asmi

Yes you don't. That's a feature of this mod since very first public release, and will stay that way. If you want to cheat, use cheats.

You shouldn't even need to delete StockPod.cfg - since your entries are marked :Final, they will take precedence anyways.

Updated for 0.23: https://bitbucket.org/asmi/ksp/downloads/LifeSupportMod.1.0.13.zip It should also improve perfromance.

I'm sorry for the delay with updating to 0.23 - but I can't download 0.23 yet. The update will come in a day or two, and it will contain some more optimizations.

You can height directly from pqs. No need to do raycasts.

I've made more optimizations which should deliver another 2-3 times performance boost, but I'm holding off release until 0.23 is out.

Technically nitrogen IS monoproperllant. What exactly makes you think that KSP's monopropellant is toxic? There are plienty of non-toxic monopropellants. So are you saying that infiniteRCS is more realistic? Besides, that feature is going to be introduced in stock, so no point to discuss it now. Since 0.23 is already in experimentals, it will come out pretty soon, so I'm going to hold off update until that happens. As for fill, I don't know if it would be possible to do at this point as it depends on how Squad implements it.

Using vessel's RCS when going to EVA.

I'm going to remove this feature since it will be in stock in 0.23

It's much more than a texture switch, it actually blends two sets of texture+normal map.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/20451-0-22-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-11-Aerodynamics-Fixes-For-Planes-Rockets

No it won't, which is not entirely realistic since real Soyuz DM used gyrodine to dampen out oscillations. Right now you can use roll to control descend trajectory - if you roll to the side from "CoM-up" attitude, your AoA decreases and it turns slightly to that side. In real life that gives about ±75km cross-range. Again, in real Soyuz manual descent mode doesn't not give any cross-range control, only AoA via roll as it uses gyrodine to keep yaw at zero.

Nobody is. You can use imgur or similar services.

Actually I do have to and it will hunt. The reason is simple - time acceleration, which can turn 5 seconds into 500000 seconds. That's why I'm working hard on optimizations, and there are still things that are done sub-optimally (specifically resource-related functions), so I'm doing my best to optimize it. Unfortunately I've got only so much spare time that I can dedicate to that task, so the work is progressing slower than I'd want it to...

No, it goes over all of them every update, but each (inactive) vessel is being processed in the separate thread (up to amount of CPU cores in the system). As such the system works way better on quadcore and six-core CPUs than it is on dualcores.

I might though...

It does go over all vessels, and it's done like that on purpose since it's more than just life support mod - it contain infrastructure for many other cool things - right now it tracks electricity in all vessels. I'm still working on optimizing it, hoping to get something release'able in coming few days.

It's very good for high-energy orbits, but not so good for LEO missions (you really want to have better TWR for low orbits). For LEO mission I think Zenit is better efficiency-wise.

Atlas-V was optimized for direct injection into high-energy orbits. Here is my reference mission (4t payload to 185x35786 km GTO) for Atlas-V 502 (dual Centaur configuration): Basically as you can see on the screenshot #13 that it's 24 minutes direct injection burn. The idea is that you throw Centaur+payload stack with the booster high enough that you'll stay in space all that time. From the same screen, TWR at the beginning of the burn is 0.46, so you need to make sure you have sufficient time until your TWR becomes over 1 (that would allow you to maintain constant altitude while still accelerating).

Oh, how could I possibly miss that thread! Here is my Atlas-V 502 replica, uses RD-180 for the first stage, and 2xRD-0146 for the Centaur (upper stage), on a "reference" GTO mission with 4 tonnes mock payload.

I usually design rockets based on what kind engines do I have (I use almost exclusively engines from BobCat's SovietEngines pack), carrying a mass-mock of a payload. Most of my lifters are 2 stage, or 2 stage + boosters (either SRBs or LRBs). Condition of TWR > 1 is only crucial for first stage (+ boosters where applicable), upper stages often have TWR less than 1 (as example consider Atlas-V rocket with it's underpowered Centaur upper stage). Upper stage design usually depends on destination orbit, for low orbits I usualy use KeroLOx RD-0124 or NK-43 (depending on the payload) since you have relatively short time for circularization, and as such it's preferred to have TWR or at least 0.7 at ignition with TWR crossing 1 somewhere mid-burn. For high orbits (KSO/KTO, escape) HydroLOx is preferred, while TWR is not as important for direct injection profiles. I use one or several of RD-0146s for low to mid-level payloads, and RD-0120 for heavy payloads. MechJeb shows total dV expended, gravity losses and steering losses. Everything else is basically aerodynamic losses. But unless your LV and/or payload is particularily non-aerodynamic, aero losses are usually very small (<200 m/s).

It's just to confirm my diagnosis.

Thank you for your help! It looks like the problem is with the way RSS "fixes" solar panels, which Nathan has promised to fix in the next release. Please try the following: 1. Back up file RealSolarSystemSettings.cfg, copy section "powerCurve" somewhere, then delete it from the file and save it. 2. Go into folder Squad\Parts\Electrical\solarPanels5, open part.cfg there (make a backup!), look for powerCurve section and replace it with whatever is in abovementioned config file. Make sure you put your backups outside your KSP directory to prevent loading up two configs for the same part, which can lead to conflicts. Load KSP and check if issue still persists.

You should put heatshield into separate stage, or use action group. This way you can jettison it without lighting up soft landing engines. They will fire automatically 7 meters above the ground.

From the first look, nothing seems to be wrong there. Can you please post a log file as well? Maybe there is anything that would give me a clue of what's going on. The question - are these stock solar panels, or they are from some mod?