Phineas Freak

The 909B model is deprecated and should probably be removed from the final release (IIRC the model was never fixed and no part module ever used it). Tagging @Kerbas_ad_astra.

Nathanael is just taking a break. Besides, RSS/RO/RP-0 are community-driven mods, meaning that everyone can contribute. Depends on your view point.The dependencies will hold it back and KCT the major one that is currently broken.

@evileye.x Yep: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ProceduralFairingDecoupler]]:NEEDS[ProceduralFairings] { @MODULE[ProceduralFairingDecoupler] { %ejectionPower = 0.35 %torqueAmount = 0.05 } } You can also specify the default ejection force. If you don't want that then delete the "ejectionPower" line.

@evileye.x I think that the following MM patch will do what you are looking for: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[KzNodeNumberTweaker]]:NEEDS[ProceduralFairings] { @MODULE[KzNodeNumberTweaker] { %showInterstageNodes = False } } Make sure that you use a valid MM pass (FINAL will do for personal patches).

IIRC it has something to to with the part configs of the antennae due to the new ModuleDataTransmitter (but i could be wrong). Get the latest unofficial VSR release instead: https://github.com/Kerbas-ad-astra/Stock-Revamp/tree/KSP_1.2

@RocketSquid Remove VSR and try again. Does it fix it?

@Theysen if it has something to do with the Kopernicus config i can patch it. I already do so for some other minor things.

The develop is a bit broken right now. I was changing various things while trying to understand the new EVE integration. I will reapply all the old settings after i finish with the Scatterer texture remakes.

I made a quick program to calculate automatically the Scatterer Tool parameters from the defined body settings. Now, to find what particle size to use for Mie...should be fun! Edit 1: seems like reusing the Rayleigh values does the trick. Edit 2: another nice thing: albedo (ground reflectance) is also well supported!

@Theysen OK, i re-tested and now it works with the normal altitude(s). BTW, what did you use for Rl? I am playing around with various values but does not seem to change anything.

@Theysen A quick test shows that it does work, although to get a nice result on the Scatterer Tool i had to divide the atmospheric height by 2. If we can automate this to also create the nodes then i will be a very happy person!

The Earth has been brightened a bit since the last release candidate. I try to keep it realistic, since the colors would be flat in reality. Yep, when you add a cloud layer without volumetrics it looks really bad from up close. In the same time i cannot afford the performance loss from more than 2 volumetric layers. So, for the mainstream releases i will not consider more layers. I do not control that. The size of the Sun and the distance from the Earth are specific, so is the apparent size of it when viewed from a distance of 1AU. Now, if you mean the flare then i will see what i can do. I already shrunk it a bit since it did not look realistic. @sDaZe, @Galileo one of the things that bother me a lot are the Scatterer configs as seen from the flight view (i.e. the config points). Currently it is a major problem as i can never get them to look good all the way from the ground to orbit. I am considering making a small program to: Extract the altitude - pressure curve of the body Finding a nice way to link this curve into gas/particle density Normalizing the resutls between 0 and 1 for easier porting Also, i had asked this question previously, and it will sound really stupid that i am asking it now, but how can i calculate the ratio between: Rt and Rg Rl and Rg Theoretically, i should be able to use the defined atmospheric height for Rt (140000 m for Earth) and add some value to it to get Rl. Is this valid in any way?

@Theysen Fortunately, none of your configs (or some simpler ones for the other bodies, like Triton or Pluto) have issues, in fact they are looking even better now! But Venus and Titan are PITA to balance correctly due to the dense cloud cover: my amateur configs do not play well enough with the new EVE integration feature. The most annoying thing is that the EVE configs and the Scatterer configs for these two are spot-on by their own, When you combine them...bad things happen.

That's why i try to keep it as low profile as possible. There are some things that, no matter how many times i try to learn, i always fail. One of these is texture manipulation. Today, with the new Scatterer release i added one more: Scatterer planet configs. And these two reasons are slowly driving me away from attempting to make RSSVE something bigger. Progress Log #1 I am working on the next release candidate. This will be compatible with the new Scatterer release.

@Blacks I am well aware of the changes required for the new Scatterer release. If you take a look on my developement branch you will see that i have been working on it for a while. Today i did a semi-final pass and i will be pushing a new release candidate soonTM.

@kerboman25 They are probably missing their plume definitions but that's normal. Take a look at the RealPlume wiki for the guide on how to implement them.

@winged Out of curiosity, what was the max G-Force on the Ares I? I got at least 5+ G the last time i replicated one and that cannot be correct (crew launchers must be limited below 4 G).

In that case it's me that i did not understand you. I did not read the instructions correctly and assumed that you are overwriting stock files... It will work for now but since you asked for the best way to distribute new parts based on the stock ones then i have to insist that MM is the best way. Not one of the best, the best.

@kerboman25 No, liquid Methane is a valid RF resource. Now, if the part does not appear then it means that the part config has errors but from a quick look at the configs i cannot see why. Do a search with the part name in your KSP log to see if any error is logged.

With part configs you can do whatever you want. But if i was a user and some time later discovered that my files were overwritten by a mod then i do not think that I'd like that... Fun fact: making MM patches for new parts is probably 25% of the work required to make copies of existing parts and modifying them.

So you confirm that the problem was the old VSR release? There is an unofficial update by @Kerbas_ad_astra: https://github.com/Kerbas-ad-astra/Stock-Revamp/tree/KSP_1.2 If you are playing with just stock + RSS then you will not be going anywhere. Stock is not designed for such large rescales and for that you must install either SMURF or ROMini. KSCSwitcher is not released for KSP 1.2 yet (one will have to recompile it from the source for now). As with the case of KSCSwitcher, neither Kerbal Renamer has a compatible release for KSP 1.2. You won't need it anyway, it is not a required required mod by RSS.

OK, that also confirms another suspicion that i had. Seems like i have to start from scratch.

I was expecting the look of the sample picture #2. Instead i got the result of the picture #1. As i mentioned, i have to manually reapply the EVE settings every time i launch a new instance of KSP, as it does not persist.

@blackrack So, i just tested the new (official) release. I have to say that the new EVE integration makes eveything so much more realistic in terms of...well, everything. I have one small issue though. This is what i get for Titan after loading a craft in orbit around Titan: And this is after opening the EVE GUI and simply pressing "Apply": I experimented with the various cloud parameters but nothing fixes it, besides reapplying the EVE configs. It is also possible that i have done something that Scatterer does not like, since most of the other bodies required only minor tweaking to get them right.

Whoops, wrong folder! FIxed! Edit: nowdays the simpler KSP or Player log file is actually more useful than the output_log.