Starseeker

Incredible work on these new parts as always! Loving all the detail on all the parts, and excited to be able to make proper Salyut/Mir-style multi-diameter station modules! Two questions I have though: Would it take more than minimal tweaks to create sloped diameter adapters with integrated fairings? It would make Proton-style station launches (where the widest station diameter is outside the fairing) possible without clipping a (rather thick) fairing base into an adapter piece, but it feels like this might be outside your intended scope. I'd love to see some more color variations for station parts, and I feel fairly confident I have the skills needed to look at how the current metal parts patch works and apply that to other variant texture sets. However, the easiest way for me to make those variant texture sets would be to make edited versions of your textures, and that presents a problem: I couldn't distribute those edited textures myself, since they'd be directly derived from yours. If, after the next SSPXr release, I make such a patch & texture set, would you be interested in having it be an "extra" patch in the same manner as the current metal-textures patch?

You need the WaterfallRestock config installed to give ReStock engines Waterfall effetcs; since most stock engines (aside from jet engines) are replaced by ReStock, the ReStock config should be all you need on the stock/restock side of things. It could be that having both is somehow creating some kind of error; try removing the configs for stock engines and see if that changes things.

What engines are you trying to use? Waterfall - with the Waterfall Restock patch - only affects the ReStock versions of the stock liquid-fuel engines, as well as any added by ReStock+. SRBs and any engines from other mods won't work with waterfall, unless you have patches that add effects (such as those bundled with Nertea's other mods).

On another note, here's the product of a few hours worth of testing & data-gathering with the PVG guidance mode: a graph of the minimum "Pitch Rate" setting needed for a 3450m/s-dV launcher on stock Kerbin, as a function of TWR, for various settings of "Pitch Start". Pitch rate settings at or above the ones on this graph should work for a given TWR and pitch-start speed. Interestingly, it seems that there's a "sweet spot" around TWR=1.5, where a higher or lower TWR means a higher pitch rate is required. I couldn't get the design I was using for testing to get to orbit at all with a TWR of 1.2, and it wasn't capable of a TWR above 1.7 without altering the design. Here's a screenshot of the craft I was using (don't have a picture of it in the VAB at this moment), using a Boar engine from ReStock+ on the lower stage and a Pavonis hydrolox engine from CryoEngines on the upper: Hopefully other people find this helpful! EDIT: Turns out this isn't accurate.

So, I'm frequently encountering an issue with the Primer Vector Guidance mode of the ascent guidance where, at some point during a coast phase, it'll put up the "Optimizer iteration convergence failed" message and suddenly start immediately burning on a different trajectory than it had originally calculated - sometimes only slightly different from its original track (though with the entire coast phase vanished), sometimes at a significant angle (up to 90 degrees) from what it was originally planning, and always on a longer-lasting burn that generally is beyond the rocket's capabilities. Is this a known issue (hopefully with a known workaround)?

So, I've been using the "realistic" guidance mode (forgetting the specific name at the moment) in MechJeb's ascent guidance, and it seems to generally work on stock-scale Kerbin. However, as I make larger designs with lower-TWR upper stages (still a good bit above the 0.4 I've seen cited as a lower limit), it tends to behave oddly, often resulting in not being able to reach orbit (80km) without several hundred extra m/s of dV beyond the commonly-used 3400. One common example of this odd behavior is the rocket entering a coast phase, then moments after starting the final burn, recalculating its profile and pitching up or down nearly 90 degrees while the calculated burn time jumps well beyond what it was listed as during the coast phase. Any possible reasons why this is occurring? I'll post some screenshots of various rocket designs - as well as MechJeb settings - once I'm able to get them; in the meantime, are there any fairly common mistakes w/r/t MJ autopilot, perhaps in terms of its settings/parameters?

the haziness seems to just be bloom, which afaik is an unrelated graphics setting

Ooooo, looking really good! Excited to try the 1.875m station parts, since when combined with SSPEXr they seem like the perfect thing to make multi-diameter station modules (like the Mir and ISS core modules)

It's in development, or at least was before several things happened that've stalled development. When (or if ) it resumes, there's a good chance that's one of the first things that'll be released.

