Starwaster

It goes in DeadlyReentry/Plugins Just copy it over like you would any other file and overwrite if asked If you did that properly then the plugin is working and you have a different problem. Try increasing the difficulty level using the menu. If that's not good enough, read the past couple of pages, a bunch has been posted on the subject of difficulty.

I don't suppose we know what sort of cameras those pictures were taken with? If digital then the plasma most likely wasn't as bright as it appears in those pictures. Basically imagine the core as being the same color as the outer edges only a little brighter. (digital cameras get oversaturated by bright colors easily)

It's fine in the first example but get rid of the space.

You mean it's not decreasing enough. (because your picture does show it decreasing) Look at this post here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/54954-0-90-Deadly-Reentry-v6-4-0-Dec-16-2014?p=1676709&viewfull=1#post1676709 Follow its instructions

Now just think how much harder brute force password hacking attempts would be if a standard 3 second delay is added after every failed attempt...

Maybe.... I'll take a look at it.

Role reversal.... You should post some sort of license with that, even if it's just a public domain notice... and it's supposed to be in the download file too. (you have no idea how often I've been bitten by that....) I'm curious though, have you tested this against my layered animation module? I'm pretty sure your code should work with that too since I'm just extending the ModuleAnimateGeneric class.... but would be good to know.

How can you even drink tea while there are rockets to crash???

Sorry to hear about that but it's definitely coincidence and not causality. Fairings: Eventually. Can't say when. Cargo Bays: How about right now? Create a file named SDF_CargoBays.cfg in your StockDragFix folder. Copy the spoilerified code below into that file. Save it. (only covers Mk2 & Mk3 cargo bays for now. More will be added later when this config is officially added to SDF) @PART[mk2CargoBayS] { MODULE { name = ModuleCargoBay DeployModuleIndex = 0 closedPosition = 1.0 } } @PART[mk2CargoBayL] { MODULE { name = ModuleCargoBay DeployModuleIndex = 0 closedPosition = 1.0 } } @PART[mk3CargoBayS] { MODULE { name = ModuleCargoBay DeployModuleIndex = 0 closedPosition = 1.0 } } @PART[mk3CargoBayL] { MODULE { name = ModuleCargoBay DeployModuleIndex = 0 closedPosition = 1.0 } } Please note that this relies on stock KSP code that is NOT actually a part of SDF. It's an undocumented and unused PartModule that was added in KSP 0.25 that sets a field named ShieldedFromAirstream. If that field is set to True then the part is ignored for drag. I haven't found any bugs when using it, but if any are found they will almost certainly be outside my ability to fix as this is KSP's own code. Another noteworthy piece of information is that this will also work with Deadly Reentry. Deadly Reentry checks .ShieldedFromAirstream and ignores the part for heating if it is set to True. This config would even work without SDF because it's pure stock. FINALLY: Big Caveat! (forgot to add this) Using this config will almost certainly confuse MechJeb. I'm pretty sure MJ2 does not check the ShieldedFromAirstream field at all when calculating drag and it will confuse the Landing Guidance / Autopilot. Known issue. Check the support threads; I'm pretty sure it got stickied, or if not then that thread will be near the top because it is commented in semi-frequently.

Oops sorry, missed this one. density exponent of 0.6 - 0.5 (this pushes the beginning of serious heating into the upper atmosphere. Small values for exponent mean higher altitude heating because you are dealing with density values of less than one) shockwave exponent OR multiplier IMO is dangerous because it increases the temperature of the otherwise harmless shockwaves to lethal levels. I prefer to play around with density exponent when trying to increase difficulty.

Sorry, I forgot: You have to be in flight mode to access the debug menu. The debug menu code predates the toolbar and was always limited to flight mode. It's on my to-do list to eventually eliminate that Be careful changing anything that says 'exponent' under actual reentry conditions because the text entry has the annoying quirk that you can't type a decimal after the number and it's easy to accidentally enter a large number that could destroy your ship. You have to move the cursor between numbers and then put your decimal

Set it to Hard and click on the Debug Menu item in the settings menu. Set the top 4 items to 1 except for shockwave exponent. Set that to 1.12. Set [heat] multiplier to 20 Hope you like your Kerbals well done. Season to taste. (I mean, change those settings according to preference) But statements like yours and thereverofdarkness bring up an interesting point about the mod: Everyone's experience with it is highly subjective. Partly due to skill and partly due to circumstance. And not to mention the fact that if you're playing on Stock Kerbin then your reentries are going to be a lot cooler than they would be on Earth simply because your reentry velocity is a lot lower. That said, sometimes you just have to consider that when you do things right then your reentry should be survivable regardless of difficulty settings, unless you set something so outrageously out of bounds that it's not survivable no matter what. (i.e. density exponent of 0.1 & shockwave exponent of 10 = cremated Kerbals as soon as they touch the first molecule of air) Create a config file with this text in it anywhere in your GameData folder: @PART[<partname>] { MODULE { name = ModuleHeatShield reflection = 0.25 } } That's your basic heat resistant part that does not use ablation. Replace <partname> with the name of the part as seen in its part config file.

