Tyko

This has it's own problems though. If you have a declining time to AP set GT is constantly having to tweak the throttle up and down over and over rapidly. Maybe if you could set time to AP by stage so it wasn't varying moment by moment causing GT to have to adjust the thrust so much.

I don't use TACLS, but this is really cool. Good luck!

I have a feature request if you're still working on this mod. Here's the problem - When a craft is at it's target time to AP GT moderates the throttle to keep it at that time...Great! The problem comes in when you're at 50 seconds to AP and you stage. In the time it takes for your 2nd stage to fire up you're now below 50 seconds to AP so GT reacts by increasing thrust and, if you're at max thrust, GT starts angling your craft up to try to increase time to AP. This is wasteful and I often find I have to overbuild my second stage with higher TWR than necessary just so GT can "make up" that time to AP lost during staging. I find that my 2nd stages have to be over 1.5 TWR to avoid this issue and that's a lot more than they need if they're just holding 50 seconds to AP. I can zero out staging delays, but that can cause problems when the 2nd stage fires. Suggested solution - if the lower stage increased thrust in the final seconds before staging it would raise your time to AP. Once you staged the time to AP would drop, but if done right, it wouldn't drop below 50 seconds and you're next stage wouldn't have to be overbuilt to make up that loss. I've tested this manually and it solves the problem if you increase time to AP by about 10-15 seconds above the target number. Would it be possible for GT to detect when a stage is almost out of fuel and boost the thrust for the last 5 seconds or so? Maybe make that burn time configurable because it will probably vary depending on your craft.

I've seen this discussed as a KSP controller... https://www.logitechg.com/en-us/products/farm/farm-simulator-side-panel.html#buy

KSP, Fallout 4 and Stellaris (restarting after the 2.2 release comes out soon). I have played a lot of Civilization (1-6) in the past and previous Fallout & Elder Scrolls games. Also have a love/hate relationship with many of the Paradox games and Total War games. I also have the odd hobby of performing hardware upgrades on Macs...

Yea...I like that

(out of likes today) Yea, I was thinking about suggesting fins, but I thought a different ascent profile would be a better thing to try because the OP is going to face this same problem with every rocket built and flown that aggressively.

You're flying with your rocket's nose too far off prograde. if your nose isn't pointed into the oncoming air the air pressure is going to try to flip the rocket sideways. The more off prograde you are, the greater the forces trying to flip you. Your engine gimbal and reaction wheels can counter a certain amount of that force, but if you go too far off prograde at too low an altitude and going too fast you'll flip. This isn't a bug, you just need to tweak you're ascent to keep the rocket pointed more to prograde. My advice would be to reduce your TWR. The 1.25m rocket is hitting close to 2.5 TWR right off the launch pad and gets up to 5 TWR by 12000m (look at the G meter to the right of the navball to see your TWR). That's a lot more than you need and it's contributing to your issue. If you launched with closer to 1.5 TWR you'd find that you'd be flipping less and wouldn't need to oversteer as much because gravity turn would pull your rocket over naturally... Use your throttle to keep the engines under control. If you're seeing red flames you're going too fast for your altitude

This would be tough because there's code in the config that tells the game what size the docking port is. If you just resized a 1.25m to another size the game would still think it's supposed to attach to a 1.25m port

You can edit the renamer file to add / remove whatever names you want. I have about a dozen kerbalized last names in mine.

One option which would be less work would be to use a 2.5x or 3.2x scaled system. At those scales stock parts offer similar capabilities to Real Life parts in a 10x system. You'll need multi-stage rockets to achieve orbit and 3 stage rockets for most manned missions. This might be easier than creating a whole new mod and gives you immediate access to tons of parts like BDB, Tantares, KW Rocketry, etc.

Use The Janitor's Closet mod to prune any parts you don't need.

A clear, well lit screen shot (like from the VAB) would probably do the trick. All the rest is likely unnecessary.

Thanks for the reply. When I ran SD 0.10.1 and Skybox 0.2.2 the skybox disappeared. Reverting to SD 0.9.8 seems to have fixed the problem I'd tried updating SD because I was getting a strange glitch on the moon Iota in which I was seeing a second "ghost" surface texture layer floating above the actual surface - almost looking like an atmosphere - you can see it on the horizon in the picture below. It wasn't caused by scatterer, so I was hoping it was just an issue with SD and the newer Kopernicus. No luck though, updating SD to 0.10.1 didn't help and it broke the skyboxes.

