Starwaster

That last version partly resolved the issue I was seeing with it but it still throws an error occasionally that kills haze Question: are you compiling against .NET 3.5? (you want to because KSP uses 3.5 and not 4.0, which your compiler might be defaulting to)

You should use versioning and dating in the title to denote to readers when an update has occurred. (esp. date; put the date of the last update in the title so readers can tell at a glance if there's an update they might want to get)

It's Windows 8.

Getting a lot of errors trying to use this. When I load into a game, the camera is stuck in an odd view of the KSC and the following error occurs multiple times in the log IndexOutOfRangeException: Array index is out of range. at scatterer.Manager.SetUniforms (UnityEngine.Material mat) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at scatterer.SkyNode.UpdateNode () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at scatterer.Manager.Update () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at scatterer.Core.Update () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 (Filename: Line: -1) Upon exiting to main menu, I'm unable to click anything. full log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/g367pay79hzyhbs/output_log.scattering.errors.zip?dl=1

probably because the exhaust carries most of the heat away and the nozzle is regeneratively cooled but that's been said already hasn't it

The engines as configured have Isp that is excessive for stock fuels. Isp that high requires something like hydrogen. (speaking of LF only, not LFO) The reactors tested as part of project rover could be said to produce 'waste' but that was because the fuel rods suffered heavy erosion. As far as I know that problem was solved through the use of special coatings and/or fuel rod materials and would be eliminated in flight ready production models. (or mostly eliminated) Anyway, what he said is about right; it doesn't make sense for the nuclear fuel to be in external tanks. The engine contains the nuclear fuel (it is a fission reactor not just a rocket motor) and that would last for years regardless of whether it is used or not. Whether that feels 'cheaty' or not, that's how they really work. You should check out Real Fuels + Raptor's stockalike configurations. The nuclear engine that is in Raptor's pack has a configuration that adds nuclear fuel + nuclear waste and it deteriorates over time though in actual game play, I find haven't yet run into a situation where that mattered to game play because I never had any engine long enough to exhaust its nuclear fuel. Additionally, they can be configured for a variety of propellants with appropriate Isp and thrust levels for each one. Propellants are hydrogen, methane and ammonia. Water was in at one point but it got removed. (too bad, water is a very reasonable propellant and through ISRU more plentiful than in our own solar system)

Stock Kerbin or RSS? (specific configuration plz) If RSS then use RSS mode instead.

Except that it DOES have a heat shield module and its maxTemp isn't being reduced by DRE therefore it's being configured to have lower tolerance. This needs to be kicked over either to FASA or RO.

You must be missing the firespitter plugin or you have an outdated version of that plugin.

If you want to change a tank's type in the game then you want Procedural Parts. The right click menu has an option for changing a tank's type.

I just downloaded the file from each site and did a byte comparison of them. They're identical, byte for byte. There is nothing wrong with the file on Curse. I suggest you upload a craft that is known to you to be giving you trouble, so it can be analyzed.

@Narcosis, use the alternate setting instead. (The button on top that says simply Alternate Model, not the radio button that says Alternate Heating Model). It is more forgiving on the ascent. Regarding cargo bays, There's probably nothing I can do about that that we're not already doing. I can't imagine why those would fail where other cargo bay parts are ok and if FAR is installed and FAR thinks that those parts should not be shielded then there's an issue with the cargo bay or between the cargo bay / FAR that needs to be addressed in those mods. (DRE does check with FAR to see if it thinks parts should be shielded, if FAR is installed, and it becomes the main method of determining shielding) @chrisl, Some clarification: Firstly, when DRE starts cutting part temperatures that it considers to be too high, it does that after ALL configs were processed. (I saw that in your earlier post but didn't address that). Regarding configs, obviously DRE does do a lot of configs for a lot of mods. But those are for mods that lack any DRE consideration at all. i.e. parts that weren't designed for DRE but probably need modification based on their intended use. But if a mod specifically was written with DRE in mind then that set of configs is how the modder thinks it should work with DRE. While I disagree with setting the temperature of a heat shield part so low, I'm not going to countermand what they wrote for DRE. As opposed to something like KWR's parts which weren't designed with DRE in mind at all. See now why I'd be reluctant to do that? @Nathan, that sounds like a good idea. I'll put something like that in, but I don't know if I'm going to get another update out before 1.0 is upon us. (I hope so; I hope that final 1.0 release isn't that near in the future... and there are a couple of things I would have liked to stick in)

the minimum_drag value has nothing to do with angular drag at all and it does nothing in the stock drag model. It has nothing to do with your decoupling problems. That happens if you attach the ring too high up so that its bottom node is connected to the heat shield (FYI, exception to the above information: minimum_drag IS used when my mod Stock Drag Fix is installed to enable alternate, orientation based drag that the stock system keeps disabled. But it still has nothing to do with your problem)

How about bacon flavored salt?

