NathanKell

Cockpit is Sam Hall's Kerbonov cockpit, I think.

As I said in my post, Windows x64 KSP (which you did NOT run, as said above) is not stable. Also, the 1GB mentioned in the log is for your video card.

Well, AIES doesn't have them. KW...not sure why they don't have them; maybe the RO engine configs default to no-shroud. At any rate, the procedural interstage IMO obviates the need for autoshrouds (which often get in the way anyway). It's unlikely your stages will be exactly the same diameter as you engines anyway.

I also want to push for that: I recently did a pass through all stock and (decent) modded engines I coudl find, and it's depressing how so very, very many of them either don't have any cycle at all, or have both exhaust and preburner and exhaust manifold, or whatever. Also, GIANT TANKBUTT. So I eagerly, desperately await your bringing more magic to engines

Closed by request.

I wouldn't call having changed version of the archives that are in compliance with the new rules, *despite* desperately job hunting and being otherwise busy in RL as "not a single word." Please try to contain your impatience, and your dislike for the guy who is taking a slight break from giving you things for free.

Actually, you can do the same thing that engines and some pods do: add an autoshroud to the heatshield that appears when the bottom node has something attached, and then leaves with the attached part.

chicknblender: you know it! I have replicated the issue and I'm currently trying to figure out what the HECK is causing it. In doing so I, uh, fixed some other bugs I noticed in the code. How it goes. FocalDistance: cool!

Unity engine limits textures to 8192x8192.

Oh, my sympathies! I, uh, know how that happens >.>

Legacy would be great. I haven't had a chance to try that or anything yet, sorry :\

I thought alexmun's calculator assumed a near-circular orbit? If you're opening this up to elliptical orbits, then boy howdy are you in for a world of hurt Still possible, but.... Oh, and you're most welcome, though sounds like you already basically had it

Yeah, what Porkjet said. For colliders, I think for prefabs you might have to do it in Unity; if you export the collider from max it may be taken as a mesh collider instead. But I don't really know Unity, so get a second opinion (Porkjet's, who does )

That is the plan, I believe.

Thanks for attaching logs! (And welcome to the forums!) You ran out of memory.* Use fewer part mods and/or use Active Texture Management in aggressive mode (and if you already are, increase the scale= parameter). *Note that the version of KSP you are using is 32bit, and therefore limited to approximately 3.3GB of memory at a time. However, the only stable 64bit version of KSP is for linux.

radinator: Ok. I plan to fix that issue anyway using MM's new features. steve_v, thanks!

The installation issue, I hasten to point out, is not really an issue for the casual mod user, unless you really want to make the case that "unzipping a zip file to your KSP folder" is really too high a bar. I mean the particular case of the pack-less modpack, Realism Overhaul, which has a list of required mods (and an installation order) that is...longer than some short stories.

Well, a solar panel rewrite could raycast around the circumference of the sun vs. against its center, so that could be fixed. Also, Alshain, awesome info! Thanks!

I did not read Tiberion as saying the OP was "one of the knuckleheads." In fact I think mololabo did a great job of addressing (even if not fully allaying for some) worries regarding her/his modpack. This is why I went out of my way (as others did as well) to praise mololabo for doing it the right way, even though I think some of the concerns mentioned are well justified. The flipside (and why I said "some" rather than "most" or "all") is that "install it yourself and keep it up to date" means for those of us dealing with a suite of mods (the non-modpack version of a modpack) we have to field a *ton* of support requests regarding installing stuff because, even those "extract a zip" ought to be easy, apparently it's not, but more importantly because the steps *are* somewhat complicated when order matters. So the lack of a Realism Overhaul package (mostly in deference to modder dislike of modpacks, and to the cogent arguments regarding fracturing and version-mismatch, although goodness knows that happens now) directly leads to more work for me.

Looking awesome. The math for creating the maneuver node shouldn't be too bad; you can use MJ's code to plot where (aka when) on the orbit your ejection angle matches the required one, and then just use trig to calculate the components based on the inclination-angle and magnitude of the ejection kick the plotter already gives you.

To restart an engine you need: 1. Parts that aren't broken/melted/etc. 2. A way to ignite the fuel and oxidizer (if they aren't hypergolic) 3. Propellant (not vacuum or boiloff or pressurant) in the feed lines, aka fuel stability. If your engine is pump-fed (i.e. anything but pressure-fed), you also need a way to start the pump itself, which will have similar requirements to the above. I mention 1 because people don't usually consider the fact that rocket engines are not designed to last all that much longer than their nominal burntime. Some have ablative combustion chambers (which will go boom if you keep firing long enough and the wall ablates away), some have ablative nozzles, and all of them will suffer component wear in the super-high-temperature, super-high-pressure environment that is the pump, the turbine, the combustion chamber, and the nozzle. If the engine is pressure-fed you can ignore the first two (which would go a long way in explaining why almost all "orbital maneuvering engines" like Transtage, SPS, the Shuttle OME, etc, are pressure-fed.*) *And, for that matter, all derivatives of the same Aerojet engine that was designed for the Aerobee sounding rocket in the early 50s, used on Vanguard (our first launcher), and is even proposed for Orion. Note that the RL-10 is also a common "space taxi" engine, but its cycle (expander) is also a decent one for relighting. Finally, to ensure that propellant *stays* in the feed lines and the pump doesn't have to work too hard, you need to pressurize your tanks to a higher level than you might otherwise (note that *all* tanks are pressurized, but the ones for pressure-fed engines are much, much more pressurized). So: pressure-fed means lower performance. Reliability means lower performance and higher cost. Adding multiple uses to an ignition system lowers reliability and increases cost. That said, there's nothing preventing many rocket engines from being ignited more than once as long as the total runtime doesn't go over-limit and the three issues are seen to: engines undergo acceptance testing (a test fire) before they're launched, generally. But that test fire is done on a test rig, where 1-3 are assured, and is short enough that there's still enough life left for the actual use. Part of what made the Shuttle so insanely costly was the requirement to refurbish rather than replace the SSMEs (after, it must be pointed out, they were subject to an entire ascent's worth of firing, *and* a reentry).

Answering over on the RealFuels thread

chicknblender: reread your post (and saw your new one) in a much more awake state. Now I know what's going on. 750m/s is the KrakensBane threshold velocity, so clearly something in ModuleRCSFX is breaking in re: KrakensBane. I'll dig more.

Oh, I totally wasn't criticizing; just saving you some googling.

There's a mod for that.