Rakete

@Nertea Update on the Kerbal Cam of NFSC: I took the time to test all of the capsules for you: Only the Mk1-L Nereld is buggy in terms of ugly Kerbal Cam-Pictures due to clipping of their heads and especially their poor eyes into the camera plane. All other Commandpods are alright. So if you put your hands on fixing the Nerald in terms of sinking to the ocean, you may also consider fixing this visual thing too? Than it's perfect

As you say drag cubes, I have got a question i'd like to ask you since a long time ago: So some of the capsules are on their widest point wider, then the on the baseplate fitting heat shield. Is this a problem for a highspeed interplanetary intercept direct atmophere entry? With the stock Mk1-3 capsule all of the capsule hides behind the heat shield, but I'm not sure about the NFSC-pods. Eg. the engine housing of the Nereld or the thetys: Will those engines in this housing burn up, on re-entry, as the can't be protected by a heat shield? Mounting a wider heatshield, that matches the widest point of the capsule is kinda ugly. How is it meant to be used? Minor not so important sidenote: if you mount on the NFSC-Pods a stock heat shield (on most of the pods) the pod's base plate clips through the heatshield sides, so the attachment node might not fit perfectly. (Thetys, Pandora, Mk4-1) Not a complaint, just a sidenote for a future release. (And another sidenode: The kerbal cam is pushed forward in some pods, so that the Kerbal Eyes clip through the plane of the camera, e.g. the Nerald).

A powerful inline radiator thingy would be gorgeous.

IRL putting fin-style radiators like the betas on flat a surface would reduce their cooling ability to half, as one side is blocked and can't emitt IR radiation and is not cooled by convection in atmosphere. but that's okay for me. A game has to meet some compromises. Yeah... 24 Betas sound a bit few for 4 MW. You 'd need 67 Betas for that plus some powerful energy source to power all those betas, which also needs a cooling... a whole lot to stick somewhere.

Maybe someone from the devteam can help? There must be some kind of mechanic, that decides if a vessel floats or sinks? Probably some kind of mass/volumia-equotation (like in real world the density decides). Maybe you can reduce the part mass to a very small value as soon as it splashes down to ensure floating? Not a nice fix, as this is not the way the world works, but maybe a way to compensate for a bug... just an idea... I don't know if it is possible to change part properties on flight. Ugly dirty fix, but maybe a way if the root issue is unknown.

Seems like a good plan. doing kinda LEGO stuff is alright. Hope they are forcewise robust enough to withstand the aerodynamic forces when put on wings as shown in the picture (unlike the fragile graphene ones). And yeah, i have to admit, that I like streamlined looks also in space, even if not necessary. So i tend to streamline even orbiters; at least some sort of. Personal visual freakiness :-D but this are 4Mw of cooling? Am i blind? How many of which kind have you stacked there? It is some kind of hard to see. :-)

I use Autostruts on grandparent mode. Works for me (KSP 1.11.2). No wobble. Maybe try this out?!

Do have all engines now have sounds?

Sounds plausible... Thanks.

Alright then. Than it's kinda a stock bug, as there was no heat to dissipate. I "love" the stock heat system (sarcasm) and its weird effects. Your SH is sooooo much better! But that they still remove the old heat is good - please keep this feature. Especially for trips to Moho or Kerbol. Beta, gamma, delta... so we are talking about the static grey ones. yeah, they are kinda weak anyway and were useless for almost everything bigger than a small fission reactor, because of the bad heat rejection values (except converters, where they did a good job). Maybe you could provide some a bit more powerful static aerodynamically shaped nice and sleek looking ones? Something like the old betas but with more heat rejection? Also: maybe some additional graphene microchannel panels in smaller sizes. They are great (esp. when they glow, i love them) , but sometimes an additionnal smaller size option of them would make sense in order to create visually pleasing crafts. Anyway, really looking forward to your first drafts/mockups, if you like to share them here / in the dev threat. Soft deprecation means what exactly?