Seems like an issue with the throttle, especially given how solid-fuel rockets are working fine. This might sound stupidly simple, but just double-check and make sure you've got your throttle engaged. If that doesn't fix it, then you'll want to grab your player.log (under Users\<user name>\AppData\LocalLow\Squad\Kerbal Space Program on Windows), upload that to a file-hosting site, & post the link here, as well as a list of the mods you've got.

Somewhat tangential, but that wiki page seems to be quite out of date; the mode currently has a different name, and the settings panel looks quite different.

As far as I'm aware, MJ autolanding has been borked for a while due to some sort of unavoidable inaccuracy in where it thinks the target is vs where it actually is. The same sort of issue also occurs with Kerbal Engineer's suicide-burn countdown - it's using a different landing-point height than reality, so it gives inaccurate results.

Hmm, well, there are a number of new parts - two types of low-res radar, and three types each of SAR, Multispectral, and two new scanning types (high-res resources & visual). However, that *particular* part name isn't part of base SCANSat - what mods are you running with? (Definitely not interested in checking out any that add extra SCANSat parts myself )

Something that might be interesting & useful for niche builds would be if the "segments" setting for fairings could be set to 1, so it forms solid rings rather than half-/third-/quarter-/etc. rings, and the resulting fairing section(s) are just pushed directly away from the fairing base.

Question: does the PVG guidance mode take into account the fixed turn rate at the start? There are a lot of idiosyncrasies & oddities that somewhat puzzle me and often cause frustration while designing launch vehicles, and they'd make a bit more sense (though cause no less frustration) if that was the case. For example, I've found that the calculated burn time for the upper stage it gives at the start increases throughout flight, often quite significantly, and coast phases sometimes go into the negatives. Also, doing things like adding boosters can have unpredictable results; I can add boosters, increase payload mass to match the same (or even slightly more) total launch vehicle dV as from before adding the boosters, and it fails to make orbit where before it didn't. Also, any tips on designing rockets for use with the PVG guidance mode? (I'm on stock system + OPM, since while I've used rescale mods, I've found that they render nearly all calculation tools & dV maps useless.)

Ah yep, that's exactly it!

So, there was a mod I saw in some KSP videos a while back but I can't remember the name of it. It was like an advanced version of Procedural Tanks, where you could select different endpiece styles for various tanks and stuff, and it had much better textures with what seemed to be complex modeled geometry. Anyone know what I'm talking about? I remember it had some special integration with TUFX, if that helps.

Nope, and while I recently installed Scatterer that was after the screenshots I posted were taken. Ah, gotcha! Well, excited to see what you'll be doing with it!

Having the same issue on 1.11.1 using the latest version (0.2.8); however, the behavior's really strange. On first placing the text decals, they all say "Text" as expected... but when I go to edit the text, it goes blank for all of them except the one that's one space counterclockwise to the specific part I selected to edit the text with. Moving the decals turns them all to solid-color boxes, and going to edit the text afterwards will again set all of them to blank except for the same one-space-CCW symmetry counterpart. Here's a sequence of images showing what I mean: Log file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IFMntCMsCHQAAEmbOTJFuYUWiHmPrtp7/view?usp=sharing I've got a fair few mods installed, but most of them are parts mods and really the only ones that'd affect graphics potentially are the following: Waterfall (and configs for it) TUFX Distant Object Enhancement ScanSat Trajectories

Ohhhh this looks absolutely incredible!

Near Future Solar has a nice variety (from non-rotating flip-up panels to massive solar arrays), and it's got three selectable cell types for each solar panel it adds:

Thank you! Really wish there was a wider variety of fixed solar panel shapes in the game, tbh; the ones on the conical section don't look too good ^^;

Ah, gotcha!

Sorry, somewhat unrelated, but what mod are those tank-butt conical adapter pieces from? If they're a piece separate from the engines themselves, I might want to grab them

Honestly, I have the fairings as part of the subassembly - in some previous sandbox-mode games, I've even made a range of preset fairing classes (short, medium, and long for an inline & expanded-diameter version of each base diameter), and used subassemblies that were just one of those fairings to check craft dimensions.