TiktaalikDreaming

Actually, I should have posted these, Splitting the bits up. Note, the lower section is pretty much exactly 1.25m, so you can use different tanks etc. Using a similar system to BDB by @CobaltWolffor the parachute mount, although it's slightly the wrong size to match, due to the angle of the walls. To match 1.25m it would be half way down the windows. I will be looking at matching the parachute units though, so they're interchangeable. Should be handy if you're testing "back home" and don't want a giant ballute.

I've started a pass over all the parts to make them a bit more stockalike, while keeping the flavour of the 60's/70's NASA craft. I'll be aiming to make the DEM a little more stock part friendly where I can (ie, match docking port sizes, etc). (no KSP will not render fancy metal surfaces, but they do show up normal maps nicely in blender)

Hell, most of the time I go out to Duna, it's with a giant Nexus thing, where the second stage dwarfs a Saturn. I aim for the parts to be "authentic" (not sure what exactly that means for systems that were never built) but the joy of KSP, is that doesn't mean your missions have to be the same.

Just for the record, I suspect Stephen Baxter was copying from the same sources as me, aka North American Rockwell. Their Mars Excursion Module was the earliest fairly complete design after NASA discovered Martian atmosphere was about 1% of Earth's, not 30% or so. So, designs prior to it are winged, gentle landing pipe dreams. After, they're all this or a copy of this. For decades, basically until Elon Musk's audacious ideas. So, while they are very similar, I believe the craft from the book varies a bit from the NAR design. I made a few concessions to permit something close to the book (which I haven't read) as I was reciprocating the assistance in Realism Overhauling the mod from @Nittany Tiger's voyager excursion in RSS+RO; But, basically, do be aware, the mod is the NAR MEM, not the Voyager/Ares MEM. Carry on.

Testing in the newest RO+RSS (for KSP 1.2.2) using the latest version of this mod, suggests that the issue you may be having with RCS might just be clicking the Enable/Disable option in the part config for RCS, or that you don't have RCS hydrazine (all the pre-set tanks seem to have disappeared, so you need to add the hydrazine tank manually). That said, the RO config is also clearly completely wrong for the current Real Chutes. They aren't even chutes, and aren't stageable. Which is going to lead to a "Bad Time" (R) TM. I'll look at making the current RO config patching match the 1.2.2 RO+RSS. And then update it when there's 1.3 compatible RO out and about. The existing RO config was tested in KSP 1.1 and the RO for that.

I keep meaning to get around to some renders. Finally did. This is the same model and texture maps as the mod, but rendered in Blender Cycles engine. Scenery provided with some very quicko sculpting with randomized textures.

I'll have to take a look over the weekend. (just started my Friday work day) When 1.3 came out, I did sort of guess at how to update config to make it RO compatible as I didn't have a working RO 1.3 install. And RCS was possibly not quite right for 1.2.2 RO. As for not being able to fly straight, that seems odd. Yes, the CoM is off-centre, and by quite a bit, but that's why the ascent engine has a huge gimbal. Are you using stock SAS or MJ? Also, you will need some sort of SAS to compensate for the off-centre CoM. The idea of manually adjusting for the wonkiness is horrifying, and I doubt you could do it with KSP controls. Edit 1 : Actually, before I surge ahead exploring the wrong issues, can you confirm which version of KSP you're using, and which version of this mod? Thanks Edit 2 : seems unlikely you mean in 1.3...

The trigger colliders are basically removed from normal physics interactions and they can overlap with different types of triggers. They basically exist only for code checking that type of trigger. So I'd say it would be safe to add a trigger collider. Except if you're talking linking said trigger collider to things there's already programming links to, like wheel colliders. God knows what would happen with wheel colliders mixed in with ksp wheel. I suspect doom. Doooooommm!!!!!

A 3 3 3 version has to be good. Or crisp and refreshing at least. Thanks.

As a few others have said, thanks, and don't stress it. 99% of the people lurking here will be understanding and realize these things take time, and said time isn't always available. And may very well not be the modder's absolute highest priority in life. Funny how that is. I find RL quite compelling, as although the story line is usually excrements, the graphics are awesome. And I do like eating. And I don't like people annoying other people to do stuff, especially when person A isn't paying person B for it, plus an extra amount to excuse the annoying bit. So, even if the reason for not working on KJR is "couldn't be bothered", the people harassing for updates can just f'ng wait. IMHO IMO </cents owner="my" number=2>

