Jso

1 unit of Oxidizer is equal in volume to 5 units of LH2. Add 5x the oxidizer amount to the LH2.

It's because the landing gear is not "landing gear", it's a simple animated part. If I recall correctly there's a bug with animated parts where the moving portion is indestructible. You should be able get the same effect using the open doors of a service bay as landing gear.

Clearly it's a pair of belt driven turbopumps powered by a Volkswagen Beetle engine.

We don't consider realism at all with batteries. Just that the probes are capable of performing their mission and the numbers aren't ridiculous. Some of the probes are entirely battery powered. Supposedly our solar panels are mass = ec/s * 0.0167 and for shielded mass = ec/s * 0.0239. Other than that numbers are just made up to look ok next to stock parts. When possible.

They'll be part of BDB, replacing the Diamant Asterix (Obelix) if it ever gets deprecated. There's a single part stackable/surface attachable lateral decoupler to build the structure to hold them. That base at the bottom of the stack is a toggle, you would enable that on the bottom one to get a little clearance off the floor of the fairing base. With only the vertical structure it just fits inside a 0.9375m fairing with the IDCSP probes. With the side mounts it needs an 1.875m fairing. There's 0.6m clearance between the uprights so other small probes can go in there too. Historically, once Transtage reached orbit it would slowly accelerate with it's RCS and release them at about 20 second intervals. With the slightly different orbital periods they would separate over a month or two into a "random" distribution global coverage. You'll be able to do it that way if you want. I haven't sorted out the balance yet but they're 0.5m, probably 100kg, solar powered, very little battery (the real ones had no battery), and enough antenna power to serve as a relay connection from geosynchronous orbit. It's intended to be useful in the early game playing with no extra ground stations.

I'll be mired in my project.

I can reproduce his issue on a clean install with just TweakScale, RealFuels, and B9PartSwitch. If there's a rogue patch it's included with Stock or one of those three.

It depends on your priorities. You could remove TweakScale from parts that contain ModuleFuelTanks and B9PartSwitch, or remove B9PartSwitch from parts that contain ModuleFuelTanks. You can't use the stock module because these aren't always just texture swaps, it's changing the model too. I don't see anything fishy in your configcache like double TweakScale modules. I'm guessing those Scale = 2 and Scale = Default items are coming from TweakScale bombing out. Yeah, we use it for a lot more than fuel switching so B9PartSwitch is a hard dependency now. None of the usual contributors use RF so those configs are kind of perpetually 6 months to a year behind the rest of the mod. There won't be setups for the more recent engines. And in your log I saw at least one minor bug that needs to be addressed with the negative cost on some parts (that comes from filling the tanks by default - CRP resources are more expensive than stock so they need a cost adjustment, or the tanks need to be left empty).

There's two errors in the BDB RF configs. I unloaded fixes to the dev branch, but you can see them here if you just want to edit your files. That should get your ModuleManager.ConfigCache going again. As for your original problem, it looks like it related to these lines in the log: TweakScale is complaining about B9PartSwitch and ModuleFuelTanks being on the same part. That would be a valid complaint if B9 was doing a fuel and/or mass switch alongside ModuleFuelTanks, but these are all* simple mesh switches and shouldn't cause issues. We don't install the fuel switchers when RF is installed. @Lisias or @blowfish would have to comment on how exactly we're supposed to deal with this. * The switcher on the Apollo service module references the fuel switcher and indirectly changes mass/fuel capacity, but in a RF setup it would do nothing since the fuel switcher is not present. That should be fixed. The LEM Ascent cockpit has a similar switcher but we don't add TweakScale to that part so there's no complaint, but that needs to be fixed as well.

That's weird. I haven't used RF in so long I'm not sure how it normally behaves with TweakScale. Can we see a GameData/ModuleManager.ConfigCache. I'm curious why there's two scales on the menu. Might as well upload a ksp.log too.

Big improvement on the Transtage. The checker pattern is 90 degrees off. It should be on the sides the tanks are up against. The diagonal stripes on the fairing base clash. It looks stock. They gotta go. It should blend, not say hey look at me! I'm worried about what those bumps around the decoupler are going to look like in a stack. And maybe lose two thirds of the red triangles. I get the point but those are always unsightly. The det cord's a nice touch though. Thanks. I'll see if I can figure it out.

That can make a spin table, but I think scout just uses rcs to spin the third stage before releasing the 4th stage.

@NicolaSix you've got something screwed up. The Scout we provide does 500kg+ in 2.5x. Nice job on the research.

Test

2.5x to 3.2x is the sweet spot for this mod, but up to 6.4x reduce the dry mass and your payload expectations, beyond that you'll need a bigger rocket (moar fuel). We have a patch in place that will read your rescale value and make the adjustments for you, look in Compatability/Rescale. I'm not sure how all that will interact with Real Fuels though. You'll have plenty of thrust since masses go down a bit.

@NicolaSix our Scout is a bit oversize and more of a Scout XL. The second stage is equal to a Castor 4. The Agena engine configs should give an example of how to deal with the engine + rcs situation. Welcome to the forums!

Got to be an error somewhere on CKAN. One shouldn't exclude the other. Run this by the CKAN people, they should be able to sort it out.

Somewhat related, could these fields be made available to MM patches? The ability to do this would open some possibilities: @PART:HAS[#parentURL[ModDir/*]]

Probes don't have CrewCapacity > 0. You probably want to use ~CrewCapacity[>0]

It's the mass equivalent to a full tank of LFO. Only really important on Titan.

https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/issues/552

Balloon tanks, where did that come from? No balloon tanks on Titan, just regular old stock tanks. If anyone has used the alternate Titan GLV config from extras these will be like that. Normally we measure the part and fill fuel to 87% of that volume. On Titan that was leading to too heavy a rocket, mainly on the second stage where there is a whole lot of space that is not fuel tank. Instead these are loaded as a percentage of the real fuel weight. So far every variant I've tested is hitting the expected payload to orbit, so I think it's going to work out well. They used to be at 40%. Because Titan is pretty powerful I initially changed them to 25%, then thought better of it and bumped them up to 50% like every other upper stage. In 2.5x you'll defiantly want to drop them to 50% on the thrust slider to get them back to 25% or you'll burn through the stage too quick. But the power is there if you want it. They'll probably change 3 or 4 more times before I settle on a number.

@Geonovast you're using an older version of BDB. It works correctly in the current version. If you can't update because you're in the middle of a career game you'll have to put up with it. There's no simple config fix I can give you, since it required some custom code to get those working.

Need a ksp.log and a GameData/ModuleManager.ConfigCache. You should see this:

All three shield what's inside them. You can test by trying to extend solar panels placed inside with an action group.