Raptor831

I knew it was just me being silly. Once I fixed that I did have to do a clean .23.5 install to make it work though. Looked like I lost the space center completely in the KSC view, as nothing showed up but the blue "haze" ring. But after a clean install, copy/paste all of my mods, it's working fine so far. Question: does the new system use up more RAM than the old? I had to clear out some mods to get a flight in due to memory crashes, and previously I was doing ok (even if I was on the edge).

It seems my instructions were bad. My intention was to either install the static configuration OR the MFT one. I haven't figured out a way to have both static resources and an MFT tank on the same part. I think they might do that for some KSPI configs they wrote, so I will have to check. EDIT: I checked out the configs again, and there's no way I can see to add an MFT tank and keep the static resources. It's an either/or thing. You can define starting amounts in the part for any tank, which looks like the closest option.

Ok, I can't seem to get the Overhaul-9 version to work properly. The clouds simply don't appear. (I didn't look for the ocean/terrain features) I've installed correctly, to my knowledge, made sure the texture is readable in ATM, and even tried to make settings in the GUI from scratch to no avail. Haven't got a clue. Even tried with a clean .23.5 install with just EVE installed. No joy. Logfile here from the clean install: http://cl.ly/1I3i1n3b0r1S Also on a Mac, but the V7.3 release version works like a charm with the 8k texture and everything. I just really want to make sure this mod will work going forward, because now I can't play without clouds on Kerbin!

I tried to just add a MFT to the part, but the tank blanks out any resources you already have on the part. But, I do have a solution. I've added the TAC resources to the Service-Module-type tank, which should allow you to mix and match anything you need inside the resupply part which now is a big service module. Tank Definition to add TACLS: http://cl.ly/code/3a1Y0324133I MM to add MFT Service Module to FusTek Resupply part: http://cl.ly/code/1r302s3i2N2t This should work regardless of whether you have Real Fuels or just Modular Fuel Tanks installed. (note: I run Real Fuels, but MFT installs should work exactly the same) If you'd like to add fuel to a stock environment to the resupply part, use this: http://cl.ly/code/2D29173A1O2N In the one just above, I simply added LiquidFuel, Oxidizer, MonoPropellant, and Xenon to the part. I think it comes in a bit above .8 tons, but the amounts are in line with what would "fit" in the available space. Feel free to use/fix/change as you wish.

The stock LV-N with the current stockalike config is basemass 1.4 tons. In the RF config it's 6.676 (which is about your math with shielding). Reason I did that is because I play with useRealisticMass = false. For a stockalike "I just want more fuel choices" game I didn't want to start with a 20 ton LV-N, which requires a truly large H2 tank just to make it worth using. (Which is probably realistic, but hey.) Stock LV-N is 2.25 tons, so the reduction is still less than a standard engine. LV-T30 starts at .4 tons in the stockalike config and is 1.25 tons standard. Though, I'm just tweaking these for the way I'd play. If they'd be better off at the higher mass, I'll gladly remove those from the stock config and let them ride properly at realistic values. I'll go and test that now that I know what the heck I'm doing with these configs. EDIT: After testing these, I could go either way on the mass of the nuclear engines. Using H2 it just feels like you need so much volume it's crazy, but your mass is still lower. Although, if you need less space, just switch to Methane. Little heavier, but delta-V can end up being the same for a bit more mass. Any thoughts on which way the stock config would be better served by?

gesia: Looks like the stock config is reducing the mass of the stock LV-N down while the trimodal LV-N is a bit higher. I forgot about the trimodal when I was tweaking the LV-N for stock-ish mass, whoops. But neither of them should be 45 tons, I don't believe, even if you set useRealisticMass = false. I don't know what would be doing that, but I'd start by reinstalling the plugin just to check. The non-responsive tech level display seems to imply some sort of plugin issue, either installation issues or plugin conflict weirdness. But again, I'm just shooting in the dark with that. NathanKell: I've added a few more engines (mostly HGR test stuff) to my personal configs, and I'd like to get those added to the stock config. Can you PM me either the new .xls with the standardized fuel ratios or just the ratios themselves, whichever would be easier for you. I'll make those changes and get them back to you. Also, I've got some fuel tank configs for various mods I use, if anyone would like to use them. Link here: http://cl.ly/1d0C1R1h3o32 This includes some KSPI tanks that were missed or changed names, HGR, SXT, Aerojet Kerbodyne, PorkJet's SpaceplanePlus, kommit's Octostrut pack, and the B9 Expansion pack.

