NathanKell

Assuming you have module manager, put this in a cfg in gamedata: //Starwaster/NathanKell @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines],@RESOURCE[ElectricCharge]]:Final { @RESOURCE[ElectricCharge] { %isTweakable = false %hideFlow = true } } @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX],@RESOURCE[ElectricCharge]]:Final { @RESOURCE[ElectricCharge] { %isTweakable = false %hideFlow = true } }

Use Part Angle Display in conjunction with Firespitter's gear alignment module to ensure the gear are actually aligned with the axis of travel (and straight up, too). See if the problem persists.

TeeGee: in the OP is a link to the FAQ (via the wiki). The FAQ addresses your issue.

Ippo: Huh! Sorry. Fixed.

EVE does not play nice with the new wrapping stuff, since it changes scaledspace mesh scales (and EVE childs its clouds to the atmosphere, which is childed to the scaled space mesh, and scale is inherited).

What do you even mean, "cause...airfoils to malfunction"? You think aluminum's response to too much torsion is to politely stop making lift, As Ferram has pointed out many times in this thread (1) stress failures are gentler than real life. It's just that y'all have gotten so used to doing impossible things in KSP that a bit of reality therapy feels like utter hell. (2) you can turn it off in settings anyway.

Are you using some other RSS config? RSS 6.2 ships with the planets already cached, so no rebuilding necessary.

splooshman: saw it, but was regretfully away so haven't been able to try it yet. Reign of Magic: I see on reddit you got it solved. Yes, ModuleRCSFX is a hard dependency. It used to be in red and bold in the OP because so many people missed it (and many did even after the color/bolding!)... TeeGee: Here is a list of the engines modeled by RealEngines. Check column L, which gives their min throttle (also available on the more-info pane of the parts list, and in the action group editor Engine Config GUI). In essence, there are a few deeply-throttleable lander engines (those used for Viking and the LMDE) and some 1980s+ vintage booster engines that are shallowly-throttleable (SSME, RS-68, NK-33, that sort of thing) to reduce crew G load or for tricore efficiency. Throttling is hard BTW: the usual way is to run the combustion chamber at lower pressure, but that does great harm to sea level Isp in real life (not modeled yet in KSP obviously). Orbital maneuvering engines are usually *not* throttleable (they're usually super-simple, super-rugged pressure-fed hypergolics...throttling is complexity and therefore bad for reliable restarts). Fine-tuning is done by RCS anyway. Makeone: RealEngines follows one very simple rule: whatever an engine does in real life it does in KSP. I don't use KSPI; RF still uses the compatibility file Fractal_UK made for RF many moons ago. So you're saying that's not doing anything, basically?

Ahah! That would do it. Yes, I merged ECLSS_RF into RF. But it does point out a vulnerability, which is being addressed (duplicate tank definitions kill the dictionary). I am know home, although I managed to take a sidewalk to the knee, so I will be getting back up to speed and hope to have v6.x working with EI (and whatever else swamp_ig hasn't fixed already ) quite soon. Apologies.

1. What do you mean "from the start"? The Space Task Group presented two plans for manned flight in the coming decade (the 1960s): one focusing on stations in LEO, and one ending in a manned lunar flyby (or better, orbit) by 1970. (STG was formed in 1958, FYI). Kennedy, once in office, not merely preferred the lunar approach but called for a manned landing by 1970 in direct response to Gagarin, not "from the start." Kennedy didn't care that much for space, anyway; he saw it much as the Politburo saw it, for its propaganda value. Johnson was the actual champion. 2. N-1 suffered from infighting as you say (heck, Glushko got Korolev sent to the gulag in the 30s for crying out loud), in particular resource diversion to Chelomei and the UR series and LK-700 lander, and Korolev having to go with many small engines from a turbojet manufacturer (Kuznetsov) because Glushko refused to make non-hypergolic engines. But it also suffered from the rise in payload capacity required, which necessitated a poor redesign that depended on even more engines in the first and second stages.

somnambulist: I look forward to such a hypothetical pack.

OK, sounds like I need to talk to Medieval Nerd and get the patch out for the new Procedural Fairings (and procedural parts). Regarding over-control: if you're using MechJeb, open Attitude Settings and turn on "use stock SAS." If not, hit capslock to enter fine controls mode; you should have less strong gimbal response.

