Starwaster

It shouldn't droop so much. The only reason I can think why you'd have it like that is because of certain real life examples you might have seen like Concorde or the MiG-21. But those were articulated. In the case of the Concorde the nose would be depressed during take-offs and landings so the pilot can have maximum visibility. But during actual supersonic flight you'd want that to be as straight as possible. And pointier. So, long, straight and pointy. And textured. Please learn UV mapping and slap a texture on that sucker.

it's probably another mod possibly combined with something about your specific rocket build that's causing delta-V to calculate incorrectly. for instance non-stock decouplers, the interstage adapter of procedural fairings and possibly certain modular fuels engine configurations. Any one of the above might be enough to cause it or in conjunction with other mods. also for example, I can build a craft with 3 MF tanks and engines and deltaV calculates just fine. But then I put two of those tanks on decouplers with fuel feeds into the center tank and it either miscalculates that stage or shows No delta at all for that stage. but stretchy tanks shouldn't be a factor in that. not that I've noticed

thx amo28! I used to be fairly solidly of the belief that Isp was everything, and it definitely is important but delta-V is also linked to the mass of the propellant you're throwing out the back. I guess one way of looking at it is that H2 might provide the best Isp in a given engine design but then you have to look at the fact that because it's so light you might need a lot more of it to achieve your desired delta-V. that's especially true of the nuclear engines. and more H2 means more tank dry mass I do find though that it's become my 'go to' fuel for my heavy lifters simply because it lightens my stages. kethane is interesting too since I modeled the kethane engine configurations from real life methane examples so it's a somewhat lower Isp fuel but its higher density means more mass to 'toss out the back'. kethane tanks arent supposednto be fillable in the vab but I've noticed if you 'auto-configure' your tanks, MFT will load it in even though it says it isn't. definite bug personally the way I'd like to see it work is that if you recover a vehicle with any kethane in it, that quantity will become available to MFT in the VAB. should be feasible if the API allows hooking into the recovery system.

as far as I know, the part is still in the mod. However if the AR202 part is not present in the mod for any reason then any craft in any save file you load will be deleted.

wow I lost IQ points just reading that... nobody move until I find them

I could but that would ruin the joke! wait I did it just now didn't I?

Reaction wheels, so that is what's happening to me. So bizarre that it was working before... I think what might have happened is that I applied a MM patch to remove all legacy SAS functionality... that left only the reaction wheels so the flight computer choked?

no SAS isnt on. AND I've disabled MJ since it was my prime suspect and still no joy so a massive WTH right there... there was a compatibility dll? I must have missed that. is it on the front page? I'd give RT2 a try but I'm still too entrenched in my current established universe. how much does it break? EDIT: Ok now THIS is interesting. I toggled off reaction wheels and the input oscillation changed to stronger input attempts. then I realized that this probe (unlike most that I've fielded) actually had RCS so I turned that on and it behaved as expected and responded to flight computer instructions... so the issue is that for whatever reason it cant or wont use reaction wheel torque. that gives me something new to search the thread for. (and yes, plenty of electricity)

hi all, I'm using RT1 in 0.21 and I'm trying to track down possible mod conflict when using the Flight Computer. basically what I'm looking for here is just to see if anyone else here has encountered this before I start standard troubleshooting which means disabling plugins and reenabling them with restart times of 3 minutes each time problem is that when I click any nodes in the flight computer the craft sits there and quivers. I can see the inputs oscillating gently back and forth for pitch, roll and yaw. If the craft was spinning it seems to take the time to stabilize but then starts quivering. the only thing that makes sense would be an MJ2 conflict but I've been using MJ all along other mods with active plugins are procedural fairings, stretchytanks, modular fuels, docking alignment and thrust corrector. none of which seem like they would cause this. so has anyone else run into this before?

And that's great! Experimentation is what the game is about. Except that last in the OP questioning what good ion engines are... sorry I just had to facepalm when I got to that part. Edit: (not to mention the very title of the thread)

Hey! You can't fool me! That last photo in the OP isn't from the game! Nice try buster.

Who did that?

regardless of how little time I might spend in IVA, the one time I do, I dont want to see a crappy IVA or worse, no IVA at all.

they're for small probes. or maybe Gilly or Minmus landers if you're daring but would you try to install an engine from a VW bug into an Abrams main battle tank? no. so dont try to install something with such low TWR on a large station sized ship. thats not what they're about. read up on IRL ion engines.

Yes, confirmed. KW works just fine in 0.21 @all (not zzz) Why do people not even TRY parts packs and instead just assume that 'it needs to be updated'? Look it's true that when KSP updates that there's no guarantee that your favorite mod will still work. However, the reverse is also true. When KSP updates there's no guarantee that your favorite mod WON'T work. Also, Kerbal Attachment System (KAS) does work in 0.21 (as is, right now)

Put another way, once you branch out, the branches (children) can't merge into a single point again.

Put an ion engine on top pointing up.

Love night-time launches. Where did you put the lights, on the gantries? That's where I like putting them.

Mars. Definitely Mars. Or bust.

Fairings, like potato chips and Klingons, are better with ridges.

Wow so that was a long absence of the forums. Felt like a year even if it was just a few days. So, here's a peculiar thing about the exploding ships. I've had some ships just vanish. They weren't active so they were on rails and they just disappeared without a trace. But I can't duplicate that one and I'd done some editing of the save file so it could well have been a PEBCAK issue. The other one is fairly reproducible. In a particular ship keeps getting messed up if I load the game with the Crew Support plugin. It doesn't literally explode, what happens to it is that it vanishes from my view. If I switch back and forth to other ships I can get this ship back and one of its parts looks like it's missing (the hitchhiker pod) Other parts look like they've moved around on the ship. But I know that it is intact because I can use Crew Manifest to see that the pod is still attached. It's like similar bugs I've seen where a part's center of mass is bugged. (usually because they were modeled poorly like the H.O.M.E. Greenhouse)

Dare I say it? Valley Forge!

That link isn't working, can you double check plz? I think you either need to do some (maybe a bunch) of test burns in orbit for comparison. One of MechJeb's functions will display delta-V loss to gravity. (it's not in any default window, I think you have to add it. It's in the Recorder category when editing windows) Either that or find a tool to calculate gravity loss during planetary transfer burns. Just curious, ARE those two side tank/engines boosters? Are they going to be dropped? They're sort of reminiscent of the nuclear tug option von Braun was proposing for the Mars mission in the 70s. Two tugs in identical configuration to the main rockets (I think) would boost it until just before escape velocity then they'd be jettisoned so they could be recovered in orbit and reused. (damn we were ambitious back then) I'm considering something like that myself.

so how about a greenhouse version of the geodesic half dome thing?

you edited its config file and changed it to say name = Ar.202.2?