JadeOfMaar

The wedge system doesn't have much left to do for it. No later than Next Friday for sure. And it's firstly an experiment pack that requires WildBlueTools so there's going to be plenty more for you to do... underwater.

Those WBI accessories are looking very good now.

@RomanSoldier08 I'm not seeing it either. That's very weird. Send your KSP.log then. I can only suspect the contents of your GameData/Custom folder. I also suggest you download and try an alternate file explorer app so you can find on your PC, the offending config. Windows Explorer's search feature is horrible and I never liked the idea of Microsoft's search index function so I've been using Xyplorer Free (discontinued now) for years. Finding files or their contents is painless, accurate and fast. And it lets me keep my explorer windows in tabs. Nice and clean.

Zip and share this folder online somewhere ( <KSP Folder>\Logs\ModuleManager\ ) so I can read the logs there.

The search engine optimization is real.

I'm pretty sure that's the rotator geometry from the DSN dish from there. But that launch tower absolutely has to be the same. The old KSC2.

@R-T-B I'm pretty sure that mess is the: LOL

Banned for documentation not being written as comments inside the code block

There's no difference. The same restrictive license can be used (only by him) to allow IG to use his models. It's a big deal because the NF mods would then become a point of serious legal issues and nobody wants to end up there. "This mod is using assets that now belong to the developers of a game that isn't even out yet." Given Take Two's reputation (as they own IG) who knows what they would do about it. The parent company that's being disturbed doesn't even have to be them. Any corporate, however benign, would have a problem. And KSP 1's EULA would be violated in at least one way, too.

Freely available for you to download and casually enjoy (as a player)? Yes. (Configs specifically are ShareAlike.) The hard part about licensing is preventing others from taking the textures and models, scribbling over and remixing them and saying "I made this" which devalues the art and the artist. All of Nertea's models and textures are clearly licensed ARR which basically means "You're not allowed to do anything other than casually enjoy this unless I personally give you permission." ARR for KSP mods generally means "Whatever is here is not to be recolored or otherwise directly edited, used in any way at all to make or add to another artwork, another mod or any 3D art outside of KSP, not to be re-uploaded and hosted in other places. If the owner takes down their art or mod, it's an offense to put it back up for yourself and it might be an offense to share from your copy of it." While ARR provides for maximum restriction it also provides for quite some freedom. Nertea can easily give permission to Intercept Games to reuse his models if he wanted to. This permission is an exemption or whitelist type thing and whoever or whatever group or corporate entity gets this permission is effectively entered into a contract so such exemptions must always be deeply thought out. Legal issues can come from under your bed and tear your leg off if the person or group you gave exemption to decides they don't like you anymore, so the wiser option for a modder being hired by a corporate is to spend the effort and make distinct models and art for the corporate.

You're welcome. And it's no problem. I assume you did indeed have a mod that had such a patch? Please share the path to the config so I can investigate and possibly inform the mod owner.

You're better off just rationalizing and copying from the ion engine tech from Star Wars. They basically run on whatever decent alkali metal like Lithium (possibly immersed in a liquid solution like Helium) for the propellant and the driver technology is either a derivative of the classic Hall Effect Thruster or a MagnetoPlasmaDynamic Thruster but able to consume a city's worth of energy to provide the levels of thrust and Isp seen and required in sci-fi movies. Cold gas isn't going to work because according to basic physics: If it's hotter it has (more) energy in it; More energy means more thrust or impulse. Additionally, if the propellant is lighter it grants even more impulse but less thrust (which is why we crave Hydrogen for rockets and Lithium for batteries. Each is the lightest element that does its job.) Inventing a new element is pointless and a huge waste for a case like this. Also, as far as anyone who knows the Periodic Table knows, any new element that can be invented (see the hypotheticals section, by whatever name(s) it has) they're virtually all going to be highly radioactive and short-lived.

@eagleswing12 Hi there. Try doing a search of the contents of your GameData folder, or open this file ( <KSP Folder>\Logs\ModuleManager\MMPatch.log ) and search for this string: ":FOR[FerramAerospaceResearch]" If it is found in either case, there is a mod that supplies a patch that says "this patch is part of FAR so FAR is installed." If you find it in the MMPatch.log the same line will show you the path to this patch. All paths are relative to GameData.

You need to share a screenshot of B9PS showing the fatal error and a copy of your KSP.log (zipped and uploaded somewhere else. Do not post the log's contents into the forum's text input. It can choke the forum software.) Click "How to get support" in my signature so you can read up other ways or more info on posting a usable support request for next time there's a big problem.

