHub. That should clarify things a bit. And thanks for the clarification, Northstar. This is intended as a temporary fix until then (I thought the CRP consensus wasn't happening until post-1.0?). And the way the I tried to structure it, Water will only have one definition depending on whether TACLS is installed or not. If TACLS is installed, Water will de defined according to TACLS. Without TACLS, Water will be defined by KSPI. My question is, does KSPI Extended have any problems using TACLS' definition of Water?

Adding !NEEDS[ThunderAerospace] should solve this. Thanks for pointing that out. And forgive me, but can you explain exactly why it wouldn't work? I get that the densities and cost may be a little off but that's just a balance issue isn't it? Not an an outright incompatibility? Also, doesn't KSPI come with its own Water tanks exclusive of RF/MFT?

You need to replace THIS part in the current RealFuelsFix.cfg with the one in my previous post. Might want to hold off on doing that just yet though. I'm having difficulties adding KSPI Water and CarbonDioxide. I will update when I figure it out. //Add water tank using KSPI water. (TO-DO: integration with TACLS water without trampling KSPI or TACLS)@TANK_DEFINITION [*]:FINAL:HAS[@TANK[Kerosene],!TANK[LqdWater]]:NEEDS[RealFuels]:FOR[WarpPlugin] { +TANK[Kerosene] { @name = Water } } //Add Argon to all tanks that have XenonGas, as they function and store similarly. @TANK_DEFINITION [*]:FINAL:HAS[@TANK[XenonGas],!TANK[Argon]]:NEEDS[RealFuels]:FOR[WarpPlugin] { +TANK[XenonGas] { @name = ArgonGas } } //Add CO2 tank using KSPI gaseous CO2 to all tanks that have Nitrogen. @TANK_DEFINITION [*]:FINAL:HAS[@TANK[Nitrogen],!TANK[CarbonDioxide]]:NEEDS[RealFuels]:FOR[WarpPlugin] { +TANK[Nitrogen] { @name = CarbonDioxide } } //Add LiquidCO2 to all tanks that have LqdMethane, as they store similarly. @TANK_DEFINITION [*]:FINAL:HAS[@TANK[LqdMethane],!TANK[LiquidCO2]]:NEEDS[RealFuels]:FOR[WarpPlugin] { +TANK[LqdMethane] { @name = LiquidCO2 } } //Add LiquidNitrogen to all tanks that have LqdOxygen, as they store similarly. @TANK_DEFINITION [*]:FINAL:HAS[@TANK[LqdOxygen],!TANK[LiquidNitrogen]]:NEEDS[RealFuels]:FOR[WarpPlugin] { +TANK[LqdOxygen] { @name = LiquidNitrogen } } Hello Northstar, *snip* UPDATE: It's not a problem with Real Fuels 8.4, it's because the TACLS Water Tank Def in RealFuelsFix.cfg is interfering with the one in TACLifeSupportFix.cfg. Sorry for the confusion! So this can be fixed in two ways. Option one is to remove the TANK_DEF that deals with Water from the current RealFuelsFix.cfg. Option two is to use my fix. It removes the duplicate Water TANK_DEF while ensuring KSPI's new resources are stored in the appropriate RF tanks.

They come with this mod, no Kerbin-side required. You can see their location data in the LaunchSites.cfg within the RSS folder. I believe that building upgrades/restrictions are carried across all three sites (someone correct me if I'm wrong).KSC will still be the default starting location but you can simply choose to launch and land at the other sites instead. This still accomplishes the goal of increasing difficulty while minimizing the amount of modification you have to do.

With this mod, you can launch from the Kerbin analogues of Cape Canaveral and Baikonur Cosmodrome. Both of those are located at a high inclination and away from the equator. You can just pretend KSC doesn't exist Is that pretty much what you're looking for?

Great news! I'll try to remember that for future reference.

There's no button anymore according to the OP and the change log. It simply allows the camera to move outside the boundaries.

Oh. Hmmm. What about @TANK_DEFINITION[Default/Cryogenic/whatever]? Or @TANK_DEFINITION:HAS[#name[whatever]]? I'm just spitballing here. Not exactly an expert myself. When I get the chance I'll actually try and see if I could get it to work.

I care So just to be clear, you're trying to change the utilization for every TANK module in each TANKDEFINITION module? I assume we're talking about the RealTankTypes.cfg? @MODULE[TANK_DEFINITION[whatever]] { @TANK [*] { @utilization = whatever } } Some variation of the above should work. I think.

