NathanKell

Thanks. Like I implied (I hope), it's no biggie*, hence the whimsical "y u". *at this point I can make rescale-duplicates in my sleep

J_Davis: cool, thanks! HoneyFox, for a forthcoming update, I'll add a tag for each resource definition hypergolicWith, and its value will be a comma-delimited string of other resources it's hypergolic with. Can you then, for each propellant, grab that, and check if the string contains each other propellant's name? That will determine if the fuel mixture is hypergolic. (Or just grab the first propellant's string and check against all others, stopping when having a match. I'll guarantee the listings are symmetric.)

Which shuttle engine? It may be the engine that's not supported. What resources does it take, and which KW rocketry tank (or any other tank) is giving the error? EDIT: It should be LqdAmmonia, since it's cryo (-78C boiling point).

Oh, ok. Cool. In other news, a.g. sent me some awesome revised code based on profiling DRE, so the next version should have considerable speedup. Also, I'm adding realchutes compatibility.

I know that. I have...special use cases. Have you seen what Realism Overhaul does to SRBs? While the X-5 gets rescaled up 1.76x (to match the P238), the X-5 HT gets...rather larger. Remember that the Mk1-2 pod has a diameter or 4m in RO, and check the mass figure. EDIT: for the Saturn V MLV-5-25S here.

Oooh, crap, forgot about this. Sorry. I'll fix this now. FlowerChild, thanks for the headsup! That'll narrow it down. EDIT: What's your class name? I'll add it while I'm adding.

Nooo, y u remove X-5HT? I was using it as a 270in solid! (And the X-5 as an Ariane 5 SRB-alike) Guess I'll have to make my own new-part rescale now. Cool stuff all the same though.

And we all know how that project ended (Coralie kept failing, UK withdrew, ELDO died, Arianespace was created), so Black Arrow remains the only British LV.

Shad0wCatcher: KSPI lists Argon's density as the same as LiquidFuel, so I think having utilization = 1 is probably correct. If you do go down the RF rabbit hole, you may be pleasantly surprised by Liquid Methane's performance: high Isp and nearly as dense as LOx. You're most welcome!

XenonGas has a utilization >1 in MFT because the same size tank that holds 12.5 units of LF or Oxidizer (Oscar- holds 700(!) units of Xenon. If Interstellar's argon tanks have similar volume to stock LF/Ox tanks, you shouldn't change utilization at all for argon, leave it at 1. (This has nothing to do with RF's utilization figures; MFT was split off in part precisely so that it wouldn't deal with anything real-world, just KSP's wonky unit values which have little to do with the real world...) Density is kept in the RESOURCE_DEFINITION for each resource, btw; Squad/Resources/ResourcesGeneric.cfg for Squad resources, a resource file in KSPI for argon.

Ok, replace your stretchy DLL with this one, see if the problem goes away. https://www.dropbox.com/s/27hcnol49pxfsxz/StretchyTanks.dll If so, I'll publish it as v8.1

Well, you're not checking either MunColor or MunHeight for null before you use them in Start(). I'd start there.

Mean anomaly (at Epoch) are the only params in radians IIRC; everything else is in degrees. Documentation? Of course not.

SFJackBauer, I think you mean "I will set minThrust to maxThrust * min_throttle_percent"

Anything you set in ModuleEngines will be overwritten before flight, so feel free to change it. (Due to how KSP calls GetInfo() on ModuleEngines before RF loads, RF settings won't show up on the parts list.)

It should have changed the engine mass. Weird. I'll check.

ZacAttack42: You understand there's this thing called ballistic coefficient, right? KSP parts have the mass of their real-size equivalents despite being smaller. That means unrescaled parts have FAR less drag than they should. This changes ascent profiles and (much more importantly) can really mess up reentry. So no, it is _very_ far from a purely visual change. EDIT: Yup, AbeS has it. If you just want "engines with nifty new fuel modes" use the Stock-MFS engine config. Realism Overhaul doesn't make sense without using real-scale.

Good *gracious* you have high standards. Your parts are truly impressive, and a darn sight better than many posted on the Releases forum. You absolutely should consider posting there, this mod would get much more of the attention it so richly deserves.

Wow, y'all have high-TWR upper stages. I generally fly my ascents on mechjeb (I know, I know). The key points to remember are: *Set your turn start based on your liftoff TWR, such that your turn begins anywhere 80-100m/s (depending on later TWR). 1.2 liftoff TWR with a decently-large upper stage (so your lower stage burnout TWR isn't too high) and you should probably start your turn at 1.4km or so. 1.7 TWR and a fast increase, better start at like 200m. *Set your turn end and turn shape based on (a) your upper stage's TWR (<1TWR upper stage, you better have a high turn end and maybe even a >0 turn end angle) and ( such that you will stay aimed at the surface-prograde marker throughout the ascent. I use ~100km and turn shape 45 for the Titan II (1.2 liftoff TWR, large comparatively-high TWR upper stage) and something more like 180km and 70 for the Saturn IB (with its moderate-TWR J-2 upper stage). For something with a Centaur (oy) you'll need to set turn end VERY high, and expect to circularize after apogee. That will minimize steering losses (burning off-prograde) and aerodynamic forces (that might flip your rocket). One more thing to consider: Even if it would be more efficient to turn early and have a high-TWR rocket, you also need to consider heating. You don't want your payload to burn up during ascent. This may force you to accept a rounder trajectory that goes up further and turns more gently.

Those are from Realism Overhaul btw

Thanks folks Zander: To be clear, you need RF, *not* MFT. MFT is there if you used to use MFS-nonRF, i.e. you just want modular fuel tanks for stock resources. Yes, a pack is planned. shabbycow: set useRealisticMass to false in RF/RealSettings.cfg The "stock" MFS3.3 engine configs were made for MFS3.3 and thus don't use any of the new features or resources from RF v4. Hopefully Chestburster (or someone else? Volunteers?) will make a new set of "stock" engine configs using the new features and resources. Dante80: Nertea and I were going to work on NFPP compatibility but we both got busy. I'll check in regarding that. Zappa: In case of either RO download, it's a download of the full RO package. Delete your existing RO folder, then extract the one from the package (I haven't released v3 yet; these are preview builds of it that take advantage of RFv4 features). That's all you need to do. AbeS: Neither RftSEngines nor RealEngines yet include Engine Ignitor configs; they will shortly. RFv4 supports the support of EI, if you will.

bjo_hart: Doh! I know exactly why that's happening. I finally fixed it for MFT/RF, but forgot to copy to this (because, um, I only ever use strechy with RF). Will fix.

Fixed in latest RT2. You can add multiple ground stations now (to the cfg).

RF v4 is out, finally.

RF and MFT are both up. Consider this thread over and done. RF: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/64118 MFT: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/64117