@Nertea It's your favourite bug reporter again. Bug report - Type: visual, Severity; minor The Beta-Radiators glow red, even if the loop is still cool due to not yet activated Reactor core: In this loop: 4 Beta fins and one small kerbopower fission reactor. As soon as you turn the radiators on (once reached space), they turn red hot, even if loop is at 3K. Testvehicle for reproduction: https://www.filemail.com/d/tzwtzwxdwqasywj - Bug concerns loop 0. Which ones are planned for removal ? Can you tell a list? So that we know, not to use them anymore, if we don't want to break the craft in our main save....

Sorry... Shall I stop reporting the minor things? I mean, you can treat them like you want: You can also ignore them. I did not mean to get on your nerves. Your mods already have such a high quality level. This stuff is only the last 0,5%...

@Nertea Bug report: Type: Visual, Severity: Minor Engine bell of Colossos Engine shows flickering grey effects even if Engine is disengaged or throttled to zero: Flickering continues even if pause menue is called. Seen on two computers, so no graphics issue. (I've seen this before on one of the KA-engines. Think it was the emancipator... but not sure anymore...)

In the SSPXr/ Dev thread Nertea himself stated, that he considered this fix mod as (quote) still "embryonic" and monitored the situation. I guess, he might hesitate to adapt his mod cosmos and the there used dockingports, since it's not clear if a fix in the basegame is just around the corner or if this fix mod will live long and prosper. I think, creating new dependencies is nothing, the modders are really keen on, especially if they do not know about the remaining roadmap of KSP Bugfixing lifecycle and the need to include this fixmod due to not having a root fix around the corner.... I think, a statement from squad about a 1.12.3 or .4 with a general fix in the game on the root issue would help the modders to decide what to do... but still: Silence... meeh... Somehow i wish JPLRepo and the modders with dockingports in their mods would have a talk to synchronize... but as all this done in the freetime, i do not dare to ask for anything, as the modders already give soooo much efforts. I can imagine, what a huge time sink modding such a complex game is. I myself use also a heavy modded install with Nertea's mods and use still 1.11.2 (with all its annoying bugs), and the mod packages for this release (at least if the come with docking ports), because of the drift issue. I hesitate to move on to 1.12.2 due to the drifting issue and the not included compatibility of the mods to this fix, as mentioned above. So i hope the situation will become less foggy soon... Right now, I can't see, where this is heading.

@Nertea Improvement Idea for next release: Is it possible to make the info how many EC the FFT Engines/Reactors need to charge up available in the part info, so that we can tailor the amount of batteries/Capacitors to enable charging? E.g. it could be a nice idea to have the energy to start the fusion reactor as back-up in tailored capacitorbanks, even if the batteries are low. Or have a set of disabled back-up batteries, that contain the needed amount of energy. In most cases i ended up with hugely oversized batteries/capacitors for this job, so the individual charging amount would be an useful information about the part. Just an idea....

Maybe not kerbin as radiation sickness for the poor Kerbals is no option.... but places like Tylo or Eve?! If no kerbal is left behind, you can contaminate whatever you want. Tylo is just a big rock. I'm still figuring about a visually pleasing Eve ascender. All I could do in the past with the stock stuff was functional, but... ugly.... very very very ugly... so maybe the actual or upcomming FFT-Engines have an option for something compact for Eve ascent.

Yeah, and Nertea stated, that those are not made for take-off - too fragile. So there is a real gap in the SH radiators. But I don‘t worry. I am almost sure, that SH will upgraded by Nertea at some point in future to fill that hole in the radiator line-up. … (if he still likes to do modding then...)

Mhh? Meant as a analogon (hot, as of 50MW waste heat and dragon as it really spits a hot breath according to Nerteas Screenshots of the plume). But I'm not a native speaker. Have i overlooked a pun?