Most of my engine plumes look great...This one FASA engine with 4 nozzles has the plumes coming out at different heights - 1 of the 4 is correct, the other 3 are way too high. Anyone know how to fix this? Thanks!

In Tantares LV one of the fuel tank's capacity seems inconsistent. The A-USF01 holds a lot more than it should if compared to the other 1.25m tanks. Is it supposed to be that way? It's almost like a bit Oscar tank

Can I use these skyboxes without Sigma Replacements? It's way out of date. I thought I could use TextureReplacer, but couldn't get it working. Thanks!

Thanks, that didn't work...I'll try reinstalling I guess..

I'm seeing add odd effect on Iota that may be related to ReScale 2.5x - which I know isn't technically 1.4.5 compatible, so hoping others might be seeing or have seen this too There's a ghost image that looks like a second texture layer that appears on the horizon. Looking straight down I don't see it, but looking at the horizon I do. Also, it's not visible below 25Km. It seems to appear right when I hit 25Km. Any idea what may be causing that? It's hard to screen capture, but it's really obvious when in motion. It looks like a cloud layer at first, but then you find what looks like a ghost mountain or other feature that rises above that. you can see it on the right side of this pic on the horizon...

Sure, but if you aren't using Autostruts nor KJR you're relying only in Stock rigidity and your station will get more bendy during maneuvers. With regards to seeing issues - it doesn't happen all the time with every station I build, but it happens to at least 1/3 of the stations I've autostrutted and you won't know if a given station is affected until you've gone through the trouble of launching it and docking something to it. I've had to scrap and rebuild enough stations that I'm not willing to take the risk any more.

Here's my simple trick - as long as the target is in a circular orbit - launch your ship into a circular orbit below the target orbit and make sure they're on the same plane, i.e. they are both in flat equatorial orbits, for example, this is the easiest. Set the station as Target (right click on station to pull up option). Drop a maneuver node ahead of your ship and raise your maneuver AP to match the altitude of your target. Your maneuver is now set to get you to the right altitude, but not at the right time. Grab the maneuver node by its center ring and drag it around your orbit line further ahead of your ship. Keep pulling it forward around your orbit until you get an encounter. The trick is to be patient and make subtle tweaks to your maneuver so your encounter is as close as possible - I usually shoot for a distance of less than 2Km. If your ship's altitude is close in height to your station's you may have to keep going around a number of times before they line up. Because of this @Zhetaan's suggestion of using very different altitudes is a good one. If you're station is at 245Km and your ship is at 125Km you'll get an encounter sooner. This is a lot easier than trying to launch directly to rendezvous. While it does take more time, it takes less time than reloading a half dozen times to try to get your launch timing perfect. It's also as fuel efficient as a direct rendezvous - maybe more efficient depending on how perfect your timing is. Getting into orbit and then dropping a node gives you plenty to time to tweak your maneuver versus trying to make corrections in real time during initial ascent. Hope this helps!

Autostrutting is risky on large structures - especially on stations with ports as sometimes docking or undocking can cause autostruts to recalculate and break things. I'm assuming by "rubber band" you're describing how parts of the craft aren't entirely rigid and tend to flex in response to changes in rotation? I've switched from autostrutting everything to use the Kerbal Joint Reinforcement mod. It makes the actual joints stiffer/stronger rather than adding on all the calculations for invisible struts...seems to work better. Another consideration may be station design. depending on how extensive your station is it might just be too much for 1.25m ports to handle. Here are some ways to reduce flex A) Build smaller stations, B) Launch larger sections so you have less connecting ports, C) Put the heavy stuff in the middle - a full fuel tank way at the edge will be harder to start and stop D) use bigger ports. Here's an example of why autostrutting is dangerous: Check out the section with the solar panels on the right-hand station and work your way left to the docking port on the nose of the craft. You'll see how autostruts threw a bunch of parts out of whack.

Those are pretty cool! Something that's missing from the game AFAIK are expanding structures like those...pack em up in compact mode and extend them when you get into space... There are some parts that have animations like that - launchable crew rings and such - nothing as simple as an extending girder section... Just an idea

I don't know the answer, but you're more likely to find someone who does if you post the question in the actual RemoteTech forum