etheoma

DW I had just copied it to the wrong install my B. btw the 1.12 version of realism overhual had been great, I don't know if it's because 1.12 is just naturally more stable being able to use more RAM, the modders have stepped up there game, or a mix of the 2 but 1.12 with realism overhaul has been rock solid. Good job.

I want to get the SABRE working in my install, but the part just isn't showing up. I assume it's RO that is doing that although there are still config files for B9 and entries for the Sabre in RO, so I don't know why it would filter it out. Any ideas?

I don't know if it's you are someone ever at RO that made the change, but someone reduced the max temp and skin temp of the Raptor engines down to ~640 in the RO config which considering heat shields in KSP don't work unless you are in front of the craft in line with the craft it means that the engines will always burn up on reentry even if you do put a heat shielded skirt around them. I personally only needed to increase the skin and max temp to 1000 and 1200 as I am reentering with large wings, large, empty, relatively light tank to reenter Craft kinda more like a scaled up Dyna-Soar rather than a Starship / Super Heavy, but I hate powered landings on Earth at the best of time. With an actual Super Heavy / Starship config you would likely need to increase that to ~2000, which is still a large reduction over the stock Max Temp 3000 Skin temp 3500. Which yeah is just unrealistic. I have also posted this on the KK Launchers KSP.com forum page. The patch that I believe does this is /RealismOverhual/Engine_Config/Raptor.cfg as it applies the defualt ModuleEngineConfigs without restating a higher max and skin temp, at any rate you can change it from there. Although honestly I think it would be better to just replace the old patch in OR_SuggestedMods/KK Launchers rather than just add on another patch ontop in Engine_Configs I am probably just complaining because it caused me a headache in trying to edit the part because I kept trying to edit the old patch and it wasn't working.

I don't know if it's you are someone ever at RO that made the change, but someone reduced the max temp and skin temp of the Raptor engines down to ~640 in the RO config which considering heat shields in KSP don't work unless you are in front of the craft in line with the craft it means that the engines will always burn up on reentry even if you do put a heat shielded skirt around them. I personally only needed to increase the skin and max temp to 1000 and 1200 as I am reentering with large wings, large, empty, relatively light tank to reenter, but with an actual Super Heavy / Starship config you would likely need to increase that to ~2000. I also posted this on RO's KSP.com forum page.

K an actual issue this time I seem to have come into this issue, but I don't know what it means by the tool bar. Warning on Keybindings Note in very rare circumstances the symmetry and angle snap keybindings might be lost. This would only occur if another mod triggers the game to save its settings while in the VAB/SPH, *and* the game subsequently crashes or is killed before exiting the building. If it happens, you can easily restore the keybindings (X and C by default) by hovering over the toolbar button and selecting the menu option "Reset Mode & Snap keys". Edit Ah d.w. I found it. I just didn't know what EXX was until I looked it up, or I just have just looked up one at the previous post... My bad.

Ah thanks, although there is also a mod for this, "Precise Editor" I found it when reinstalling editor extensions because it wasn't working. Although funny thing is my caft isn't actually Asymmetric, well it's a space place so it's slightly Asymmetric, but it's weight if off to one side in the horizontal direction, which I don't have anything asymmetric that way... tried taking off parts to see if I had accidentally place something inside and no... one of the parts just seems to be bugged. Also that isn't fine enough, I mean litterally as fine a movement as is possible, EEX seems to move them 1 degree at a time or something close to that, when you are off setting an engine 2000KN 1 degree of rotation on a long vessel is like the difference between 0 torque and 1000kN+ of torque. and I want to get it down to 0.005kN 0.01kN is acceptable though, rotation is only to get rid of large variances though to get it down to like 50kN of torque, but to do that I need 0.01 degree accuracy, so it's off by like a factor of 100, precise editor gives you 0.0001 degree accuracy so it's more than enough to get me to my target.

It would be really nice to have a option for rotate and move to be able to click a button to move it by the smallest degree one step at a time, as with RCS build aid it would be really useful to be able to do that as RCS build aid allows you to align the centre of mass and centre of thrust , but actually offsetting the parts is difficult due to a lack of precision on the move and rotate options even with toggle snap off. Also having a box that pops up and shows you the angle from absolute would also be super helpful.