50 MW? Holy Cow... that's a tough beast. Think this will require some spamming of coolant tanks and not-so-aerodymanically optimized but robust grey radiators. Maybe some nice curved wrap-around graphene radiators (in SH) for aerodynamic optimized vehicles in a ruggedized version would find some customers/buyers. Think you gonna build up a market request on for this kind of part. That's how business works. Creating a market request and satisfying it. Jokes aside: Really looking forward to playing around with this beast. Think, some kerbals want to ride this hot dragon.

Hi there, there is a mod in the Add-on-thread of this forum. It is made by JPLRepo, one of the KSP-Devs. In German: Hallo, fürs Driftproblem gibts eine Mod von JPLRepo, einem KSP-Entwickler. Er meinte, das sei ein Fix, bis es im Spiel selbst gefixt wird. Nur weiß leider keiner, wann eine 1.12.3 kommt. Wenn du aber so wie ich eine stark gemoddete Installation hast, hilft dir der Flicken nur bedingt, da die Reparatur-Mod von anderen Mods, die Dockingports mitbringen, aktiv eingebunden werden muss. Und da nicht klar ist, ob und wann der Fix direkt in Form einer neuen Minor-Version von KSP kommt, zögern natürlich die Modder, sich die Arbeit zu machen, die Reparaturmod einzubinden - denn schließlich lebt sie vermutlich nur bis zum Fix in KSP selbst. Bisher bin ich auf 1.11.2 zurück gegangen, da dort die Dockingports nicht driften. Ich hoffe darauf, dass Squad mal Farbe bekennt und sagt, ob 1.12.3 bald kommt, oder darauf, dass den Moddern der Geduldsfaden reißt und sie die Fix-Mod einbinden. Was Robotikteile betrifft: die driften auch mit dem Fix... aber die drifteten auch schon vor 1.12... Da müsste mal grundsätzlich an die Ursache ran gegangen werden.

What are "normal" materials? Are they orthogonal on another surface?

Looks great. Vacuum-only engine or a lifter-viable-thingy ? Really looking forward to. It looks so amazing! Is it a big bad boy version of the Heinlein, a nuclear salt water engine, as you said "like of the rest of the fission engines"? Since it seems to burn continously, i'd guess it's something like that?

Yeah, as i said: since activation of cooling stops the bug, it's not a major thing. Just thought making the algorithm more robust to singularites at certain values is always kinda good. The usecase of not-cooled first lifter stages might be a viable one...

Small Sidequestion. Is it a bug or a feature, that some of the FFT-Engines have no engine sound at the moment? E.g. the Jp-10 "Impulse"

Please use two or more big s3-tanks (or another big (!) equivalent from your non-cryo-tanks) filled with cryo fuel but without activated cooling and a matching engine e.g. tyrannosaur or scylla. I could not reproduce it with real cryotanks on two attempts - so it might be caused by the bigger boiloff values of conventional tanks that are filled with crygenic fuels and not cooled. Just activate the engine (maybe fire a bit) and stop it to zero throttle. The calculated dV is not stable and oszillates between two values, when the engine is not firing (0 throttle, but engine activated). The oscillation stops as soon as you activate cooling on both s3 (non-cryo)tanks. If you activate it on only one, the oscillation slows down. You can also use the craft (arakis station 2), that i provided above, remove the start clamps, cheat it into orbit, activate engine and set it to zero throttle. See the dV calc on the lefthandside switch beween two values for the first stage. For me 100% reproducable. The second stage does not osczillate since it uses real cryotanks with enganged cooling. My guess: the boil off calculations interfere with stock dV calculations as soon as you have a tank or set of tanks that have a boiloff, that is big enough and an active but not firing engine on it (The oscillations are there also when the engine fires, but are much more difficult to observe, so do the test at zero throttle.) This oscillation is problematic, if you do burns, that require a staging in the middle of the burn, as this oscillation of dV of 1st stage has affect on the burn start indicator and the staging moment prediction, which oscillates then as well between two points.