Pappystein

Mass movement arm. The further away from the Center of mass a control is the smaller it needs to be to impart the same movement. ESP forward of the CoM on an aircraft + Cleaner airflow = more efficient canard.

If I could suggest, Go for the HGR standard 1.875m. It is almost excatly correct for Kerbal scale. There is no way a Kerbal could walk upright in a 1.25m fuselage. The Hawkeye seats 4 GIBs + 1 Visitor + Flight crew. The GIBs and Visitor are seated facing the starbord (RIGHT) side. There is room to walk behind those seats.

Ok I don't fly "Real Saturn" missions so I haven't spent a lot of time on this. outside of Skylab I use Saturn II INT-18 And Gemini Titan IV almost exclusively for in Kerbin SOI+. But here are some observations from my few launch tests with the Saturn S1C stage. 1) The more launch clamps attached radially the worse the twist is. 2) Using alternative engines of similar total thrust with bottom node attachments (RD-191/RD-170 from Soviet Engine Pack at .64 scale.) and using the 2.5m FASA launch clamp on the central RD-170, the roll was GREATLY reduced (4 total launch clamps, CL engine, and 3 of the SPACE-Y super clamps at every 120 degrees.) 2a) Using only bottom attach launch clamps of the 1.25 and 2.5m FASA persuasion eliminated Launch twist to a non issue (It was so negligible that I couldn't see it under the low resolution NAV-BALL. However the Full Saturn V tries to tip over with just these. During the Test I was using a probe core on a parachute equipped and properly fared S1C stage only. 3) issue is even worse with Nova sized 1st stage. Same test conditions as above 4) Issue is mitigated with asparagus style launch of smaller diameter "stages" until you get to about 10-15meter radius launch stacks then it can appear again. hypothesis: Radial launch clamps are staged sequentially. At a smaller radii it is not noticeable. But the higher number of clamps + Greater radii cause enough lag for some radial clamps to release before others with a "Physics calculation scene" in the middle of the release process. I believe this is tide in some way to the NODE SIZE and an internal calculation dealing with the greater radius than expected (EG 5m class instead of 3.75m class.) NOTE: I have not tested this with any other 5m tanks or other 5m class engine/engine launch plates. But CFG wise I see nothing in the existing CFGs to cause this issue on their own.

This was covered two pages back. Frizzank's exact reply was

First I will start with the oft stated, Follow the steps on the first page of this forum. Second the entirety of FASA is based on KERBAL Scale, not EARTH scale. Thus any mods that change the size or gravity of Kerbol/Kerbin will likely break FASA. Third, Make certain you are at full throttle when you start. I have had engine starts at the default 50% that cause the engine to fail. Hope that helps!

The animation will clip and it won't push of the fuselage. However I would still do the animation. Add a small separator motor with no visible thrust using the De-coupler icon that kicks the nose of the booster away from the rocket fuselage. No fuss no muss. Rocket actually has a seperatron style micro rocket in the nose but the player it looks just like it should in real life.

You can combine two Modules in the CFG but they will operate separately. Necrobones has done that with his SpaceY OMS/RCS pods. The OMS engine portion is completely separate from the RCS and operates just like any other engine, even though it is the same CFG and the same Model. IE Squad has not set up KSP to allow RCS control schema to switch to a throttleable rocket schema with gimbals and such. RE Soyuz engine, I would suggest Core engine has 4 nodes for the Verniers. The 4 boosters would get two Verniers each and the core would get 4. OR alternatively The models for the tanks get 2 and 4 Vernier nodes and one larger node for the engine itself.

The new Models look fabulous! I am wondering if I could ask you to make a modified version of your 1.875 to 2.5 adapter? I use your exiting HGR mod combined with FASA to make the Titan I rocket (among many other uses I have for the HGR parts pack.) The 1.875m tank parts are perfect for Titan I's second stage (comparing to a 2.5m first stage.) Would it be possible to request out a hollowed out version of the 1.875 to 2.5 adapter to be used as a stack separator? I feel the Size difference stack separators are seriously missing from the game at the moment. Thanks

I can not currently use this mod as others have hinted it crashes both of my KSP machines. However, Cdodders, If you right click on the Fuel tank you can switch between types (atleast you could in .25)

Two questions about this; 1) you stated you would like to make FASA a Standard so that the entire game can be run on it about a hundred posts back. Are you planning on creating your own Contracts so you can slow down development? For example: Currently I am getting Explore Duna missions well before any of the FASA landers are available (Either the Gemini or the Apollo landers.) 2) Any chance of a Gemini lander craft file? Every time I try to build a Titan IIIC for it I somehow screw it up. (Not enough Delta-V to get to the mun and then back seems to be the biggest issue.) 2.a) Are we going to see the Titan III/IV SRBs earlier in the progression then?

You can almost do that with the current partset for the S-IVB. You use the RL-10s that are associated with the Centaur Upper stage with the standard J-2 Engine plate for S-IVB. You can only put 5 RL-10s instead of the origional design 6 but it work OK (as of 4.98, I have not tried it with the update 5.0 cfg files.)

