Svm420

[imgur]24bjP[/imgur]

[quote name='SpacedInvader']It may be the truth, but it certainly presents a problem with my current mod setup as I'm using the SETI balance mod and RCS thrusters aren't included in the tech tree until quite some time down the line, though that isn't an issue with RF, but rather SETI. That said, I just want to be sure I'm not experiencing a bug rather than a feature. I also use RFstockalike, and even with that config set, there were pressure-fed engines in the past as I described. If you are correct, and I don't have any reason not to believe you, then the old way must have been deemed unrealistic and removed, which makes me a little sad as it was always nice to have at least a few "easy-mode" engines to allow for smoother orbital operations. PS: On a side note, and purely out of curiosity, what do you have against CKAN?[/QUOTE] I too use SETI if that is the case with RCS consider strapping some small SRBs or just moving the RCS forward in the tech tree.. It's a single player game so that can't be cheating. Just a necessity for that level of realism. :)

I just got my mig 21 done last night will post some pics ASAP. Also holy crap an aset blackbird?!? OMG man if you make that and help him with his mirage cockpit :confused:. It's like an early xmas 1.1 what?

[quote name='SpacedInvader']This appears to be new then... in the past a pressurized tank (service module) + a pressure-fed engine (orbital maneuvering engine) = no ullage simulation. As far as I can tell, there is no longer a distinction between pressure-fed and non pressure-fed engines in the configs, unless I'm missing something?[/QUOTE] Can't say how it was before and I am not sure about pressure fed engines I use RFStockalike not full RO. Nathan has been trying to squash that myth for a while though pressurized tank should never had any effect on ullage. He could explain it, but that is the truth.

[quote name='SpacedInvader']I'm experiencing an issue with pressurized tanks not always behaving as if they are pressurized. As a rule, I always use the service module tank type for my final stage tank so that I don't have to mess around with ullage when I'm trying to perfect an orbit, but I've noticed with the most recent version (both of KSP and RF since I haven't played since 0.90) that the service module tank type will often allow fuel to go into the "very unstable" condition, even though it is listed as being pressurized. This seems to happen most often after the craft has been coasting for a time and can usually be corrected by imparting some centrifugal force onto the tank, but unless something has changed that I missed, if the tank is pressurized, there should be no ullage simulation at all, right?[/QUOTE] Pressurized tank have no effects on ullage you still need rcs or solid motors to promote propellant stability. :)

[quote name='strykersm']Added a little something to keep you guys entertained for a bit until the next update: [URL]http://i.imgur.com/LephUU4.png[/URL][/QUOTE] Wow that came out so good I watching you make the radar for a bit, but it looks better than I could have imagined all finished :D Very impressed! Wait is that 2 man?

[quote name='AJTheMighty']I hope this comes out before the end of the year... I CANNOT WAIT ANY MOAR ME WANTS A PRE RELEASE VERSION[/QUOTE] Seriously you are just being annoying you have already posted you want it there is no more point to doing this other than to act very childish.

Wow those gas giants look like photographs. Thats amazing! [COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] I like shot 2 the best, then 1, then 3, then 8 rest are a bit too much for my taste. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] And Tekto is beyond words :D :D

[quote name='strykersm']Let me leave food for hype train: Im making an IVA that looks like this: [URL]http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/awa01/201-300/awa271-F-106/images_Tracy_n_Jeni_Saulino/08-F-106A_Delta_Dart_cockpit_sim.jpg[/URL] (includes[will include] RPM) and i managed to figure out the mageeek of shrinking kerbals in my IVA's xD[/QUOTE] Now I am really glad I got the f-106 engine added o AJE. This is too much, just too good :D.

