phoenix_ca

I wasn't saying the mods are mutually exclusive. I said the choice between either not using a broken mod, or updating to the latest version of KSP, should be mutually exclusive choices. If mods that you're using are broken in the current version, don't update. Problem solved.

Which all just makes me even more confused as to why people are even using RT2 anymore. O.o If it's broken, don't use it. Or don't update. But they should be mutually exclusive.

And thus was there much complaining that KSPI is broken, when in fact, it is RT2...which is labelled clearly as being broken in 23.5. I mean really.

Soooo...this works in 23.5? I'd been avoiding it because of the 0.22 branding.

Plasma and LCD displays are very, very different. There could be a problem with how the 60Hz source video is being interpolated into a 240Hz-or-more signal. Or other wacky things might be happening. You should see if you get the same effect with an LCD at 60Hz.

No, but the tooltips for a lot of parts are out-of-date. Especially the ATTILA engines which don't actually give accurate information.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.... ...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... ...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. ... Yay.

I assume it's for carrying larger amounts of fusion fuels. Possibly in a more compressed state? I haven't looked much but that's possible. Squish it so it's liquid. Hold more of the stuff in the same area as a result.

That's actually just plain stupid. I own an Apple product. Actually, all my computers are Macs right now. And what, does that mean I'm an idiot too? Your statement is irrelevant. Some people use them because they are perceived as easier to manage (and they are, speaking from experience with OS X, Windows since Win3.1, and piles of Linux and Unix distros since those Win3.1 days, OS X is the easiest to use and manage of the lot), some people use them because they provide superior support for software and hardware they will be using. There's a very good reason (actually a lot of very good reasons) you see most professional artists in film, photography, and audio, using Macs. Don't be stupid and make off-hand, irrelevant statements. Stay on topic. Your post was largely on-point until you made that egregious error in reasoning. Apologies to everyone else for the rant. KSP's API has documentation? First I've heard mention of such a mythical creature.

What reception slider? There's a reception slider?

I'm going to be blunt. If you can't grapple with understanding the folder structure used by mods in KSP, then maybe modding it isn't for you. Getting to know this is kinda a prerequisite. You shouldn't be shy of deleting mod folders when necessary, because it will be necessary. The only thing that can be done with an overwrite by the user dragging-and-dropping is to update files that already exist (assuming the user is smart enough to overwrite them when prompted), or add new ones, but there's no way to delete them. Hence the blanket statement that often comes where modders say to delete the old folder. As for the Toolbar, including it in mods has become standard practice. If you already have it, just don't copy it. Having this requisite knowledge applies doubly when talking about test builds, where things may very well be messy and broken (though to sirkut's credit these releases have largely been neither, at least from making sense of what to install where standpoint). Read and understand this, at the very least: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Addon The whole game is still under development, and what's more, this mod is going through test builds. A solid grounding in understanding how KSP handles new game data (i.e. addons or mods) is a bare minimum for using these. There are no programs that are available and up-to-date to do this for you. Sirkut has done just as much as every other dev in preparing and distributing their mod, the main difference being that the link to the zip right now is on Git, not somewhere else like other mods, and that is done with good reason.

Yeah. That's what I said. Though you need an even bigger bat for pointing-out that these are test builds, I think. Maybe something the size of an A380 would do. Barely.

Will the plasma drives be getting a sound file at some point? >.> I love the idea of making a giant ship using those eventually, but it's a little sad that they make no noise. It's so...underwhelming.

Whether parts get blown to bits on reentry has a lot to do with the speed at which you reenter. Try a shallower angle.

Well maybe when there's a stable release version sirkut will feel like wrestling with putting up an easier-to-download version. But for now...for heaven's sake people. From a dev's perspective using git for quick releases like this is oodles easier than putting it on SpacePort or the like.

Yeah I tried that and it didn't work. Mostly though, the CoL indicator didn't update at all. As I said in my post, fixing the cfg seems to have fixed the problem.