JebMan223: Ferram made it using procedural parts and some custom-restatted engines. Hodo, Subcidal: this sounds like maybe you have duplicate REALSOLARSYSTEM nodes and the launch sites are being added to the wrong one maybe? Verify you have 1 RealSolarSystem.cfg, 1 dll, and one LaunchSites.cfg. Make sure you have only 1 module manager, and it's 2.1.5. Failing that, post your logs. RSS.cfg should *not* have any launch sites defined in itself, IIRC; if you added some, that might be a problem.

TeeGee: 1. The LV-909 supports Nitrous Oxide + Amines, Kerosene + HTP, and LH2 + LOX. The first two are hypergolic. All three have unlimited ignitions. That selection of mixtures was based on it being a British engine; the British in RftS hate toxic propellants (esp. hydrazine/NTO derivatives) and therefore use those two for their storables rather than others. 2. The LV-T30 is an engine for booster applications. High TWR, high thrust, low expansion ratio. The Skipper is an upper stage engine: lower TWR, low thrust, and high expansion ratio for upper atmosphere/vacuum use. As I explained before, engine bell size has little to do with thrust--you can only compare bell sizes between engines with the same expansion ratio. 3. The large radial engine, as its description says, is a derivative of the Miles and used solely for booster applications. The small radial is a vernier for booster engines, same deal. Where I got these engine stats from is "what would be a good role for this engine, what would a realistic engine with approximately this appearance do" and then balanced the stats against reality (in particular, ignitions based on role, TWR based on extensive research). The most realistic engine stats are obviously RealEngines. Until recently, they haven't had engine ignitor support; coldblade2000 just uploaded a patch, however; check the end of the RO thread (or this thread). At this point, if none of the engine configs that are available are to your taste: make your own. It's not hard; in the second post in RF I link the tool I use to make configs; it's not that hard to use and has extensive documentation. Then you'll have exactly the configs you want. ==== Re: RFv6, EI: I'm investigating the issue as soon as I get home.

amo28: grep for TANK_DEFINITION | grep ServiceModule My guess is you have two definitions of ServiceModule.

Huh. Well, the more you know. Cheers.

In this particular case it's justified IMO; for the same reason RF simulates boiloff by directly changing tank amounts.

Presumably you have an install error, and something's breaking during load. Upload your output log (NOT ksp.log) to dropbox or something. Windows: KSP_win\KSP_Data\output_log.txt Mac OSX: Open Console, on the left side of the window there is a menu that says 'files'. Scroll down the list and find the Unity drop down, under Unity there will be Player.log Aka Files>~/Library/Logs>Unity>Player.log Linux: ~/.config/unity3d/Squad/Kerbal\ Space\ Program/Player.log

Sorry, I got nuthin. Do a binary search on your mods?

So...you hack gravity, and KSP crashes, and then you blame a partmod for a kraken attack?

pingopete: Start here https://github.com/NathanKell/RealSolarSystem/blob/master/RealSolarSystem/RealSolarSystem.cfg#L631 Uncomment the SSF and PQS lines; make sure SSFEnd is before/at PQSfadeStart (so PQS is showing before Scaledspace fades away), match the PQSSecs to the regular PQS lines, and set deactivate altitude above PQSfadeEnd Hodo: that's weird. Do you not have LaunchSites.cfg?

There are four released mods that include Soyuz. And for the love of gawd stop ordering people to do things!

Uh, since TGA is just a header + channels in RAW (or RLE compressed), whether you have a channel visible or not in PS is sure as heck not going to get into the file.

Look up the RL-10. It's sure as heck not hypergolic, and yet is designed for many ignitions. Regarding nozzle size, I get asked that about twice a week. The tl;dr is "look up expansion ratio" but here's something I just posted to the RPL thread. Regarding fuel mixtures: in RftS, each of the major spacefaring nations has some mixtures they prefer, and some that everyone uses (kerolox, hydrolox). The British use kerosene and HTP, for example, and amines / nitrous oxide; the Germans Nitric Acid (later NTO) and UDMH; the Americans Nitric Acid and aniline, then NTO/AZ50 or NTO/MMH. As to why limited: understand that, besides the LANTR, AFAIK *no* rocket engines are actually designed to run on different fuel mixtures. So as it stands we're already breaking credulity by this idea you can switch fuel modes. The LR-87 is the only engine that has operated with all three classes (kerolox, hypergolics, hydrolox) although there were obviously extensive modifications to the engine each change. This, frankly, is why the stockalikes configs exists: to give (unrealistic) freedom for people who just want MOAR FUEL MODES without realistic sizes or constraints.

The mod's Releases page. https://github.com/rbray89/EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements/releases