HoneyFox

Yes. Actually my plugin is using his codes with some small modifications to avoid several strange bugs.

One propellant is enough, but make sure its density is non-zero. (ElectricCharge has zero density so...)

well... kind of strange. but anyway... I do start to consider switching to some other ISP next time the service got expired...

Make sure you have only one engine config installed, otherwise something like "cannot scroll the window" might happen.

perhaps i can. i will try to add that feature and make it as the default transform name.

Thanks, my fork might contain some obsoleted codes about these parachutes' reentry heat logic. Remember to remove them and use the new codes from NK's master branch. basically only the GetShieldedStateFromFAR() function (and its reference) is needed.

Damn... for some unknown reason I cannot access GitHub via browsers, GitHub client still works but I cannot find any options inside that allows me to do any kind of merge / create pull request operation...

Alright, the fixed version is now released. Hope that there's no big issues inside. https://www.dropbox.com/s/pfssc2u341zp58a/KerbTown%20%28fixed%20for%20v0.23%29.zip Source-code is on GitHub. And it follows Ryan's MIT license. USAGE Basically it's same as the old KerbTown. One tiny change is about the "Mark as launch site" operation: When you have created a static object from the asset library, you click the Mark as Launch Site button, a small dialog will appear and there're now two boxes for you to enter. The first one is the launch site name, the second is the hierarchy "path" of the spawn point transform. So authors of a launch-site model needs to provide that "path" to users as well. A launch site model will have its own root transform and childNodes (childNodes might have their childNodes as well), if the spawn transform is the root transform itself, use "./" as the path; if it's a child transform of the root and it's named "spawnPoint", use "spawnPoint" as the path; for a "grandchild" node, the path might be something like "launchPad/spawnPoint". Hope that you can get the point.

Ok. Just updated the latest version. Several buttons for warpable engines are added. (still simple/ugly GUI i have to admit ) and the NBody part has been tweaked a bit. Link unchanged but still repost it here again: https://www.dropbox.com/s/w8sgzy4q7gdlops/NBody.zip

should work. but since KSPI has already implemented a dedicated realistic solar sail...

KSC2 and IslandAirfield are both in RSS:Earth. Just need to tweak their Lat/Lon and altitude according to the new terrain height.

OK. wait until i get back from work today.

Hope you like the new GUI curve editor, and also feedback about it is very welcomed.

TP has an MM config that adds TP capability to all parts. ETC has an MM config that adds a certain curve for all SRBs. so you still need to pick out (by selecting the part and press P key... ) the curve provided by ETC and use TP to define a new one. it might be possible to automate this "pick out" process by adding a preset entry in TP config but it's not so easy according to the current MM mechanism.

Yes and the V4 version of TP has been released just one week ago, with the GUI float curve editor completely finished now. Try it!

Need to mind you that AJE's folder has "A" as its initial character, which means any MM cfg inside that folder will be processed before others like in "MP_Hazari" (HotRockets) or "RealFuels", etc unless you use ":Final" in your cfg while others don't. RF's MM cfg of engines is still using ME instead of MEFX for SABRE and other engines (or perhaps there's a newer version that fixed this?), which means the propellants got used are still stock ones and that's the problem some other guy have met yesterday night.

The ModuleHybridEngine doesn't support MEFX yet so for SABRE there is some issue. HotRocket modifies the SABRE from HydraEngineController to MultiModeEngine (introduced in KSP v0.23), which supports MEFX only. And it defines the MEFX sections as well, with stock propellant types inside. RF modifies the SABRE from HydraEngineController to ModuleHybridEngine, which modify the propellant and other parameters in the original ME modules. I'm not quite clear about what AJE has done to SABRE though, haven't checked the cfg. Hence the incompatibility issue comes.

Ok, i've been encountering some issue about inaccurate thrust curve with ETC for SRBs. And it took me some time to check the reason. Now it seems like it's related to useEngineResponseSpeed = true & non-zero engineAcceleration/DeaccelerationSpeed, which causes the actual throttle to be "lerp"ed between the value i gave to and the thrust percent value set in VAB context menu. An easy fix is to always enable useEngineResponseSpeed but set engineAcc/DeaccSpeed to 0 so that the "lerp" will not change the throttle given by ETC. I will release the new version here in one day or two. normally if you have already installed the plugin, you just need to overwrite the .dll file. but some thrust curve might need tweaking to adapt to the change. EDIT: here's it. https://www.dropbox.com/s/hb51rhkgdz814nl/Engine%20Thrust%20Controll%20V2.zip the DL link is actually the same but i just repost it here because that's lots of pages away from here.

Yes, that' my branch. and I already made my own edit and compiled the dll with FAR shield logic check inside. since the branch is already there, just wait for NK to merge it.

I'm fixing KerbTown's launch site feature, and once it's finished we can build a model of Ocean Odyssey and place it on the sea (near equator of course!) and set it as an additional launch site.

Checked it, thanks.

Well it would be better if Ryan can take some time to change license info either on github or in the OP of this thread.

That's Cilph's design for RT2, go and check his release thread, in which many people have discussed about this design before.

That sounds strange, is your rocket spinning fast? And please check the fuel flow status in the engine's context menu. It should be Very Stable or Pressurized normally.

Currently it doesn't. It shouldn't be too hard to add that factor though (if not by using realistic way to simulate that). but i guess that will make it even harder, perhaps coefficient tweaking should be done before adding this.