Those containers look great guys. I'm already thinking up uses for them. A rack of those inside the FusTek warehouse with a Infernal Robotics rototron to rotate the assembly for access. Nice...

That link will compress and reduce the size of textures for parts. KSP can only utilize up to 4 GB of RAM, and for some reason the Unity engine loads all part textures into RAM. You could have 64 GB RAM and you'll still run into the problem, so the mod is not specifically for low-end machines. Getting B9 and KOSMOS, two of the largest part mods, to load together is going to be tricky to begin with. But you can if you swing it right. Short version: Install the ATM mod (linked above) and/or reduce the texture size in settings to half-res. Long version: check out the forums and search for performance threads and see what tricks you can try. Most of them say the above, but there are a few others that might help depending on your system.

I've got a MFT tank definition whipped up for TACLS here: http://cl.ly/code/3Z382j2q0r1Y Feel free to use and/or modify. It also stores gasses in a pressurized state, so you can cram appropriate amounts of them in a given volume. Note this also includes Hydrogen from the Universal Storage mod, but it won't really matter if you don't have a Hydrogen resource.

Czo, you are a steely eyed missile man. (for reference: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steely-eyed_missile_man) Great story, and a great ending. Only, part of me wishes that Jeb would just have his ending. But hey, that means moar Grand Tour. I can live with that. And you are the master of the cliffhanger, why would the end of the story be any different! Well done, sir, well done.

The aircraft/spaceplane engines were untouched in my latest contribution to the Stockalike config. In my personal install, I just set the propellants properly (LiquidFuel --> Kerosene) and they work just fine. That's pretty much what RealFuels does to B9 engines out of the box, IIRC. Here's a MM config for just that: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]],HAS[@PROPELLANT[IntakeAir]]]:Final { @MODULE[ModuleEngines] { @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel] { @name = Kerosene } } } @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]],HAS[@PROPELLANT[IntakeAir]]]:Final { @MODULE[ModuleEngines] { @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel] { @name = Kerosene } } } This should catch every engine that needs the switch. As for tanks, that's a different story. EDIT: Fixed a code error. Blasted brackets...

Just have to drop in and say this is still the most amazing AAR I've ever read. Sad to see it ending, but there's always another story to tell. So, when are you getting published? Because I'll sign up for that!

Now that is a plot twist I'd like to see.

To add to MisterFister (very nice post!), in your modlist you have KOSMOS, KW Rocketry, and B9 Aerospace. Those three, without any other mods installed, might crash your game. KOSMOS especially takes up a ton of RAM. Great mod, but extremely RAM hungry. For my setup, I need to set KSP to use half-size textures, AND use the Active Texture Management mod with the aggressive configs. I have around 40 mods installed, some part mods only partially. Every part you load that you don't use a lot is wasted RAM. Hope this helps!

That would be my guess. The throwaway line about "Isn't that just like BERTY's terminal?" is a dead giveaway. BERTY's back. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun

That's interesting. Didn't realize FAR did that specifically. At least that makes sense. In any case, glad the new version is out!

Trope: Berserk Button (link) Type: Played pretty straight Explanation: Every time someone dies (or even sometimes close to dying), or maybe someone questions the safety of the mission, Jeb goes, well, berserk. Case in point: Jeb pummels Ned in the last chapter when he threatens Rozer. Though, Jeb does get one in on Rozer for good measure...

You're quite welcome! For completeness, I did a test reentry from orbit with DRE/FAR. Works quite well, even with no SAS. The 3.75m default DRE heatshield masses a good amount, so my total mass for the capsule, shield, chutes, and docking port were almost 12 tons. But, she flew pretty much straight as an arrow the whole way. I imagine without the shield, it would have been a bit more exciting, since FAR wasn't calculating the pod to have much drag at that orientation anyway. Also, you might consider making the bottom node for the capsule a size 3. FAR has calculated size/drag from the nodes, so given that you are 3.75 meters at the base, it would help to have the right node size. I did try this during testing and it didn't fix the odd drag, so no magic bullet there. And since stock now has size 3 parts, it would probably be beneficial to follow that. I hope all this helps you out. I'll be using this for myself either way, as it'll be great for an Orion/Dragon-like pod and a station ferry!

