Oksbad

Can you post a picture of your craft? Also are you playing with RP-0 (if so, what's your tech level?)? Also, I have a bug to report. I seem to have an issue with weird rotations during EVAs:

Random failures are part of (optional) TestFlight mod. Not my first Kerbal to orbit in this career, but I just thought it was an interesting blend of Kerbal high jinks and Realism Overhaul realism. I also thought the rocket turned out to be pretty interesting. An American Capsule, boosted by a British upper stage, with Russian boosters, including what are basically improved V2 rocket engines. Interestingly, both the Venus VI-D-M rocket I used and the Atlas rocket used for Project Mercury both have a mass of 120 tons. Please tell if there is anything wrong with images or captions.

So I'm having frequent crashes when transitioning (craft - craft, VAB -> Space Center, craft -> Space Center etc). Only very rare crashes when actually flying a craft (exceptions seem to occur coming out of time warp). It seems to have gotten more frequent. Is this due to memory issues? If so, going by the first page, does running in windowed mode really help? Any use in dynamic texture loading or active texture management mods?

Realized I forgot to get back to you on this. Bigger heat shields worked like a charm!

With the patch, the craft still blew up, but the probe core was able to ride the heat shield all the way down (not sure if the patch did that). I suspect the size of the heat shield was an issue. I'll try tomorrow with a bigger one.

Blows up around 75km. I am pointing retrograde. Here's the video, reentry starts about 4 mins in. The heat shield might be a bit to small, but I've never had such substantial reheating so high when I played RO on previous versions of ksp before. Thanks for the fix, will use it if this is not due to user error. I'll try. But considering how high I blew up it's a long shot. Do you mean this? http://pastebin.com/PUwSfkPS

Thanks! Any quick fixes you can think of to make reentry more manageable for now (such as adjustments in the Deadly reentry files or debug menu)? The inability to do any reentries pretty much puts this career on hold until I can fix it.

Thanks man! Here you go: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0t93j85h5m4frpo/ModuleManager.ConfigCache?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/na8ispgie8odxny/output_log.txt?dl=0

Low orbit. 350km circular. Plus I can't seem to find the configuration menu for deadly reentry, event though I definitely have it installed. My craft, in case I'm doing something wrong:

I don't think I have rentry heat properly configured. My craft overheat and explode without atmospheric reentry effects event with 90km periapsis reentries. Most of the ablator remains untouched. Was there some bit of configuration I may have missed?

Thanks for all the effort you put into these excellent mods!

Question: For funding I think some of the documentation suggested putting difficulty on Normal and using part unlock costs, or to not use part unlock costs and drop contract payouts to 20%. I'm currently about 10 hours into a game where I have difficulty on Normal and don't seem to have part unlock costs. Can I enable part unlock costs or drop contract payouts without starting a new save?

Come on, there's nothing in your original post that suggests you're targeting a subset of complainers. It's full of massive generalizations. What positiveness? Your "solution" is to make complainers use an outdated version of the game. What would that accomplish beyond splitting the community? First off, most complaints are not because 0.90 was inherently superior, but because the release version had promising new features (heating, new aero etc.) but the execution was in their eyes botched. People gave beta versions more leeway because that were explicitly beta versions and thus tolerated flaws they wouldn't in a full release. As for "use mods", that's a good idea, but if a person believes a mod makes for better game play for most people than stock, why shouldn't they recommend that the change be made in vanilla? You also accuse the people who are complaining of trying to make a point and trying to force their vision on the game, instead of simply trying to give feedback to improve the game. The fact that you disagree with their feedback doesn't make them villains trying to devilishly take control of Squad for their own ends.

Disclaimer: Please don't take this as a comment about your PSA. It has valuable information that could help many. Every time somebody points out complaints tangentially related to realism, somebody points out "It's a game, not a sim!", as if that invalidates the complaint. Just like realism isn't inherently good for the game, unrealism isn't inherently good either. What if you believe that KSP would be a better and funner game if the aerodynamic models were more along the lines of FAR? Is that an absurd position to take?

So you're saying that people who do not like the current version of KSP should not complain, but resign themselves to playing an old version, thus cutting themselves off from updates, bugfixes etc. Not to mention cutting themselves off from the mods you claim as a solution, as all developers I'm aware of develop for the most recent build of the game. I'm sorry, that's not even remotely reasonable. Besides you're making the complaints sound so insidious ("making noise", "force squad"). Essentially, they are giving feedback about a failings in a product that they like. What exactly is wrong about that?

Is there a way to get the version for v0.90? I'm using using an old version of ksp until certain other mods get updated.

Compatibility mainly.

Hattivat is likely right about the root cause, as I was having the same issue. There's also the option of staying in career mode simply removing test flight, as I did. I like the idea of the mode, and I was fine with the mean time to failure simulation, but it doesn't have info for all supported engines in RO and working around ignition failure was simply tedious. On a completely unrelated note: When do you guys think that RO (and RP-0) for v1.0 will be out? I don't mean to pester you about an exact date, I just wanted to know if it would be on the scale of days, weeks, or months so I could determine if I should continue my 0.90 save.

Thanks for the answers! I just wanted all of you to know that I really appreciate your efforts into this mod, and you guys' willingness to answer my many questions. Is it intended that some of my rockets burn up on ascent during aggressive turns via deadly rentry? If not, what a good way to configure DE to avoid that? (I suppose the simplest way would be to reduce difficulty setting on ascent and put it back after getting into orbit) Furthermore, is there a way to remove the "shroud" that covers engines when you put something under them? Like so:

What do you guys think will happen to RO when 1.0 gets released? I have no doubt there will be a new version for 1.0, but do you think it will be save game compatible? Also, is there a way to attack multiple things to a fairing base without using a multi coupler first?

I have a bug in my RSS career. Parts with custom sizes seem to revert to different sizes when the vessel is loaded. Here is a "Mailman" communication satellite I just launched into medium orbit. Notice the fact that is has a custom diameter, which matches the part above it, as well as visible RCS blocks: This is what it looks like after I load the vessel from the space center. The tank has "puffed up" covering the RCS. I can still use them, but it looks odd. Also note the capacity of the tank hasn't changed, only the visual volume. CKAN says I am on version 1.52.1.

I have a bug. Parts with custom sizes seem to revert to different sizes when the vessel is loaded. Here is a "Mailman" communication satellite I just launched into medium orbit. Notice the fact that is has a custom diameter, which matches the part above it, as well as visible RCS blocks: This is what it looks like after I load the vessel from the space center. The tank has "puffed up" covering the RCS. I can still use them, but it looks odd. Also note the capacity of the tank hasn't changed, only the visual volume.

Is sliding utilization up to 100 essentially an exploit/easy mode?

Interesting stuff! Is it accurate to say that the only way that early rockets would have multiple restarts would be be using monopropellant? (I do realize "early" is a bit vague here)

With regards to engine ignition, I have been considering replacing my self-discipline approach with installing Engine Ignitor. The problem is that the hypergolic engines seem to be unrealistically restricted in their re-ignition attempts. Some of them are only configured to have one ignition! This makes them rather pointless, as if you are going to be restricted to 1 ignition, you might as well use a KeroLox engine with far superior ISP. Is this working as intended? Is there a way to not restrict ignition for hypergolic engines? I'm assuming this is partially an RO issue (stock doesn't differential between fuels), but should I hit up the EI thread instead?