neistridlar

I think the way to deal with this in KSP2 would be to give players to enable "override mode", which would essentially revert to KSP1 style maneuver nodes. Should be plenty good for most purposes, without the game having to know the thrust and mass of your ship.

I think the way to deal with this in KSP2 would be to give players to enable "override mode", which would essentially revert to KSP1 style maneuver nodes. Should be plenty good for most purposes, without the game having to know the thrust and mass of your ship. Wrong thread All burns were inaccurate to some extent, but the longer the burn, the worse the accuracy, because KSP1 assumes the burn takes 0 seconds. It's mostly noticeable when burns start to last a significant portion of the orbital period. So for low Kerbin orbit for instance, a 1 minute burn, it's not really noticable, but a 5 minute burn it starts to become significant.

Was going to suggest this my self. I hope we can get a completely manual version, with the current trips only being templates, so you can quick fill the trip plan, then customize to your hearts content. Say for instance you want to do a jool 5 trip? Or maybe you want to go to the mun, land, reorbit, land in a different spot, then return to kerbin? I think it would be nice if there was a pluss icon at the bottom of the list, click it, and pick from a list of relevant "destinations" and the game automatically fills in the necessary dVs.

From what I figured out, there is some black magic going on with the coordinate systems. If every coordinate system is lined up the right way it works as expected. As for Neist Air I started off on the wrong foot so to speak, and figured out a workaround, which I can't quite remember any more, but I think I put the IVA props in an empty that was turned 180 degrees to correct my error or something like that.

@kerbmario Is now making updates for Neist Airliner Parts: https://spacedock.info/mod/3034/NeistAir%20Reupdated

This looks really promising. Definitely leaps and bounds ahead of KSP1! Like @mcwaffles2003, I too was wondering about underexpanded plumes. It seems only the overexpanded side is represented here. Granted underexpanded engines are very limited in real life use, due to flow separation, this issue is handled differently, at least in KSP1. If nothing else I think an underexpanded plumes would be a nice cue to the player that they are using a suboptimal engine for the current conditions. An other minor issue: In the video demonstration, the speed of the low throttle exhaust seems ridiculously slow. I may very well be wrong, but it is my understanding that exhaust flow speed for chemical rockets should always be supersonic, and that exhaust speed is directly linked to specific impulse of the engine. In other words, the exhaust speed should always be pretty darn fast.

You must not be familiar with the conventions for version numbers. It is not a regular decimal number, the period is simply a deliminator to separate major and minor versions. So 1.2 came out a long time ago. And 1.9 came before 1.10. 1.99 will come before 1.100 etc.

I know about it, and it is my go to tank for this, but I rarely fill it more than half full

I'll have to disagree. I've played a bunch with restock, which has equivalent sized RCS thrusters. I found myself using them as main thrusters for tiny comsats, where tiny thrust is a desirable feature for accurate orbital insertions. I also found them more than adequate for smaller 2.5m craft as well. Sure I could have docked them without RCS, but it,s so much more convenient, and realistic for that matter with RCS. It's also convenient for fine orbital adjustments. The light weight and low thrust make them very suitable for such applications, not to mention more realistic than for instance very short low thrust burns with the main engines. Needless to say I welcome this addition to the base game. That said, there certainly is a place in this game for more vernor-sized or bigger thrusters for RCS use as well. I hope they also ad some smaller RCS tanks suitable for very small comsats as well. I find my comsats often only need a couple hundred m/s DeltaV after detaching from the "mothership" in order to spread out into their respective orbits. I'll have to disagree. I've played a bunch with restock, which has equivalent sized RCS thrusters. I found myself using them as main thrusters for tiny comsats, where tiny thrust is a desirable feature for accurate orbital insertions. I also found them more than adequate for smaller 2.5m craft as well. Sure I could have docked them without RCS, but it,s so much more convenient, and realistic for that matter with RCS. It's also convenient for fine orbital adjustments. The light weight and low thrust make them very suitable for such applications, not to mention more realistic than for instance very short low thrust burns with the main engines. Needless to say I welcome this addition to the base game. That said, there certainly is a place in this game for more vernor-sized or bigger thrusters for RCS use as well. I hope they also ad some smaller RCS tanks suitable for very small comsats as well. I find my comsats often only need a couple hundred m/s DeltaV after detaching from the "mothership" in order to spread out into their respective orbits.

Thanks to @Commodore_32 for reporting bugged TCS nodes. It turned out they were simply backwards. New release is now available on Github. Also thanks to @Lisias which cleaned up the configs and bulkheads a bit.

If someone want to put it on CKAN and manage it without my involvement, I'm not oposed to that*. But I'm not interested in investing any of my own time to make it happen. *in fact I don't think I can deny any one making a "CKAN edition" of NAP, and posting puting it on CKAN, given the licensing I'm using.

Interesting. I have yet to try out 1.10. Just to rule things out, have you tried it on a clean install? Has anyone else seen this issue (or not seen it)? I can't promise I will look at it soon, but I will probably get around to it eventually.

Feel free to use any of my models, and good luck!

I use primarily Blender for the modeling (Though I also use Fusion 360 to create reference models for some parts). For the texturing I use Incscape to lay out the panel lines and other "mechanical" details, like windows. Then I export it to GIMP where I apply weathering and more "organic" details.

I'm unsure what exactly you mean, but it should work just fine both on it's own, and side by side with APP. I will take that into account.