I've never had a problem using SDF and FS airbrakes together Now can someone explain to me why a feral cat is sitting on my desk eating off my plate while I type this??? (edit: actually, most airbrake parts are grossly overpowered no matter whether it's stock, SDF, FAR or NEAR)

No I don't think DRE should be making changes to a config for someone else's mod. A config that they crafted for DRE. It probably worked at some point but they need to rework that config to work with the new DRE. However it wouldn't make sense for them to do so for what is essentially a beta release. Try patching it with this: @PART[[COLOR=#333333]FASAApollo_CM_HeatShield] { @maxTemp = 1250 } The heat shield section itself needs going over; it has some extraneous entries that might have been for an older version of DRE that was deprecated before ever being released (pyrolysisLoss?) Those dont cause problems but it calls attention to the entire section. Not sure that those configurations are really good. (doesnt matter as much for the alternate heating model and you should leave that enabled especially for settings that were designed to use it specifically)

From what I can tell, it abstracts reentry damage rather than trying to calculate things. It's not altitude based, it's velocity based where velocities over a certain value decrease the odds of successful reentry. Which is how it should be because velocity is what determines how intense your reentry heating is. btw magico, rather than using a static threshold, you could use maxTemp. Compare it to velocity - 270.53, which will give you a good idea of the maximum possible temperature that anything should be reaching. (shockwave temperature in Kelvins = velocity in meters per second. -270.53 to convert to Celsius If you're interested, there's some some useful formula here: https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_delegations/designee_types/ame/media/Section%20III.4.1.7%20Returning%20from%20Space.pdf Page 16 has a formula for determining maximum heating and the altitude where it occurs. (ignore the graphs; they seem to have left a 0 off of the altitudes implying that maximal heating occurs at 6km which is wrong)

Ah ok, thanks

I dunno, I think that far ahead... how about the honor system?

Well, trying to finish those contracts except now the investor keeps catching fire and exploding before I can give him a tour. I don't see a causal relationship to Contract Configurator, Tourism Pack or Waypoint Manager, those being the only changes before this started happening. Unless CC or WM add PartModules to the kerbalEVA part?? > INVESTIGATE EXPLODING KERBAL Time passes... doing some poking and prodding here and in the quicksave file it looks like when Neldos (the investor Kerbal) is part of a vehicle, his reference transform is named kerbalEVA (Neldos Kerman) when it should be referenceTransform.... not saying that's the cause but it's raising some red flags in my head. Still poking at it including taking steps to ensure that it's not either of two of some of my own mods (Stock Drag Fix and Deadly Reentry) Edit: Well, I have to conclude it wasn't any of the mods... I think it was just a KSP glitch. I found the process behind it all... the part's state field in the save file was set... which then apparently caused an error when the part went off rails. The part never properly loaded in and absorbed heat from the rover which it couldn't dissipate because its own code wasn't executing. As to the ultimate cause, who knows.

What setting are you using? (Easy, Normal, Hard, Alternate or RSS? hint: it should be RSS) That said, if your shield is exploding at 750 then that's a problem. The heat shield on an Apollo was known to have gone as high as 1260 on one flight. (that wasn't typical though; usually it was lower even on lunar returns.) Anyway, shield parts in DRE are usually at least as high as 1250. Might help to put up your Module Manager cache file. It's in the GameData and it's named ModuleManager.ConfigCache That would probably tell me more than logs would in a situation like this. - - - Updated - - - If you're using the beta then no, there shouldn't be a version file. If I get around to moving the beta to official download then it'll get a version file. But at the rate things are going, I suspect that KSP 1.0 will be upon us before then which will require quite a bit of gutting of DRE to make use of the new heat system

I just had a thought! (scary, I know) Instead of outright murder, they SPACE the victim! Literally he gets removed from the ship and spawned outside. Now Kerbin / Mun / Kerbol / Duna has a new satellite...

Downloaded 1.0.1 and it killed 3 tourism contracts that I had in progress. (2 station visits and the investor contract) The log indicated that the contracts no longer met requirements. (Ex. ContractConfigurator.ConfiguredContract: Removed contract 'Tourism: three tourists to visit Station K1', as it no longer meets the requirements.) Log file if you want it: https://www.dropbox.com/s/m200eu6jjqbry03/output_log.tourism.zip?dl=1 For now I'm reverting back to 1.0 to see if I can complete those contracts and then maybe update... EDIT: Ack, I left out the most important part. It didn't just kill those contracts, I had some null ref errors and was unable to click buildings or go to the investor tour rover. (didn't look at the errors too closely but maybe that was caused by having an investor in the rover who had been deleted by ContractConfigurator?)

Then you need to modify your reentry as Hodo said. What sort of angle are you coming in at? Have you tried something more shallow? You need to do as much of your deceleration (edit: i.e. aerobraking) as possible in the upper atmosphere.

Liters reported is actual volume of the tank. Utilization over 1 is how you get gaseous compression for things like xenon gas so those tanks can support a total volume greater than the tank volume