[quote name='DiamondBack973']Is this mod compatible with 1.0.5, does it require FAR for 1.0.5, or is it just plain incompatible with 1.0.5? I hope that one of the first 2 possibilities is true, because it's a total pain in the neck to make non-conventional wings and control surfaces without B9PW.[/QUOTE] 1 Yes 2 No 3 No

:D Nailed it! I would like to echo faulk_wolf's suggestion to put it all in one mod. With something like this it will only work if the user has ASET. Then if you or anyone ever re uses your internal it will catch those parts too. Thank you for the work you have done!! [code] @PART [*]:HAS[@INTERNAL[mig]]:NEEDS[ASET] { @INTERNAL { @name = migASET } MODULE { name = RasterPropMonitorComputer } } [/code]

Would it be possible when you put out the B9 textures to implement it with firespitters texture switcher to swap between the two?

Great work as usual baha! Now we just need bac9 to drag his butt on here and release his new, better than Porkjet, textured parts :P

[quote name='Hevak']Yes it is getting blow out of proportion. It's being done so, and there is really no other way to put this, because many are becoming petulant over something that is quite small in the grand scheme of the world. the fact that people are blowing this so out of proportion is a good validation of the devs decision. Being upset is one thing but the level that it's being taken in this thread is another. The he devs have explained a couple times why it is going away. First it was against the rules to role play for awhile now. And role play can be a huge nightmare for forums when you already have arguments that pop on them. Now add someone saying oh I was just acting like a complete donkey to them because i was just playing a role. I didn't break the rules yada yada. It makes moderation a tougher thing in all cases, and they said everyone may not have seen it but they regularly had to mod that section. And as evidence here and in the rb forum people are taking it a little to serious and a little to the extreme, causing several posts to moderated here as well. i find it funny that many of the save the rb people are claiming it's wrong what squad are doing, and making snide remarks in the process. Yet the real thing they need to realize is they were in the wrong first as there was no rp allowed, yet they still did and continuously broke the rules and cause moderation issues. Some are even demanding that they be allowed to have a place to rp no matter what, or else it will spill into other threads. So yeah make some thinly veiled threats to keep breaking the rules no matter what, that certainly helps your cause doesn't? You can still make and sharecraft, even cooperatively. It has been stated many times now. There just won't be a rb thread, but you can use the exchange thread. Just don't roleplay it like a real company in the sense of acting out parts it's not hard to understand is it? you were graciously given some time to backup all your work by the devs, in fact they could have easily just erased the whole thread if they wanted. There is nothing that says they have to let you backup or move your work over, sans rp of course, to the exchange. But they let you. So maybe count that as a blessing in a difficult situation. they have since said that rb will be a hidden archive after the change to allow people to link to it and work on changing things over after the change as well. As as for the company part, you can still brand your stuff with a name if you like. It's perfectly ok, for example look at Roverdudes stuff for USI, or Taraniselu for TAC even TriggerAU for trigger tech I think it is? And several others that brand all their work. The difference you ask? Well when you go into their thread they talk and act like a regular person, they don't roleplay a ceo or a company at all. They don't play or act out bits ever. There is a big difference and keeps things nicer. now being upset is generally fine, as is voicing your opinion and pushing for change. But honestly I hope one day many of you realize that your actions in this thread alone have probably done more to validate this decision by the devs. The amount of asinine, insolent posts, and plain lack of respect shown toward squad and the mods trying to get change kind of amazes me. You may be unhappy and I do understand it to some extent, but it was no need to act the way many have, and continue to do so here, towards the mods or anyone really. i would be upset if some of my contributions I have made to a couple threads went away too,I invested time in it and it's nice to have the history yes. But My life would continue as normal, if a persons life won't because of that, then they really need look into some help as there are issues there. But things end, this game or the whole world could end tomorrow. Squad is a small company and things can happen much easier and quicker to a small company, good or bad. Squad does not have to provide us with a forum. They don't have to allow us to create, use, or share mods or crafts at all. But they do and they have established rules and are working to enforce them for what I see are perfectly valid reasons. and really the main point to really think about now is that if you all had just followed the rules and avoided the role playing altogether you probably wouldn't be in this mess. And if you'd like to continue making and sharing craft which I'm sure many people including me to a small extent, would like, just put aside the rp aspect and things will be fine. but honestly most of you have gotten so rediculous in your responses to this, that like I said you have more than anything done so much to validate the devs/mods decision.[/QUOTE] You said everything that ever needed to be said about this 10/10 /thread