No Super seriously this time, is there a way to load a craft file with missing pats and just re-place it with the updated part. I sware that was a thing in a version of KSP, or a mod... and I don't mean a launched ship I mean in the VAB. There was a minor update to RO and it broke the craft file I was working on for the past 2 days... Considering the positions of the other parts are saved it should be possible to do that at least. Well I have learned to always say no to updates at a bare minimum, unless I am willing to start all over again. Or at least copy and paste the current onto spining rust, which funnily enough I have always done before now and have never had any issues... the one time i don't and this is what I get... I even have a copy from 3 days ago that I made...

Hi I wanted to add a part from SXT a hollow 3.75 to mk3 adapter to realism overhual, I did do a patch for a part once but I forgot how and I didn't save the page which explained how to do it. I don't suppose anyone could point me in the right direction? I could just change the resscale factor and add in SkinMaxTemp to get it working, but I wanna do it properly through a patch, so that it shows up properly in the parts as part of RO and have all my own custom patches in 1 place so I don't need to hunt them down. Like if I want to use the Sabre M it needs changing in various ways to actually work with RO and be like the real proposed engine, eg. (Vac ISP from ~330 to 460, thrust changed from 600KN to 2000KN etc.) I get that I need to do something like this @PART[SXTadapterSize3Mk3]:FOR[RealismOverhaul] { %RSSROConfig = True @title = 6.4m to Mk3 Hollow Adapter @mass = 2.2 //%maxTemp = 2273.15 %skinMaxTemp = 2500 } but is there anything else I need to do for a new patch, obviously change the extension of the file to .cfg, but do I need to do anything other than that? Like how do I add in the rescale because that is the most important part because it's not the standard 1.6 rescale it's 1.7066 Edit; d.w. I was right also added in "@rescaleFactor = 1.7066" Also the mk3 tanks suck, which is why I wanted a hollow adapter rather than a tank adapter, 10 tons dry for the tank adapter while a shielded procedural tank with ~5 times the volume is 17 tonnes dry

Is there a mod for being able to disable the decouplers? As I am making a kinda Super Heavy / Starship and I want a skirt for the upper and lower stage, and I am going to attach the engines to those parts so having a decoupler would unnecessarily risky. In 1.6.3 I used to have the ablity to remove the decouplers, but I can't do it now... Also used to be able to turn off RCS staging. Edit: d.w. I remembered I hadn't enabled Advanced Tweakables.

I am trying to make a Starship, and yes some thermal tiles of varying size would be very useful. Well I am also using realism overhual, so more re-entry heating.

Personally I would just give up on 1.5 and go right to 1.6 given the greater stability and performance of 1.6 as building on a unstable ground is never a particularly good idea it would also mean that you could catch up to the current release a little bit maybe.

Oh btw I meant a 25% - 50% range not 50% - 75%... a 75% range would be unrealistic for a modified engine I think. I was getting min throttle mixed up with range which is inverse.

I was specifically talking about hypergolic engines.Honestly though my opinion doesn't really matter, but I don't think the main concern should be what engines exist now as we have only ever had manned missions as far as the moon. You can be damn sure that if we were going further we would have different engines. The concern should be what is a realistically possible perhaps being conservative on that would be best, but if you expect people to actually explore the beyond the moon it seems kind of dumb to have a hard limit on using current engines. And in fact there isn't a hard limit of current in use engines an NTR has never flown but we know they are totally possible, and in fact the engine it's self is extremely simple. Yes there have been on earth tests so the engines did exist, but the ISP number we use have not been demonstrated as they were used in atmosphere and the specific impulse was inferred. You could Infer what is a reasonable modification to an engine to add throttling capabilities. If that sounds reasonable to anyone in a development roll for RO maybe adding extra configs for a few engines which sacrifices specific impulse and or thrust for throttling on a few engines wouldn't be unrealistically possible. I am not saying 100% range 25% - 50% would be fine, it would still mean being careful and having action groups to disable engines as you descend. but it would make it possible to lands using those engines. In fact you would still likely use 2 unthrottleable engines for the better ISP / thrust when you are heavy and 2 throttleable engines for actually landing when you are lighter

There is a difference between being unthrottlable and having limited throttling I am not saying that all hypergolic engines should have a full range of throttling or even that any should but certainly more than they do which as said ~90% currently have no throttling capability and your kind of screwed for a small landing a small probe well small by KSP standards.