Tyko

It's very possible to descend too slowly. The upper atmosphere doesn't offer much drag, so cruising through it overly long will cause you to slowly build up heat without shedding much velocity. This can be demonstrated with basic capsules around Kerbin. Try setting a 50 - 60k PE and watch how much your capsule heats up compared to a 30-35k PE. I'm not as familiar with Eve, but the same principles should apply. You could always run some test descents with really simple capsules to see what the optimum trajectory is. Just F12, place your test craft in Eve orbit and try a series of descents. Call it 'computer modeling'

I can take care of that second one with KW-R if you want. You did ask for it...I just got over-zealous with my truncating. If you haven't done it yet, I'll crank it out really quick. Just let me know. I could do it right now

Got it! The MM config is complete. I've also included a 1.875m version of the decoupler to go along with the new fairings. The 2 configs are in my Dropbox I found two cases where two parts' original titles were identical to each other. The Size 1 and Size 2 Pancake tanks shared names with SA-1 LFT and SB-1 LFT. In the case of the Size 3, the Pancake was titled SC-3 LFT. Since there was no number 3 for the smaller sizes I used '3' for them as well. KW1mtankPancake changed to SA-3 LFT - matches nomenclature for size 3 version of pancake KW2mtankPancake changed to SB-3 LFT - matches nomenclature for size 3 version of pancake

@linuxgurugamer just to be sure...below is an example of the syntax i'm using. Should the AFTER be 'KWRocketry' or 'KWRocketryRebalanced' as in the example below? @PART[KW5mengineTitanV]:AFTER[KWRocketryRebalanced] { @title = Titan V }

Not a key, but one of KER’s UI elements is a target search and selection tool that includes an unset target button.

I’ve seen this in stock and modded games. It’s less frequent in 1.3.1 than in earlier builds. Usually a scene change will correct it.

A lot has changed since 2013 when this thread was active. Try Docking Alignment Indicator. It doesn’t auto dock, but it gives you actual read outs you can use to dock yourself. Once you get the hang of it it’s very satisfying to do it manually. I hated it at first. Now it’s my fav flight maneuver

My first launch of a vessel intended of repeat long-term habitation... I launched the entire core in one go. Here's the final craft after the saddle tanks were attached and the lander was docked to the nose.

yes...well almost any precision landing I've done has been to harvest fuel for a tanker or science for a lab...since those missions require docking back in space, the landers have RCS anyway. The only times I've done precision landings without docking were sending crews to heritage sites of early robotic landings for the fun of it. In those cases I didn't mind walking a half a kilometer or so. Agreed that you can use your main engine and I've done that for fun to prove I could do it, but for repeatability RCS is a big help.

The navball isn't very big...I'm sure it would fly great if you duct taped it to a booster Kidding aside, coming to relative stop half a klick or so above the target and then using RCS to fine tune while you drop can give a lot of precision with a little loss in fuel because you're not doing an optimum suicide burn.

Okay, I'll take a shot at it tonight That's a great idea...it'll be a lot easier to QC a single patch rather than touching every part.

Understood. I'll not start until you let me know what you want.

Yeah. I’m happy to do it. I have time to work on it tonight...I'll see if I can get them all done @cyberpunkdreams KW Rocketry will still be on the manufacturer line. This will keep an easy way to spot the parts or search for them .

LOL...I just spent my evening making the 1.875m variants only to come on here and see that @MOARdV had already shared some. I did a quick comparison and I think the only visible difference is that the version of the 1.875 Expanded you added has a gap between the top of the base and the bottom of the fairing. I fixed that in the version I'm sharing. I also included a 1.875m decoupler variant. Here's my Dropbox I'm taking a closer look at the scaling setting @MOARdV used and it's different than my approach...frankly I've never entirely understood the relationship between using the 3 different scale options, so I'm not sure if the way I did it is 'right' even if it does appear to work. scale within the MODEL {} rescalefactor scale as applied to the part outside of the MODEL {} EDIT: Looking at both closely, all you really need to do is update the fairing pivot point of the posted 1.875 Expanded as highlighted below. This gets rid of the gap. MODULE { name = ModuleProceduralFairing nSides = 48 nArcs = 3 TextureURL = KWRocketry/Parts/FairingBases/KWFairingBase/fairings_diff_KWWhite panelGrouping = 1 pivot = 0,.98,0 axis = 0,1,0

