King Arthur

I'm pretty sure the color of rocket exhaust depends on what they're burning. I always presumed (and liked the idea of) that the LV-T30/T45/909 and the Poodle/Skipper/Mainsail burned a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen mix which produces that purple-bluish exhaust kind of similar to the SSMEs.

To be fair, you asked "What mod is telling you the G's?" and the only thing showing Gs is the stock G-Force gauge next to the navball.

The gauge to the right of the navball indicates G-forces currently being imparted on the vehicle. The aircraft in that screenshot's pulling 9g which is quite a lot.

My vote also goes to Microsoft Security Essentials. It co-exists with Windows the best out of any AV out there thanks to MS being the developer for both MSE and Windows. MSE also has absolutely no bloat compared to other AV suites like Avast, MSE deals with viruses and nothing more.

http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/hayabusa2/index.html Official JAXA page for those that want it.

You do realize that, technically speaking, there's absolutely no difference between stock parts and mod parts, right?

I've have MJ auto-dock surprisingly well on a number of cases as well. Personally I have MJ fly the docking if there's plenty of open space and monoprop to spare (low risk dockings), if I'm docking something excessively heavy (in my case a 99t can of fuel...) that manually flying it would be just plain annoying, or if I'm docking something that requires absolute precision that I cannot in any way provide through manual docking. This all presuming RCS is reasonably balanced, of course. Otherwise I dock with PAR- and manual flying since I can fly around busy/crowded stations far more safely and handle RCS-unbalanced ships better than MJ can. Something I've noticed with MJ's auto-docking is that it does not seem to use or account for reaction wheels. I can fly RCS-unbalanced ships to a docking safely since I wait for the reaction wheels to counter-torque the RCS unbalance every-so-often, unlike MJ's auto-docker that just applies a continuous stream of RCS to attempt to correct and end up freaking out. EDIT: Might be mistaken about the struck-out part above, just had MJ pilot one of my orbiters with just one set of RCS perfectly. Auto-docking is weird I say...

PAR- is really nice since it lets MJ handle the heading and roll angles, which it can do with much better precision than you can, while letting you still have manual control over translation since you would in general be far more fuel-efficient and fly safer than MJ. Best of both worlds and whatnot. Incidentally, PAR- is shorthand for "parallel negative". What PAR+/- does is it orients your ship parallel to that of your target, with the +/- dictating whether you point in the same direction as or against the direction of your target. Think of cars on a straight road for an easy analogy, PAR+ is two cars on the same side of the road traveling in the same direction, while PAR- is two cars on opposing sides of the road traveling in opposite directions.

I realize my asking this is akin to throwing oil into a blazing inferno and then setting fire to the fire trucks, so I'm going to keep this as polite as I can and ask that others do the same. Would it be possible to, at some point, provide an alternative archive(s) with textures that aren't quite as ginormously huge and high-resolution as they are right now? KSO_25.tga alone weighs in at 16MB and is 2048x2048. Just the two 1.25m and 2.5m orbiter packs alone weigh in at ~562MB, this is simply ludicrous; B9 is usually thought of as a heavy mod but this is easily 5x+ its size. I understand and have read that ATM is strongly suggested, in bold, in the OP; I have understood that completely and ask that replies along the lines of "just install ATM" or "don't complain" be saved for other times. My setup is currently such that I fortunately do not require ATM to achieve stable play.

I wasn't talking about whether you personally needed more than one set of RCS thrusters, I was asking whether this problem still persists on a ship of similar design with two sets of RCS thrusters placed in reasonable balance around the CM. Similar to how MJ completely freaks out during auto-dock if the RCS thrusters are horribly unbalanced with regards to the CM, a singular set of RCS thrusters also seems to freak MJ out. I don't know why since I am not in the slightest familiar with MJ's code, but there's a very simple and easy workaround that you can try and use if it works. And as I said before, if all else fails MJ will still be able to help you dock ships and station modules more easily than if you did it alone. Setting SmartASS to orient PAR- in relation to your target port will make MJ maintain the proper heading for a docking and can optionally also handle roll angle should you so desire.

I never said he did, in fact I was agreeing with his statement that "the main problem would be the inevitable negative backlash you'd receive after you'd made one."

@Apollo13: I've noticed the same behavior on one of my orbiters that only had one set of RCS thrusters around its CM. MJ flew all of my other orbiters and spaceplanes with two or more sets of RCS perfectly when ordered to auto-dock, presuming the RCS was at least reasonably balanced. So in response to that example given in the screenshot, change the design so you have two sets of RCS (one fore and one aft) reasonably balanced around the CM and try again.

"Don't play god" is one of the most innane and harmful arguments one could make against science.

Elevator + Aileron == Elevon. A elevon is a flight surface that functions as both an elevator and an aileron.

Last I checked, adapter parts have fuel lines running through them.

MJ's auto-docking has always been somewhat unreliable, I'm not going to fault anyone on this. It's just the way things are. Personally, I only use MJ's auto-docking when I'm flying low-risk docking manuevers or I require absolute precision that I cannot provide through manual docking. Otherwise, it's generally much safer to fly the docking manually and use SmartASS set to PAR- on target port to maintain attitude and optionally roll angle.