KSP doesn't and didn't have that. OPT uses B9PS for RCS fuel switching. What @AtomicTech is actually asking is if you will entertain the idea of providing a confg (B9 or optional override type) for this performance change for those who need it. OPT has a low profile engine model meant for use with landers (namely, Mk2 sized VTOL planes). But installing OPT just for one part (well, 3) is... uh... There's a mod for just an engine (similar looking). Install that and MM patch it as necessary. Radial Engine for spacecraft - T.G.O.L group

Nope. For most use cases where propulsion is concerned, the oxidizer by itself is pointless or an extreme hazard. No one wants to be hauling that around for the bulk of a mission. If you really want an option for a dedicated Oxidizer tank you can either get a fuel switching mod or dedicate an LFO tank by either draining the LF side and locking it so it can only be filled on its OX side, or having that be the only actual LFO tank on a ship where every other tank is LF alone.

CERV Cradle (with adapter options) and decoupler are complete. Their textures have some kinks that wait to be ironed out but altogether this is a complete part set so far (ignoring the fact that the engines wait to be textured too).

Where were you the whole time when we all first saw the Jool station and stock Daedalus engine? Those things aren't 1.25m through 3.75m.

In addition to this there's another condition that will cause the RAPIER to simply die: If you toggle the engine mode while in the ship editor (when you measure your vac dV), their other toggle (switching mode) changes from Automatic (default) to Manual. They wait on you to trigger the engine mode switch or you have to change the switching mode back to Automatic.

Lookup "strutjet"/ ducted rocket/ rocket-based combined cycle. It's not going to be an aerospike but it's a rival hybrid engine type to that of the Skylon SABRE.

It is. In a sufficiently hard sci-fi world, the energy demand of the portal (especially if it's man-made) will always produce more waste heat than the portal itself cancels out. And so it precludes the OP's point #1 below. Thermodynamics says no. If you care about waste heat (you're therefore allowing enough hard physics such that --) you can't have a freezer portal. Even if we dismiss the need for radiators (which is all too common in sci-fi. Those damn things require exponentially more space, the more powerful or the smaller your fusion reactor is) we cannot ignore these four things: Thermal shock. A sufficiently aggressive temperature change will cause a thing to fracture and even shatter. If this portal can cool the FTL engine, it would also destroy the engine. Engineering nightmare. You don't want to implement a "pulsed" heat rejection system. In addition to causing thermal shock you'd also need to regularly shutdown and disconnect the device in order for it to be moved through the portal. It's the same kind of cringe as hot-plugging a kitchen appliance, and more frequently if the device generates or receives extreme heat (like a fusion reactor or the warp coils). You'd need to build your ship with the internal volume to hold two of the device that needs to be cooled, so that the device can alternate occupying these volumes when it moves through the portal. Oh, and the portal would need to be really large in order to fit anything and everything that's important. Mutual exclusion. Anything that involves a huge energy stream probably requires all of that energy at a moment's notice, and continuously, and will instantly bring itself to superheated temperatures when it's turned on. If it has to be put through this portal in order to be cooled then it can't be running and doing its job at the same time. So... it makes no sense to try to use this portal to cool any vital ship systems. Strategic blunder. In a war story, your enemy is going to be hyped to catch you at the moment when you need to and try to use this portal to cool any vital ship systems, or concerning the portal size issue, they can just shoot the portal off of you and watch you melt yourself. Umm... Make it into crushed ice and let it warm up to the nominal temperature of the cryo-tanks of the rocket that wants to launch. You mention a technology concerning laser blasting some ice. This might be the case with some form of Meta-stable Helium that I read up on once. The laser would have to be a stream of electrons of other charged particles and the particular fuel would decay if it's not kept solid.

It is. All rocket engines so far use a subsonic (deflagration type) combustion technique while detonation is supersonic. This automatically means higher impulse, and the engine itself is virtually free of moving parts, rejects heat better, and is much easier to manufacture. So far all test articles feature an aerospike nozzle. Aerospikes don't care what the ambient pressure is (rather than most engines which have a bell nozzle specializing it for sea level, vacuum or somewhere in-between). If RDEs turn out to only be aerospikes that is arguably a good thing because that's one less engineering variable that the rocket designers need to bother with.

Nope. If that's your reason, you haven't given any real thought to how worthwhile or wasteful it is for the devs to implement this. And it's far into the wasteful side because: The planet will largely never be seen for its colors because there is no ambient light because it's rogue. Waste of effort to make the textures. Players will find themselves complaining or struggling on landings because they can't see how close or far the ground is. There will be spam of lights and tweaking of visuals in desperate attempts to cheat the darkness. Once you know where the Kerbin-like worlds are, you don't have a dog's hair to give about the rogues anymore. And it'll probably be quite a detour to visit them on your way to anywhere else. Who's gonna pack the dV for that? Let's be honest here. Exception to #2 would be what @SenatorSteam said above. If you like landing challenge and spooky vibe. Then again, a night side landing on any non-rogue world, especially an outer gas planet's large moon can give the exact same gameplay value so I withdraw my exception.

Yep. It's a submarine with wheels. Have a blast. A toothpick! gg

Triop's going to need more W's than anyone else. (There's a mod for holding the W key)