I'm not getting proper CoL updates when using the Mark 3 PWing (the B9-styled one). The CoL either only takes one wing into account (only on the left side of an airplane), or none. The only difference I can find between the cfg files is that the PWings that work do not have the following in their WingManipulator module: modelChordLenght = 5 No, that's not a typo on my end. That's what's in the config, "Lenght". Edit: Fixing this to read "modelChordLength = 5" fixes the problem.

Try this then: @PART[Proceduralwing2] { @maxTemp = 1700 MODULE { name = ModuleHeatShield direction = 0, 0, 0 // omnidirectional reflective = 0.25 // 25% of heat is ignored } } @PART[Proceduralwing2EndPiece] { @maxTemp = 1700 MODULE { name = ModuleHeatShield direction = 0, 0, 0 // omnidirectional reflective = 0.25 // 25% of heat is ignored } } @PART[ProceduralAllMovingWing] { @maxTemp = 1700 MODULE { name = ModuleHeatShield direction = 0, 0, 0 // omnidirectional reflective = 0.25 // 25% of heat is ignored } } @PART[ProceduralwingBac9] { @maxTemp = 1700 MODULE { name = ModuleHeatShield direction = 0, 0, 0 // omnidirectional reflective = 0.25 // 25% of heat is ignored } } @PART[pCtrlSrf1] { @maxTemp = 1700 MODULE { name = ModuleHeatShield direction = 0, 0, 0 // omnidirectional reflective = 0.25 // 25% of heat is ignored } } @PART[B9_Aero_Wing_ControlSurface_SH_4mProcedural] { @maxTemp = 1700 MODULE { name = ModuleHeatShield direction = 0, 0, 0 // omnidirectional reflective = 0.25 // 25% of heat is ignored } } Putting that in it's own cfg file might, and I stress might make the PWings more resilient on reentry. Or it might not work at all.

PWings should work without tweaking it. Regardless of that, look at the B9 cfg in the Deadly Reentry folder. All you should have to do is add the module. But that's no guarantee that it'll work properly because PWings changes the parts. Just adding the ModuleHeatShield module to it might not work. Or it might. Or it might only work partially.

Oooookay. These look pretty, but a short description of each part wouldn't hurt. Actually it'd mean people could tell how these parts work. "Hybrid"? What exactly does that mean? What are the generators for?

The issues with saving and reloading ships seem to be restricted to situations when IR parts are connected to each other. I've had no problems with a single gantry rail on my satellites to move a SAR from ScanSAT around. Something hinky in how the data is being saved? Didn't you say something about not currently using the PART module but soon switching to that? Maybe that'd fix it. I'm guessing. Totally guessing.

Well since you're asking, yeah, different sets would help. Would make it easier to understand where the various celestial bodies sit in relation to each other. But hey, I didn't see that chart that clearly shows the flux relative to all planets until you posted it. My suggestions were just to make it easier to read off-the-cuff. Once you take a close look at the units being used it's actually not all that difficult to tell what's what. And I'd go with WaveFunction's suggestion of mg/hour, mainly because in KSP the "day" has just become an unknown, because we don't know (and can't know) which day is being referred to, the 24hr or 6hr one. Better to stick to the units that stay the same.

Hmmmmm. How does this behave with Deadly Reentry? Do the wings stay in one piece or should I expect explosions?

No. It isn't.

I have to agree that the highlight-shadow transition area is extremely sharp. Far too much so, using 7-3 EVE and V3 of this. Also...why does the Mun look so hazy? It doesn't have an atmosphere. (Tweaking MinLight under scaling settings for Layer 1 seems to sorta fix this. 1 is just way too high. Makes the Mun look like it has a thick dusty atmosphere.) And "Reset to Default" in the Alt-N menu is broken. It resets to some settings that are truly awful that create a posterised effect. It's definitely not resetting to the settings that this comes with originally.