I'm not sure where this hostile air is coming from. The original mod is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) which allows copying and redistribution in any medium/format and building upon the original materials, provided that the author of the original mod is attributed and this deriative/successor mod retains the same license. If you folks have an issue with _Augustus_ handling his own deriative of the Bargain Rocket Parts mod, then make your own fork and show us how it's done. Enough with this crappy atmosphere of hostility.

Personally, I believe the problem lays more in the 48-7S's ludicrous effectiveness. The 48-7S, if we're going strictly by numbers with no regard given to form factor or part count, renders both the Poodle and LV-909 completely and entirely obsolete and renders the entire line of probe-oriented small engines useless with the exception of the ion engine. In my opinion this isn't a problem with the Poodle being underpowered, it's the 48-7S being so supremely overpowered that it has ended up being overbearing. You hear it constantly in this thread and elsewhere, "just tack on a 48-7S instead and you'll get better numbers than <engine>". I remember playing 0.20 many many months ago when we didn't have the 48-7S yet, and as far as I can recall now the go-to lander engines were in fact either the Poodle or LV-909 and maybe the Aerospike if you wanted more power than a 909. Once the 48-7S rolled around in 0.21 or whatever it was though, it just ended up blasting everything else out of the water.

To be clear, loitering near the exhaust of any rocket engine is going to be very bad for your health period. Some form of radiation management should be implemented with reworking the LV-N, this is partially what I meant when I mentioned earlier in the thread that the entire premise that the LV-N is currently working on is fundamentally flawed. The LV-N as it currently is needs a far more thorough reworking for it to become a proper engine with a fun-but-still-agreeably-realistic purpose, instead of something lazy like "oh just reduce the ISP" or "oh just increase its cost".

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate. The KR-2L with the state KSP is in right now needs the high thrust. Currently the 1.25m (Jeb's Junkyard/C7 Aerospace), 2.5m (Rockomax/Kerbodyne), and 3.75m (Kerbodyne) engines follow a simple and easy power growth pattern of "small->medium (used to be large prior to ARM)->large" respectively, with the LV-T30 maxing out the 1.5m engines at 215kn, the LFB KR-1x2 topping out the 2.5m engines at 2000kn (outpowering the Mainsail at 1500kn), and the S3 KS-25x4 capping out the 3.75m engines (and consequently the entire stock engine lineup) at 3600kn. At 2500kn, the KR-2L is the smallest of the 3.75m engines and is only running a 500kn difference from the 2.5m engines. Literally, without nerfing all of the other smaller engines across the board, the KR-2L cannot be nerfed while still preserving the "small->medium->large" pattern of engine power growth. At the same time, the KR-2L cannot have its vacuum ISP reduced as it's an oversized analogue of the real-life J-2 and J-2X which were also upper stage engines tuned for performance in vacuum. The crux of the issue with the KR-2L is that it serves as the "Poodle" of the Kerbodyne lineup, tuned for flying in space, but cannot reduce its thrust any lower than it currently is without being overshadowed by the 2.5m lineup. For what it's worth though, the KR-2L is an absolutely terrible engine to consider using for a 1st stage as its atmosphere ISP is 280, clearly inferior to most of the "launcher" tuned engines.

Besides the LV-909, Aerospike, Poodle, 48-7S, and the Ion (?!) engine, most of the other engines are too tall to be practical for landers and/or have terrible ISP. I see that as a benefit, I have the option of unloading a TWR of 14 should the need for such a thing arise. Having too much TWR is never a bad thing. The Poodle is the go-to engine for a 2.5m lander owing to the Poodle's 2.5m + low-profile form factor. If you want to min-max like you're playing a serious-business-mode MMO, all the more power to you, but I want to build and fly rockets that are aesthetically pleasing. I don't consider a 48-7S stuck onto a 2.5m fuel tank nor a huge cluster of 48-7Ss to be aesthetically pleasing.

Emphasis underline. With all due respect, I am adamantly against fear-mongering-driven perceptions along the lines of "RADIATION KILLS!!! NUKE VERY BAD!!!1!1!!1", they add no educational value and in fact encourages ignorance and lack of proper understanding of nuclear technology and its applications. Radiation is bad, don't get me wrong, but radiation won't just kill you like a bullet out of the sky unless we're talking something severely excessive.

I'm glad that we can at least agree on something despite our differing opinions on the matter, that the Poodle still is a legitimate choice among others for a lander. It's not the best engine for the job going strictly by numbers, but at least we can both agree the Poodle is a usable lander engine.

Sounds like a problem with a sudden change in TWR and accelleration during separation of the SRBs. I doubt KJR would be suspect here, since if anything KJR would be helping you keep everything stay nicely connected.

That's a very basic stock lander that I whipped up in like 10 minutes. Plenty of clearance beneath the Poodle with the legs extended and I'm not even trying to place the legs as low as possible, so I call bull at this notion that the Poodle is too tall.