@Nittany Tiger has been continuing his forays into heavily planned and researched missions to Mars, and mentioned it'd be nice to multistage the solid de-orbit engines. I have no idea why I didn't think of that before. Anyway, so far, just as a patch file, here's the de-orbit engines, deconstructed. This will increase part counts if you're stumbling into issues with that, so I won't be removing the old one. But next mod update will include the single de-orbit cluster, plus this, frame and individually placeable SRB units. As separate parts, they're individually stageable. There's a bunch of arrangements that are symmetrical for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 (all of them) SRBs. So, you can fine(well, finer than before) tune your de-orbit burn. https://www.dropbox.com/s/sizxnuhz9svjekv/MEM-DeOrbitSplit.zip?dl=0 Arrangements;

Strut to grandparent tends to work best for me, with the occasional strut to centre or heaviest, for outliers. KJR does a lot more than autostruts though. It changes the way rigidity/strength scales. In stock KSP, as your craft gets bigger, it gets floppier, even if your parts are getting bigger as well. KJR seems to aim for a more realistic scaling instead of scaling for laughs. How it works internally, I have no idea. But it works.

Mini part patch, https://www.dropbox.com/s/sizxnuhz9svjekv/MEM-DeOrbitSplit.zip?dl=0 (downloads prior to 23:51 GMT 19/07/2017 are missing the thrust vector) The more I mess with this, the more I like it. I'll keep the old one in the mod, it keeps part count down. But separating out the SRBs means a lot more control over how much dV you use for de-orbiting. The full stack probably was designed for a de-orbit from the periapsis of a highly eccentric orbit. That's the lowest energy way of getting a planetary capture after all. Using the full deorbit capability from a low circular orbit tends to lead to much too shallow a descent. And when I've done missions, I've usually got to Mars/Duna using NTRs with lots of spare dV, and circularized first. I left the gimbal on. You can, now these are separate, angle each nozzle to the CoM, but I for one don't have the VAB mouse skillz for that. Individual gimbals means rotation control as well. Symmetric Arrangements

Or I could split the de-orbit engines to a frame and 7 identical mini SRBs. Once Unity finishes re-importing the MEM project. I've killed my machine since I last opened it, and the third digit of the unity version changed, so it's off thinking things through a lot. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. The whole de-orbit bundle was a single mesh in blender, so there's no way of splitting it without going back into blender, splitting it there, then redoing the pass through Unity, etc etc. On the plus side I converted it to Cycles while waiting for Unity;

So you did. So used to ignoring Dropbox's "alerts" I didn't notice.

My conversion from dss was very washed out. I've got the unwrap as well then got distracted.

Before you burn time looking at that, "not in KSP". A single part can only have one staging action. And solids have no cut-off. You could stack them though.

I'll check first. dds as a source should be OK, except it'll be flattened already.

OK, I'll bite. But first, both are simplified models. You choose which suits you more. This mod aims at an approximately realistic rendition of the 10m and 86f Orions designed by General Atomics for USAF. It's always aimed to model the pulse nature of the propulsion. Roverdude's mod spends less time trying to model the pulses, and uses animation and custom emitters to display what looks a bit like an Orion drive running. So, RD's system will be nicer on your craft. When I tried it out (which was fairly early in it's development), the exhaust was,...um... colourful, and didn't cause damage to other craft. This mod's "exhaust" is an explosion effect, and it will destroy and/or damage things. RD's mod is generally, all the way through, more kerbal. The look of the parts is more kerbal. And the way it functions is a tad more kerbal. It also has a Medusa engine, which is not to be sneezed at. The sizes are different. This mod aims to have 2.5m parts as the central spine, and is a bit over 7m as a pusher plate size for the 10m Orion. Roverdude aimed at a 5m main size. Neither are full scale. Although, after I get some things worked out in the code for this, I'm intending a RO+RSS patch that would rescale this mod to human scale. I recommend trying both. It won't bite.

I had a look at the existing tracks a while ago. The tracks are odd to say the least, but if I have some idea of what I'm doing, I doubt it will be the hardest modelling ever. I think we're just talking weird. The real life stuff keeps attacking me, but I do still get time for 3D work. I have a few things on the back burner based on the "not sure what to do next" criteria. When mixed with RL attacks that tends to lead to me just browsing dumb things on the Internerds. Having a genuine request, like "new textures for X" or "new tracks of about size Y" should assist there. I'll look at the ALG texture first, as that seems a pretty simple sort of thing.

Ohhh.... Can't we have just a little bit of peril?

Assuming the source is just the same, a link to the github on the post the dll link is in should be fine. I would have thought anyway. I won't comment on the license issue, it's a bit more complicated.

Craft files; https://www.dropbox.com/s/p975ithkclje44z/Aggregate_Craft.zip?dl=0

OK. Can't guess anymore. Utile? I'm just not sure if I should be answering some question.

... are a good idea considering there's only really a few ways of putting these together. Hopefully some time this weekend.