Please update for the pause issue. That is the most glaring issue atm, and I understand if you are busy IRL, so please take this as a polite plea. Thank you for continuing the mod :)

[quote name='MeCripp']O thought you found one for the scissor lift :([/QUOTE] Lol reading comprehension fail ;P

[quote name='strykersm']Here's what awaits you next update. (Notice the textures, THEY'RE NOT CRAP! THEY ARE LESS-CRAP! :D) [URL]http://i.snag.gy/ZQMa9.jpg[/URL][/QUOTE] Nice pit reminds me of the f 106 a bit. Good work

[quote name='MeCripp']Where did you find a test down load ?[/QUOTE] [url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/65365-WIP-MSI-s-Infernal-Robotics-Model-Rework-%2828-04-2015%29-Kinda-Back?p=2249445&viewfull=1#post2249445[/url]

I haven't tried them yet as I just found the test DL, but do the mecanum wheels require KOS to work easily? I don't use KOS, but these wheels look really cool so I was curious if anyone had experience with them. Thanks!

Ahh I didn't consider having all the engines planar to the CoM. You are right in that case. Also what engines do you find you need this with out of curiosity. I have never had an engine overheat so I have no experience to go off of.

[quote name='komodo']While I haven't noticed an issue with the stock decouplers (*dodges flying tomatos*), I was curious about the KIS balancing. The pods have a variety of space allocated to them, which is a boon, but the size allocated seems a bit arbitrary; everything seems to clock in at about 1000 L. While nice, it seems... off. I just started trying out KIS, and thus just noticed it. Does anyone have a sense of what might be a 'realistic'/balanced volume for the pods? Thanks![/QUOTE] Personally I set up a patch to remove all kis configs and add them back at 100L per crew seat.

[quote name='Van Disaster']Because throttling one engine to 50% and slightly adjusting the others so the thrust vector is in the same place is not the same as throttling all engines to 50%. Additionally, different types of engines overheat at different rates.[/QUOTE] How can you move the vector to exactly to where it was if all engines aren't throttled equally? The vector won't be the same unless they all are reduced proportionally. :huh:

[quote name='theend3r']I have this too. I'll test it further and check if Open GL has anything to do with it. Edit: Nope, it doesn't matter. Here is what happens after a vessel gets unloaded and reloaded. I spawned one plane and drove it back and then took another one, flew away and landed back. [URL]http://i.imgur.com/ncUMdNNl.png[/URL] Same here.[/QUOTE] Need a log if you want help. MM.cache too is great too. Also to add this should be fixed. What version are you using?

[quote name='Luxius']Cool, thanks. To redirect the question at the term ullage and not the motors intended to deal with ullage in micro-gravity. Ullage motors are intended for micro-gravity. Ullage in tanks is to be considered pre-launch (edit: at least for the first stage) and the first seconds after launch. When enough fuel is burned from launch it will no longer become an issue, since there will subsequently be plenty of room for the gasses to gather in. Thank you for all your answers, both of you. /Luxius Addendum: has any of you actually read the scientific paper linked in the answer to the question in my former "relevant link" before trying to answer my question? Even taken a glimpse at it? [COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] Or maybe I'm completely mistaken in my previous observations and it's all related to structural integrity and the expanding gasses ...?[/QUOTE] Just read it Helium is pumped in up to a rated psi to ensure proper fuel flow into the turbopump. Release valves open to prevent over pressurization. That's drastically simplified, but that's the jist. The only thing this really applies to in RO is service modules are highly pressurized like that for RCS to work.

[quote name='Svm420']Did you ever figure out compatibility with Realfuel? Thanks![/QUOTE] Maybe this was missed? I ask because of RealFuels unique engine module as opposed to the 2 stock engine modules