Starwaster

I don't care how cool the new engine balancing feature is, nothing is going to top the porkchops....

Uhm yeah that bit about not recognizing the engine when they're on the same part isn't true. I'm not sure it was ever true (Sippy: sorry, didn't get to look at that yet, glad you got it working)

Take your time, and rest yourself.

No, it's possible to do, that's how SRB's work.... I'll look over your part config. Right off the top though, you're missing a bracket in the config you posted, at the end. (to close the part) Edit: No, basemass = -1 isn't the reason. You do want that, in all probability, but what it does is tell RF to use the part's mass instead of calculating the tank mass. That way, if you're recreating a historical part, it will be accurate as far as mass goes. (of course, if you change the tankage from what the stage had historically, then it wont be realistic)

Yeah except that we're treating everything as if it has common bulkheads.

Yes, I agree that it would be nice.

Yes and he's saying that it orients the opposite way from from what is normal for space launches, which is typically 'heads down' And no, there's no options for overriding it. Though one could place probe stack core rotated 180 degrees and control from there. As a work around.

Real Fuel volume units are in liters. Most parts volume in liters can be found by multiplying the stock value by 5. Pressurized tanks such as those containing gaseous xenon have larger sizes because that is the volume of the gas uncompressed. If there's any deviation from the stock volume x5 then it's because someone felt that the new volume was a more realistic value. Again, in liters.

If you don't see some extra controls when you right click then it sounds like you don't have the latest version installed. In addition to a button for disabling automatic fairing sizing, there's controls for modifying the fairing after you've disabled the automatic setting. Edit: The video above your post shows the new controls.

No recent changes to g force behavior. I don't know about the Manley thing. How old is that video (and how old a version of DRE?) Can't say much about his Kerbaldeaths but he probably spent awhile at over 6G and it added up after awhile.

things like @PART [*] sections need to be enclosed in brackets too. (some sources differentiate between {} and [] by referring to the former as braces and the latter as brackets to avoid confusion. Or curly brackets and box/square brackets) BTW you should get in the habit of using indentation. It makes code easier to read and debug, much as proper grammar and punctuation do. (see below for your config indented) See? Doesn't this make it easier to understand? @PART[Large_Crewed_Lab]:Final { MODULE { name = ModuleScienceExperiment experimentID = mobileMaterialsLab experimentActionName = Observe Materials Bay resetActionName = Reset Materials Bay useStaging = False useActionGroups = True hideUIwhenUnavailable = True xmitDataScalar = 0.2 FxModules = 0 dataIsCollectable = True collectActionName = Collect Data interactionRange = 1.2 } MODULE { name = ModuleScienceExperiment experimentID = mysteryGoo experimentActionName = Observe Mystery Goo resetActionName = Reset Goo Canister useStaging = False useActionGroups = True hideUIwhenUnavailable = True xmitDataScalar = 0.3 FxModules = 0 dataIsCollectable = True collectActionName = Collect Data interactionRange = 1.2 } } @PART[MK1-2Pod]:Final { MODULE { name = KASModuleContainer maxSize = 300 } }

Only if you've opened it in the editor. If you do that at all the animator gets confused about its true state even if you close it, save and reload. You need to discard that shield and get a new one in the editor. Alternatively, install the ADEPT deployable (3rd party; link in OP) it's a high quality part without the quirks that the DRE inflatable's animation is plagued by.

Read previous posts in this thread.

Sounds like you're using Deadly Reentry and deploying too early.

You can start as Soon as launch or a couple hundred meters but choose a higher turn shape. I start with 50, varied accordingly with initial launch conditions. That avoids any flipping issues with steep turns.

No problems here. Output_log.txt or it didn't happen. Here's how to find your logs. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92229-How-To-Get-Support-%28READ-FIRST%29

The same is true of the mod. When maximum g-force is reached, the game begins a running total of how much g-forces have been experienced. On the default setting ('Normal' in the difficulty menu) when it reaches 450000 a warning message is displayed to the player. At 900000, fatalities are incurred. The 'damage' is taken every FixedUpdate, so every 1/20th of a second. Odds of death after lethal limits are reached is 1% every FixedUpdate. If you open the debug menu you can change the values for the warnings and absolute limits. However, all that said: Your Kerbals are not dying because the mod is too harsh on them. They're dying because you're imposing harsh conditions on them. Instead of monkeying with the settings you should be modifying your launch or reentry procedures (or both, whichever is killing them I dont know) until your Kerbals survive. Mine aren't dying unless I deliberately expose them to reentries that are too steep or launches aboard vehicles with excessive TWR. It's really not that hard

It would make more sense to heat it up before injecting it into the exhaust, and you can essentially do that for free by passing it through the nozzle in the same manner as regenerative cooling. Otherwise you're suffering from an unnecessary loss of performance I think they're talking about pure LF tanks which are heaver, presumably on the grounds that they're airplane parts and need the extra structural reinforcement. If you look at LF only tanks you'll see they're not only heavier but that they also have increased crash tolerance. But, you're right, for rocket parts it wouldn't make sense. (although, if you were to get into using LH2 as it should be done, then you're using larger fuel tanks and so they're more massive because of that. But I don't think that was what was meant?

Well let's put them to work too!

I'm offended that you left out Festivus!

I think if Squad hadn't collectively gone home for the holidays that they would have shut that down already.

The question is resolved though and even quoted several posts ago. Opt out yes. Text removal no. Not happening. I'm at a loss as to how that can possibly be made more clear, barring flashing neon. Edit: Actually maybe I can make it clearer: An option for disabling text IS in, courtesy of Taniwha and already accepted and merged.

Oooo so that's what the light green bars mean. Well, that and $3 will get me a cup of coffee I guess.

Well actually I was speaking fairly broadly. Not just for that feature or even for this thread, or even in other threads where I contribute. Or other games... (SWTOR Online)

Woah Sarbian dude 2.5.6 change notes say you fixed your stupidity? Fix mines next!!