NathanKell

Ah, cool! And that's not liable to be a root part, so it should be safe. Also, don't think I mentioned before--that was genius, stitching those adapters together to get the different size ends. Well done!

Things that will extra-super never be true: there are enough rocket engines without tank butts in KSP.

Galane: I know you didn't. You asked for suggestions, and I made one: fix the issue with ReStock that comes from a non 1.0 rescaleFactor for its parts. I then provided an example of how to fix the CockpitMk2B, hoping you would follow that example and fix the other parts too.

The Mod Bundler, as it says, is defunct right now. OtherBarry and I are working to resurrect it. For now, though, you'll need to manually update your mods. Yes, I do need the output_log.txt, and also the versions of all mods you have installed.

Ah, cool! Glad that's sorted.

There is no one set "convention": See here for a long discussion. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/76644-Is-there-a-standard-for-where-to-root-the-ZIP-archive-of-a-mod-download Many do place GameData in the root of the zip; however, this is bad for Mac users since they are wont to extract the folder, move it to the KSP folder, and blow away their GameData because they forgot to merge instead of move. Another convention is to skip the GameData folder entirely and place the stuff that would be extracted into GameData at the root of the zip; then install instructions can say simply "extract the archive to GameData." Further, including installation instructions is always a good idea to have install instructions, no matter how simple the install might look. Heck, even with instructions people get it wrong...

While they are completely separate models, the vessel *is* rendered from inside the IVA view, so you will (for example) see the plane's nose.

This is very, very good advice. Just a note: remember that size on disk does not equate to size in memory. MBMs are uncompressed on disk; a 1024x1024 texture will consume 3MB of space. Ingame it uses 512KB. A PNG version of the same texture might use only 200KB on disk (or, if it's mostly 1 color, only 50KB!); but ingame it will still use 512KB of memory.

asmi is still away, catching up on things. ECLSS is still on hiatus. There have not been fixes, so it's probably best to use TAC in the interim; for the record, however, I have yet to personally encounter a bug with ECLSS. But then again I don't play much.

We need your KSP/KSP_Data/output_log.txt (or player.log on Mac/linux). Just saying "it won't load" doesn't really give us any information.

Ooh, this is interesting. And it should play nice with life support mods, if I understand the mechanics correctly.

Cool! I'd say you should just ask blackheart to make the proper-aspect-ratio interstage; shouldn't take him long to rescale the model. Also you might want to check in with RaccoonTOF, who's also been making an SLS out of the Kerbodyne parts (on the RO thread a few pages back)...and also making one of the NK-33 models floating around into an AJ26.

Yes, pinching at 66% would be great. (I use AJE, in case that wasn't obvious). I'd say, make whatever jets seem good to you; most all 60s jet nozzles are going to look alike or at most need a repaint, so if you make like 3-4 visually distinct ones, should be able to cover almost all jet age engines....

Zyglrox: my sincere apologies. Will fix. velusip: EVE 7.x has problems with RSS. Look at the last few pages of the RSS thread.

Also you didn't follow the instructions in the OP. You have the wrong engine configs (ie both). You need RftS, not RealEngines. (And for RealEngines, the config you do have, the sizes and thrusts are not arbitrary at all, they're 100% real. KSP engine models and sizes for their roles and thrusts compared to real are as wrong as KSP aerodynamics is compared to real. Look up some actual engines. Vacuum nozzles need to be huge.)

FAR has a terminal velocity readout. I'd be interested to see you hit it with a constant 2.0TWR, going straight up.

Meh, if you're careful with your angle of attack and sideslip, and have sufficient gimbal authority, you should be ok with a statically-unstable vegetable launcher. You'll suffer comparatively horrendous drag losses (although probably *still* less than stock's soupodynamics), and you'll have to start your turn exceptionally early and be very careful, but you should be ok. Note that terminal velocity is unreachable, no matter the rocket, assuming you have a sane TWR. Don't worry about terminal velocity unless you plan to launch with a 2.5TWR and burn out at like 20Gs; but then, what should be worrying you is your TWR anyway.

Make a ramdisk. Put KSP on it. Presto.

Yep. (10char)

AndreyATGB: the fourth number in a color is the alpha (RGBA). Leave it at 1.0. For RGB, divide the traditional 0-255 value by 255, so bright blue (0,0,255) would become (0,0,1.0,1.0). Brown would be (0.5, 0.25, 0, 1.0) (~128 red, ~64 green, 0 blue, 1.0 alpha). I hadn't noticed the atmosphere is uneven; that's weird. I have no idea why. Maybe it has to do with the side the sun is on? Benoit: AHAH! Either I missed you mentioning this, or you hadn't mentioned it before, but...you're disabling the earth textures!? No wonder your launch sites are going to be messed up! Because one of the earth textures is the heightmap, and the launch site locations were created based on the terrain generated from (among other things) that heightmap. You're going to have to move KSC (and its mapdecal) around if you want to play on a Kerbin with different terrain. The existing launch sites are designed for v6.1 without changes, and if you change the terrain, you will definitely have to change the launch site locations. EDIT: I CAN'T READ. Right in your first post you mention you're using the stock Kerbin textures. Gah, sorry about that! EDIT EDIT: Let this be a lesson to us all, let others profit from my mistake. When you see a post, read all the post, slowly. Then you don't make stupid mistakes and waste others' time. Benoit, super sorry. :\

Zyglrox: because it's an engine. The stockalikes engine config should not change its size, only fix its quantity of solid fuel; RealEngines should make it perform exactly like Orion's LAS (and be the same size). RftS will chart its own course. I believe the 2M clamp-o-tron is left at size1 because that is the model it's using (the size1 docking port, not the Sr.'s size2). It's the same for the 2m regular clampotron, which retains a size1 docking node, in contrast to the 2m clampotron Sr., which has a size2 docking node. Really this is just for interoperability with non-RO craft; in actuality they should all get their own unique docking node sizes (with the SDHI clampotron having the same as the equivalent port-only part). IACBMs are IIRC only compatible with other IACBMs. Jimbimbibble: I'll check what I'm doing, but I certainly intended the shroud to be present.

Kalista: ah, ok. Yep, that would explain it: SQUAD set the antenna to physicsless in .23.5. Starwaster: perhaps. I'll have to check. Since ferram's rewriting the shielding code, though, it's not a super-high priority if the fix doesn't turn out to be trivial. And yes, I would hope so too. Basically, ialdabaoth zeroed out stock heat dissipation/transfer and replaced them with blank methods we can put what we like in.

Yep, the fact that control surfaces and wings sometimes get set to shielded on revert is a known issue. (I *think*; at any rate it happens to me too and I think ferram knows about it.)

Wow! Real [shape] nozzles! Very nice. I second the request for a version without a "tank butt-plate" though.

I'm really loving the animated nozzle on the MACE. I'm using it as a jet (a J93 in this case) since it's the only variable-geometry nozzle engine for KSP of which I'm aware. So, request time: would you consider making some variable-geometry nozzle jet engines? Say, the Avon, or the J79, or the J57, or the F100, or whatever floats your boat. J93 in use: