NathanKell

Good stuff! An additional answer to: Q: My rover rolls over on low gravity planets/moons. A: Right-click all reaction wheels and toggle them off. On the memory question, 3.8GB is really high. The windows version dies at about 3.3-3.4GB on average, and the OSX version at only about 3GB. And please don't recommend an unsupported hack as a workaround, too. Instead, why not suggest using -force-opengl on PC, which reduces RAM usage dramatically?

Who keeps disturbing my sleep? It's not @DuoDex but imma still poke him.

I'll fix it for 1.1.

Pings have a delayed effect on me. Let's hope they're more instant for @goldenpeach!

Yep, as KSP is currently, with same-density LF and Ox, the distinction between mass ratio and volume ratio is moot. Just wanted to make that point clear, however, since if, say, someone did Monoprop + Ox, or added resources, there it would be important, and it's something many modders have missed.

@TiktaalikDreaming sounds good!

I don't believe you can :NEEDS values, only nodes. Although maybe that's changed.

That there is a very nice looking A-4 engine! Following with interest! If you want the (AFAIK only) existing A-4 parts mod, see @Beale's Taerobee mod which includes X-1 and A-4/V-2/Bumper parts. Also, I'm not sure it's really safe to say the A-12 was a serious design. The A-10 (in A-9/A-10 config) certainly was, it was a reasonable IRBM design for the time, but there's controversy as to whether the A-12 (in A-9/10/11/12 config), or even the A-9/10/11, was a serious wartime design, or a "backported" design based on Von Braun's postwar ferry rocket calculations. See, relatedly, whether the A-11 and A-12 stages were supposed to retain the ethalox propulsion of the A-9 and A-10 or switch over to the (postwar) nitric acid / hydrazine-derivative mixture. I take it you're basing off the original A-9/A-10 deisgn, rather than the late-A-9 / A-4b design?

Real life rocket engines have 4-8x the TWR of KSP rocket engines Real life jet engines have 0.6-0.75x the TWR of KSP jet engiines. As you can imagine, that leads to odd results when you try to combine them, and then compare to reality.

1. I had thought that the zero science landed/splashed was something we did in RP-0, not RSS itself. Do you have RP-0 installed too somehow? 2. If you don't load a save it won't get borked. If you do load a save it will--a lot of the orbits will be under the surface of the planet after loading, so all those craft will be destroyed.

Despite their looks, the Mammoth and Vector are really more modeled on the RD-171 and RD-191 respectively. This is because KSP does not deal with different propellant mixtures; everything is storable hypergolics (so perhaps the RD-275 is a better counterpart, really), and because KSP does not have large high-thrust solids to make a central sustainer viable in 3.75m. (Recall that thousand tonne core of the SLS is so wide only because of the low density of hydrogen; it would be the same diameter as the RSRMs otherwise, each of which are 600 tonnes.)

The thermal properties, and engine Isps, are modeled on NTO and Aerozine 50. Densities and mixture ratios (note, however, KSP uses volume ratio not the mass ratio in which mixtures are usually given) were left unchanged for backwards compatibility.

Uninstall KSC Switcher. Launch the game and save. Load the save and save again (just to be sure) and finally quit and reinstall KSC Switcher. That should get you away from the broken site.

Stock KSP issue, IIRC.

Sounds like maybe you didn't grab a release?

@Geschosskopf that was a bug. Heat only transferred when parts' origins where within sqrt(20) meters of each other. The orange tank's origin was just far enough away from the Mainsail's origin to prevent any heat transfer. That was chucked out with the rest of the old heat system in the 1.0 upgrade.

Yes, they should. But this is not that thread. HERE is that thread. Please do alert them.

Thanks!

1. It's false that all bodies have 0 tilt. Each body has a tilt in degrees precisely equal to its inclination in degrees, because each body's polar axis is locked to world up/down no matter the inclination. 2. As RIC says it's not a Unity limitation at all, just a "wait, how much code do I have to rewrite!?" limitation.

We don't have enough control over the stock system to do that. It'd be nice, yes, but we need to have control over every milestone's situation and reward.

The mod is not up on CKAN yet, no. We are still waiting on TAC Life Support by @TaranisElsu. However, there is a preview release of RP-0 if you want to install manually. You will need to install the TACLS for 1.0.4 and the Deadly Reentry release candidate. I am not sure why the world firsts are not being disabled properly; I will check for typos and then see if there's soemthing else I'm missing.

arbiter787: Update KSP. You're on 1.0.5 build 1024, you need to update to 1028+. Redownload KSP. dafidge9898: Stock supports that, it just doesn't have it hooked up to a GUI. Right down to the variable names being the same.

Stock gimbal module is not a respecter of axes.

Yes. A Mk1 capsule and parachute can survive a single pass direct descent (although the window is only ~5km wide), so an aerobrake is also survivable.

@blackrack wow. That's weird. I'll try to fix it for next KSP then. Don't immediately know why and can't check right now, but I'll try to get to it.