Embarassing. I just realized I was thinking about the DRE 2.5m shield that had the gap. The SDHI shield has another issue entirely but it's barely noticeable....

It's actually possible to assign costs to RF tanks via their configs based on volume. It's just a question of knowing how much and that's the bit I'm unsure of. I've seen shuttle eft quoted as having a cost of... $250 per pound? (IIRC) which seems higher than I'd expect. Whereas atlas rockets were listed at $25. A really big difference....

Turn off the landing predictor

Holy crap. Where was this all my life?

Yeah, I right click stuff all the time in KSP because my mouse is ~14 years old and the left button is overly sensitive. Most menus work ok with that; a few don't.

Who knows? It's never been released. Do you see a download link anywhere? People are still waiting for one.

Maybe some changes in RF's prices are in order then because not everyone uses RP-0 What sort of pricing scheme does RP-0 use?

You're late to the party. The areas in which he's having trouble haven't seen alteration in quite a while. Rendezvous / Launch Into Plane haven't changed since 0.25 The manner in which he's trying to use them is the source of his trouble.

There's a section up near the very top that talks about altering difficulty. Is there some way that you feel it could be made clearer? Also, have you tried changing the difficulty setting to Easy? That will provide immediate relief. I'm not 100% sure what's confusing your friend; is it the predeploy animation itself? What we call 'pre-deployed' corresponds to a real life condition called reefing. The chutes are restricted from opening immediately, allowing them to inflate gradually. In real life, disreefing (using Apollo as a baseline; chutes for other craft may vary) took 10 seconds for the drogues. The mains had a 2 stage disreefing process that took 6+10 seconds. The only thing unusual about the stock pre-deploy is how long they spend in the predeployed state. I assume he didn't see it take that long though since I altered deployment times for all chutes in DRE.

"Tower, this is Jeb. Requesting a flyby!"

Yes, I knew about the bottom decoupler but I don't see what that has to do with wanting one for the top... Adding more mass above the shield would only make a flipping situation worse. Adding ballast to the shield shifts the center of mass downwards The stock animator has a parameter that can be used to change animation speed.

Unfortunately unavoidable with the current system. EVA Kerbals don't actually use resources. That's why you'll notice that if you click on them there is no O2 resource. They use a different system that exists outside the KSP resource system. When an EVA Kerbal is created, his parent vehicle has a calculated amount of O2 deleted from it. The EVA Kerbal then has its own 'proprietary' system initialized with a 'fake' resource set to 100% (or less if the vehicle did not have enough EVA resource) To fix the command chair issue means re-implementing the EVA system, or maybe I could hack it to look for regular resources. It's on my to-do list.... Have you tried time-warping them? They should be popping. They were the last time I tested it. (inadvertantly; I forgot Ioncross was there and then I looked for my EVA Kerbal and couldn't find him...)

I don't think that sounds right either. I went even higher (8.75m x 50m) to simulate a space shuttle EFT which was supposed to have a cost of something like $50M. The dry cost in KSP was 29 or $29,000 in 1965 dollars. ($217,947.43 in today's dollars as calculated here:) Edit: As an additional test I decided to try scaling a Jumbo 64 up to 8m using TweakScale and stacked two of those on top. That gives the approximate size of an EFT. The cost was 561,600 ($561,600,000 c.1965) which is way too expensive. That could be TweakScale's fault though. Have to check and see how it scales cost. Edit Also need to find out some reliable real world tank prices for various sizes of tanks, then and now. Edit #2: I think it was a mistake to involve tweak scale in any kind of comparison with what we get with Procedural Parts tanks. Its behavior is a little screwy and the numbers aren't always consistent on subsequent attempts. Also getting wildly different costs on the EFT when going to different sources. Some of that could be because of inflation differences but I'm just not sure. Need to go with something simpler like maybe Atlas. (shuttle tank was probably needlessly expensive and a bad example)