Right! I used the wrong nomenclature...not the name, the title. Most of the fuel tanks and engines (maybe all) plus many other parts all have a title starting with 'KW Rocketry' TechRequired = generalRocketry entryCost = 3600 cost = 1200 category = Engine subcategory = 0 title = KW Rocketry WildCat-V manufacturer = KW Rocketry description = This is the Tier I workhorse. It has the thrust to power your light launch vehicles reliably and efficiently.

I just created an entirely new 1.3.1 install and added USI LS 0.7.0.0 from CKAN, but when I go in game the green square button that lets me access the USI LS menus isn't showing up either in the KSC view, nor in VAB. The only mods i've installed are USI LS and it's dependencies (as defined by CKAN). Did something change with the most recent version? Is the CKAN install broken? Thanks! UPDATE: Manually installed and it works fine - CKAN is recommending MM 3.0.1 wherein the manual install contains 2.8.1. Is that the issue?

@StarStreak2109 is this story dead or did you move it? I enjoyed getting caught up. Thanks for posting.

I took a good look at this mod over the weekend...wow, nice work on the updates. I have 2 requests if you're entertaining any changes: Remove 'KW Rocketry' from the beginning of each part name. it's a lot of extra text to scan through and makes it more difficult to find the right parts. I'd be willing to help with this if you like the idea. Add 1.875m versions of the fairing. - most other parts can be Tweakscaled, but fairings can't be. The base scales properly, but the fairing sides don't like it. I can't help with this one as my modding skills are limited to .cfgs right now. Thanks! @linuxgurugamer!

I'm using KER and using it properly...thanks for the suggestion though. When I said 'hovering' I was exaggerating a bit...yes the rocket goes up but slowly. The slower it accelerates the longer it takes to get to orbit and the more fuel it's going to burn. 1.2 TWR is a really slow start.

Relays will only bounce off each other if one is obscured from seeing Kerbin. The whole design of the comm network is about getting in contact with Kerbin, so it'll take the shortest path. If the craft can see Kerbin it'll talk directly. This shouldn't cause any issues though. Is there a problem you're seeing?

For those using standard lifters - What do you do if your payload falls between two of your standard lifters? I usually use the bigger lifter - KSP doesn't model this well, but IRL it would be cheaper to use an over-spec'd lifter that's already designed versus spending the time / money to modify it. In-game it saves ME a ton of time, but feels a bit wasteful. I'm just wondering if others go the same route or have a better solution.

Really cool! Are the radiators and solar panels all part of the KA-330 part or are they additional parts you're providing that users can slap on if they want to?

Your DV will increase at the square root of the scalar...you scalar is 2.5 so multiply your normal scale DVs by 1.58. You mentioned deriving yourself and this may help you to understand how the calculation is changing. Keep in mind that atmospheres can throw this off. This works great for non-atmospheric conditions and is a good starting point for atmospheric launches too, but you may have to tweak it a bit.

It's not super sharp for me either. The stars are definitely a bit fuzzy. It works for me though because it's intended to be a backdrop rather than the main focus - I don't spend any time scrutinizing it. I like the overall light/dark ratio a lot and I think the level of "realism" fits well with KSP - which has a certain cartoony element. it's so much better than stock if there's a razor sharp version others are using I'd be interested is seeing it.

The "launching the car" part is super Kerbal. The "strapping 3 proven rockets together" part seems imminently practical. It works in the game because it works in real life Both for the same reason too...once you've worked out all the bugs on something it's better to not mess with it.