Yeah, the stock drag parameters can just be zeroed out. FAR ignores them, and having them in may cause odd things. The readme does an ok job of explaining the numbers, but I just stole them from B9 wings and Ferram's configs for the stock wings when I was making some MM edits for my saves. Check the FerramAerospaceResearch.cfg in the FAR folder, as that will give you the MM configs for adding all the appropriate things.

The ModuleManager code for doing stuff only when FAR is present would be something like this: @PART[partName]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch] { @module = part } It does require Module Manager 2.0.1 though. EDIT: You'll need to define the wing parameters for each wing piece. See here: https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research It's in the readme. I've just pulled similar stock/mod parts that have the stuff already defined. The numbers are a bit over my head...

The drag is a constant pull "down". As in, if the cockpit windows are up, the capsule wants to pull down constantly. The SAS could handle it really, and if I were to build an orbit-capable rocket the forces might get missed in the shuffle anyway. But on a test rocket (capsule, decoupler, KW 3.75m pancake tank, and the KW 3.75m orbital engine) it's very noticeable. If you use any yaw, the pod wants to roll around the CoL (which is normal if the CoL is in the right spot), which makes the start of the gravity turn interesting if you're not facing the right direction. I have not tested a proper reentry yet, but in my suborbital tests with DeadlyReentry heatshields, the pod doesn't flip out really. The weight of the shield holds the position ok. If you dump the shield, you get odd movements, but nothing that causes everything to explode. I'll test with a proper reentry to make sure though. If Ferram's using the collision mesh to figure the drag, as long as yours is rotationally symmetrical, I would think it would not pull to one side. If the bottom collision cylinder is offset in any way, then I'd start with that. Also, I can definitely say the LES engines and your plugin .DLL are not to blame, because this occurs with or without those. If you have any other questions, let me know. Or if you have a test setup, I can give it a whirl.

After a bit more research, it's FAR definitely. It's calculating the shape of your capsule as something other than a normal cone, and I don't know why. FAR calculates this based on node size (I think), so I don't know where the oddity is coming from. Ferram may have updated something that changes this, though. For reference, here's the ksp.log output for the stock 3-man capsule: FAR drag model added; Size: (2.4, 1.8, 2.4), LD (2.4, 2.4, 0.0), UD (1.3, 1.3, 0.0) Surface area: 10.89397 Fineness Ratio: 0.7550685 TaperRatio: 0.5355 Cross Sectional Area: 4.698075 Cross Sectional Tapered Area: 3.350854 Major-minor axis ratio: 0.9999999 Centroid: (0.0, 0.2, 0.0) And here's the Taurus: Taurus HCV: FAR drag model added; Size: (3.8, 2.7, 4.1), LD (3.8, 4.1, 0.0), UD (1.7, 1.7, 0.0) Surface area: 24.32616 Fineness Ratio: 0.7017185 TaperRatio: 0.4426783 Cross Sectional Area: 11.99424 Cross Sectional Tapered Area: 9.660213 Major-minor axis ratio: 0.9208301 Centroid: (0.0, -0.4, 0.3) In short, the Centroid is where the lift/drag effects are calculated from. The Taurus has the extra offset, which I believe is the issue. If you ask Ferram, he should be able to point you in the right direction. I am, unfortunately, not quite smart enough to figure it all out! If I get a config that works properly, I'll post it up if you haven't already fixed it. The pod is great, btw, and I'm looking forward to the IVA.

I did some testing to try and figure out where the phantom drag is coming from. I am experiencing the drag on both versions (with and without the LES). I've looked over the configs and there's nothing I can see there that would be causing anything odd. The only indication for me is the fact that the center of lift in the VAB is not in-line with the center of mass. The stock 3-man pod has them lined up vertically. (Note, this is all with FAR installed, I didn't check without) So, whatever is causing the CoL to be a little "below" the centerline is causing these odd drag issues. I didn't notice anything odd when I looked at the log from FAR's drag model, but I may need to look at that again. Does anyone not running FAR have the phantom drag?

For anyone who wants something similar, you can go try the Universal Storage mod (found here). It's just a few pieces and a fuel cell at the moment, but they're planning on supporting the major life support mods as they go. Not too hard to make other tanks either for whatever you want.

Getting these parts to play nice with all these mods has got to be a big pain. I just wanted to point that one out, if you didn't know already. If you can make those models that appear for certain nodes an extra part, it removes the issue. But that also adds probably 3-4 more parts to your list, so it might not be worth it. And I'm certainly not saying that your parts are sub-par. Quite the opposite, actually. I like these a lot!