What do you mean non standard? Many mods out there use the 1.875m standard, and this is the correct way to depict a Gemini (within the scope of "Standard" sizes.) You could easily download the Home Grown Rockets mod or other mods like it to get the 1.875m parts. In fact here is my take on a Titan I with Gemini (Now I just need a Titan I warhead and bus!)

Is this why my .90 gemini Rockets were uncontrollable as well? All the other rocket capsules I have unlocked so far (I am only at the 90 Science threshold in my current carrear) are fine but anything with a Gemini and I have to re-create the staging at launch and the sucker is nigh uncontrollable (Spin and tumble from launch.)

Until I can afford my Saturn II INT-17 launcher I use what I call a Saturn IC build. Stage 1 is 4 J-2/J-2S/J-2X engines, and 4 H-1 engines. I hook 2 Titan 5 segment SRBs equipped with Real Chute cone parachutes (for recovery.) My CSM is launched fully fueled but I use the Trans-stage type CSM/Fuel tank vs Denny's as I continually have issues with the CSM's AJ-10 flaming out with Denny's CSM. I have action groups set up so I can shut down or start the J-2s and the H-1s independently of each other for efficient launch. Generally the H-1s are running while the UA-1205 SRBs are on and I have the J-2s set to activate with the Smart Parts at UA-1205 jettison (the UA-1205s and their Chutes are all jettisoned and deployed automatically as well. Yes this isn't a Real world LV but it is a great re-purpose of existing parts without going TOTALLY crazy. NASA even looked at this as a viable alternative to get larger loads into orbit before realizing the Saturn II would be cheaper (Saturn IB's first stage is much more complex than Saturn II's larger 1st Stage.)

That looks good. Hopefully It won't cause the random "Flameout" issue with the AJ-10 that Denny's Did (half the Time I would get a message saying no fuel and no Oxidizer when the fuel was full on the CSM.

It sounds like Real Chutes again to me based on the description of "The Whole Flight" Real Chutes has a bug that is forcing the deployment of the Float on the Apollo CSM at launch. In game this has no effect except to break up the amazing visual model. The Game actually things the floats are NOT deployed (they disappear and re-deploy with Parachute deployment.)

Actually this is great for progressive testing of your Rocket NASA style. I use it to test my Kerbal Emergency Escape System Automated (KEESA.) If she isn't properly tested Keesa can be a real pain in the hind-quarters. Diazo. Thanks for all your brilliant small mods. I have been using Vertical Velocity hold since your first release!

Question, I use FASA Launchclamps for many of my rockets (FASA is the core parts mod I use.) How does your plugin deal with launch clamps that mount under the engines or mount high on the rocket? THANKS this mod looks amazing and I am curious how it will help with my big Nova rocket builds.

Actually the multi-bell ejector on a toroidal Aerospike has been shown to be less efficient than other Aerospike designs (Specifically the annular ejector we more commonly see on the Toroidal Aerospikes.) What you get for the slight drop in efficiency is a reduction in cost, increase in reliability. I believe that a Bell-ejector Toroidal is not as ballanced between Atmosphere and Space as well. But I don't have numbers at had to back that up.

Since I haven't seen anyone else jump on this and since I am an aviation Historian with a engineering background... SAS/ASAS is like an Autopilot. Both use Gyroscopes (even the earliest Electric or vacuum autopilots had Gyros in them. The main difference, the SAS/ASAS impart control moment themselves. An Autopilot senses a change in directionality of the plane in question, then adjusts the control devices (Ailerons, Elevators, Rudders, RCS etc,) to bring the plane's flight path back on track. Modern Autopilots use a combination of GPS and Gyros to determine aircraft plotted vs real location and can self coarse correct.

I tried searching before posting this request so apologies if this was already covered. is it possible to have the All Moving wing surface useable as a FLAP? My Goal is a Variable Incidence wing ala F8U Crusader/ F-8 Crusader. Ideally it would use the standard flap settings for maximum deflection and allow 2 or 3 points of adjustment. I tend to make aircraft that are landing too nose high. This would allow me to reduce the chance of a tail strike on landing (Or Takeoff). TIA

Is there anyway to disable the Sideways decoupling of items strapped onto a Gemini Nosecone? Without loosing the ability to attach onto a Gemini style multiple parachute stack? IE if I attach 2 probe chutes to the Gemini nose cone, can I prevent their forceful ejection when I decouple the nosecone from the rest of my ship? Would the following code fix it? (yes I realize that this could cause issues with the seperation of the cap on the Docking node version) isOmniDecoupler = False explosiveNodeID = bottom TIA

Since you are using the Re-modded (is that the best word?) version of FASA for RO, you should ask in the RO threads. Frizzank has allowed his models to be used but the CFGs are made by others (and the CFGs control behavior in the game.)

And if you use this Plugin, supposedly you can blueprint out all the parts. Mind you I have not tried this (Too many mods already even with ATM) [removed link to defunct website]

Actually if you are in control of a part of the ship NEAR where the stage is dropping YES THEY DO. I had to abort a Saturn II launch (FASA) the other day due to FAR causing a Tumble. I was able to save the CSM and Crew but the stages (all had enough chutes to land at 9m/s fully fueled) all blew up. One took out my emplaced ILS simulation on Seaplane island. IIRC I had the same issue with DebRefund though so....