Nertea

The sun bug will be fixed next release. I was working with dmagic on this at some point but we never finished it. It's nontrivial i think.

How can I help without a log? 95% of the time this error comes up though is because someone forgot CRP.

This is not configurable at the moment, if you need it to be it can be. It is basically speed factor = g(local)/g(kerbin). You'll have to ask the dev of that mod to talk to me to see what either of us need to do to support each others' mod. i don't really have time right now to dig into their project and submit code fixing this (the code probably has to go in KSTS).

That's great to hear!

Impending depreciation warning! 1. In the next update, the NFLV legacy parts will be hard removed. Because I have no direct engine replacement currently, the engines will stay around until I have replacements. This will save several 100 mbs of space. If you need them, they will always be available in old versions of the mod. 2. In the next update, the atmospheric processing equipment (M-2 Cryogenic Gas Separator, AIReS Atmospheric Sounder) will be removed from NFP. This will initially be a soft-deprecation.

I had a cut at trying to do a linux shader build. Give it a shot (replace these files in your GameData/Waterfall/Shaders folder) https://github.com/ChrisAdderley/Waterfall/tree/dev/GameData/Waterfall/Shaders

Ok sounds fine to me Good idea for Eve! However I'd like to keep the concept where strong magnetic fields trap the particles as with reality. That means primarily Kerbin, Jool in the KSP context. Probably not going to happen from me - I don't have parts or tanks to support that. Someone else can add that. The former, the latter would look significantly different. Appearances can be deceiving. I will quote what I wrote before: I still have 2 kids, a demanding job and other hobbies.

Spehss Dust update The Space Dust part roster looks like this: Gas Analyzer Gas Spectrometer Spectral Telescope 1.25m Atmospheric Processor 2.5m Atmospheric Processor I'm done all but one of the parts, which is a revised model for the 2.5m processor. I'm currently proxying it with the old processor model from NF Propulsion, pretty bad. Maybe some pictures? The Sift-O-Tron 125 Atmosphere Processor sucks in atmosphere with its fan and extracts the things you want out of it. It has a surface attach variant. To scan things, you need PT-SN1-FER Trace Gas Analyzer and the PT-L00K-ER Spectrographic Gas Scanner (right). The Analyzer is limited to in-situ measurements, you put it on a probe you drop into atmospheres, and the Scanner will let you detect things from orbit if you're close enough. The most exciting one is the PT-EDW1N Spectral Telescope. This part lets you detect and identify resources from far away. Configure it with scanning instruments (up to two) in the VAB and launch it. Select a planet as a target and start surveying; eventually you will discover any resources the telescope is configured to detect. A couple of updates on the resource display: it now works better, and when you have identified a band, you can see its max concentration in the UI now. One thing that I could use some thought from the forum from is on the distribution of the following resources throughout the Kerbin system. I indicated what I've thought about so far: Oxidizer: Kerbin (atmo), Laythe (atmo) LiquidFuel (say hydrocarbons): ? XenonGas: Kerbin (atmo), Eve (atmo) ArgonGas: Kerbin (atmo), Duna (atmo) LqdHydrogen: Kerbin (exo), Jool (exo), Jool (atmo), The Sun (exo) LqdDeuterium: Jool (atmo), Jool (exo) LqdMethane: Duna (atmo) LqdHe3: Jool (atmo) Antimatter: Kerbin (exo), Jool (exo) Remember, I don't real deal in perfect realism, more interested in 'interesting'

You are free to use the engines however you want. I don't tell you how to use them - you can use one to replace the other, I don't prescribe, merely explaining the logic I used. It looks like in your calculation, you are using vacuum TWR, whereas I'm looking at atmospheric TWR. Using stock KSP's information display as a measure of what to show and what not to show is a fool's errand. I prefer to balance around TWR because it provides an integrated model of clustering engines, no matter how many you have, you have the same TWR for the engine. In my mind, LFO -> non-storable Kerolox, Monopropellant -> an abstraction of all storable bi and monopropellants. You can decide what you want, you're not changing my mental model. Those engines run on monopropellant. That's what the difference is. If you want something different, go ahead. I don't think we're going to come to any agreement here but I will close with two statements Modular content, delete as you want. Module Manager.

Ok, well you could use a better engine, the Liberator (from this mod) would probably fit you well in that case. Barring that, you can edit the config files of the engines.

This picture: You say it uses a Kerbal Atomics engine. However in the KER window, I see the stage has 468s of Isp and 360 kN of thrust. I don't have an engine in this mod with those properties. So I need to understand what engine that is so I can work out what is wrong.

I can't see what engine you're using in the screenshot, but the KER windows shows 468s of Isp on that stage. What engine is it? I don't have an engine with that low of an Isp rating in this mod in the standard configuration, are you using some kind of other patch? The 600s shown in the LV-N screenshot says that you are using an LF mode there.

It sounds like that rear drag might be irrelevant then, but again I'd ask the stock aero experts.

My understanding of the latest 'forum science' is that the added drag from rear-facing open notes really only matters when flying subsonically. If your plane is having trouble getting up to supersonic speed, particularly through the sound barrier, consider them, but otherwise the mass vs benefit for payload is not there. I'm not an aero person though, better to probably ask for the latest wisdom in KSP general.

Yes, this is a problem with stock KSP. This mod bundles another mod that attempts to fix this, but it is disabled in the presence of Kerbalism because they do their own thing.

Yes, looks like the shaders need to be recompiled for Linux. I'll add it to my list of things to look at when I have time - can you act as a guinea pig for linux support?

Yes.

You can try copying these files https://github.com/ChrisAdderley/Waterfall/tree/master/GameData/Waterfall/Shaders and renaming them - replace the windows with linux (eg. waterfallshaders-windows.waterfall -> waterfallshaders-linux.waterfall). That will force the plugin to at least try loading the shaders on linux.

I would actually do the opposite, the original Scimitar was supposed to be beefier than the Rapier. The art is based on nothing real at all, so there's freedom there... I think a lot of the 'advanced' engines are baselined off the 18000 cr Vector, which is pretty expensive. Regardless, I said I'd take a look at the costs. I have spreadsheets. Lots of spreadsheets. It is quite easy to derive TWR though. No, not at all. The equivalence is based on the size class and TWR performance. Ocelot and Skipper are both 2.5m, and the Walrus is really a lot more potent in terms of TWR (~28.9 vs the Skipper's 19.3 and Ocelot's 19.5). Just... no. They're not coming back. The models were bad. Nothing will convince me otherwise. Because people asked for it - beta versions did not have this node and people complained. I'm sure if I remove it, more will complain. It's not though. It's purely synergistic, not required. Two things. Monopropellant in these engines is storable bipropellant. Does everything need to have a purpose?

(Yes that's the problem)

I'd make some statement about using beautiful engine plumes with questionable models but you do you. The real "why" is that this is a framework mod. Anyone can use it to create effects or assign bundled effect templates to engines. When you ask why someone hasn't done that, well, you're basically doing the same thing as dropping into Add On Discussion and requesting a mod. As I use Restock, I made a project to assign those configs. I assume someone will go and do that for stock eventually, but it won't be me. I should also point out that fundamentally there are likely issues with using the plumes with stock engines. They won't look as good, because the effects depend on well-crafted emissive maps, many stock models lack this.

Yes I saw it. I am not really modding right now because of life events. Don't expect it to be resolved within the next 2w.