Yeah I suspect my in-game crashes were a result of mod incompatibilities and such. I cleaned everything up since then and they haven't happened yet.

No worries. Umm, there's a sneaky "Tantares.cfg" file in addition to "Stockalike_Tantares.cfg" in the Real Fuels folder. Try removing that?And 20kN is pretty over-powered for an RCS thruster. They're usually set to give less than 1kN of thrust. I thought that was the cause of your ridiculous acceleration but I may be wrong.EDIT: Thanks Niemand303, sorry to bother you.

The "duplicate" engine configs appear because those specific engines also have/function as RCS. So it shows you both the engine config and the RCS config. It shouldn't cause any issues in actual gameplay though. The over-powered RCS thrusters appear to be there by design. In the file, they're set to 20kN of thrust. Not sure if that is intended. Niemand303 is the one who actually does the research and sets the appropriate values.

That's odd. I'm playing with both and loving it. Do you use them on the same ship?

I suggest removing your Stockalike_Tantares.cfg file from Real Fuels. That file is mostly Niemand303's work from a while back and is pretty much just an outdated version of what now comes bundled with Tantares.

Just want to report that the most recent update doesn't appear to have caused any issues. Also, SRB thrust curves seem to be working as they should. Umm, don't really have anything new to add to that discussion other than LES don't work well with Pulse, and seperatrons are now more necessary than ever.

Hello fellow sufferers, After doing some more research, it turns out Linux 64-bit doesn't necessarily mean that you get a free pass on RAM usage. Certain "sectors" of KSP still have a hard RAM limit of about 4GB. That means it's still necessary to keep an eye on mod usage (just not as much as with Windows). Personally, I use ATM and Procedural Parts and have pruned a lot of redundant parts from my install. The crashes still occur but are now much less frequent.

You have to be playing in Science or Career mode. And you have to set the planet/moon as a target first. Also double-check if you are using the correct processor. Wide Field for planets and Asteroid for asteroids.

Doh. Of course. I'll just do the calculations by hand. EDIT: Wait no I don't! I just need to use the tank type and volume fields! This is great And yeah I don't really mind losing the Jet functionality. As you said, AJE is a better option. I just thought to bring it to your attention. Oh and I pretty much agree with what you have in mind for the thrust curves. Um, can't think of anything for Increasing except maybe weaponized missiles, if you're into that sort of thing. I'll slowly start converting all existing SRBs. I'll probably leave FASA and such to you guys though. EDIT: Should I also start worrying about the new crossfeed option? Anything that needs to change because of it?

Hello FreeThinker, Would your NF integration configs work with KSP Interstellar Extended? Since it's meant to be save-game compatible with Boris' fork it should be fine with this set of configs, right? I've tried it out and everything looks pretty good just from launchpad tests but I figure you could give better insight.

Hey I just noticed you added support for RCS! Thanks Always had trouble with those. Oh and the app doesn't seem to be responsive when I choose Solid or Solid Plus as a type (or even Jet for that matter). By that I mean the Percentage Case/Goal Percentage Case does not update as I change thrust, mass, or ISP. It also gives heat production as NaN. To replicate: 1) Go to Blank Template Engine 2) Choose Solid/Solid Plus/Jet as type 3) Fiddle with the mass/thrust/ISP 4) Percentage Case field will remain blank and red, heat production will be NaN Everything else seems to work fine though.

As it happens, I have been having some trouble with the web-app. In that case, I'll just wait until you decide that it's ready. Also, do you have specific intentions towards converting all existing SRBs to use thrust curves? As in, do you already have a vision as to what curves should go with what SRBs, etc.? I don't want to trample all over your work when I start creating configs.

Hi Raptor831, I'm currently playing around with your fantastic web-app trying to create configs for some SRBs and I'm hoping you can clear some things up for me. 1) What does the "Percentage Case" mean? And am I supposed to keep that and "Goal Percentage Case" more or less equal? 2) What are the Steady Dip and Decreasing Dip profiles for? Do they have something to do with Max Q? Ullage? 3) Is the Dedicated Tank option required for SRBs? Thanks.

Hello Inflectrum, MinimumSky5 Do you guys use RFStockalike as well? If so, your Fuel_Conversions.cfg file may be outdated.