Razgriz1

I've done some messing around with shuttle reentries in 2.5x KSRSS and I can tell you that the stock atmosphere and aerodynamics model just aren't that good for reentry steering. Even with a shuttle, that has a much higher lifting capacity than the Apollo capsule, I was still only seeing ~100-200 km of crossrange. With FAR, however, you get a lot more (~1000-1500 km or therabouts) which is more in line with how far the actual shuttle could change its trajectory. I haven't really looked into how FAR affects capsule reentry crossrange, but it might be interesting. I'll have to look into it some.

It means that the algorithm is searching for a valid guidance scheme to start following. See here. If the launch vehicle is sufficient to reach orbit, and the initial unguided trajectory is decent, then it should converge pretty quickly and begin active guidance. However, PEGAS is not magic and can't find a valid guidance scheme if one does not exist given current parameters. Typically I have found this to happen if my vehicle is incorrectly defined in the PEGAS setup. Especially with a stage-and-a-half rocket like the Atlas B, you'll need to be very careful about defining the vehicle. Usually, you should set PEGAS to activate only after the booster skirt has jettisoned. (This is pretty historically accurate as well)

There are a few configs posted previously on this thread if you go back a few pages.

I'm not even really sure whether or not the part count and size limits are even really used in RP-1 for the launch pad/VAB, tbh. I know vessel size matters for airlaunching, but that's the only time I've seen it as an actual constraint.

I havent actually tried it out myself yet, I just saw that it got added into the RO release, so I'm not sure.

This guy has made a pretty good start with a kOS script that can control the reentry portion. I have the beginnings of a kOS script to actually perform the deorbit burn, though it is far from complete and currently built to more of 2.5x scale than RSS, but all it should need is tweaking of the reentry parameters to tune it to RSS scale. Sadly I have not been able to work on it much. Real life, and all that... I'm more than happy to accept suggestions/criticisms though! There are actually decent SOCK RSS configs included in the newest version of Realism Overhaul now. The only thing that isn't handled well is the split-rudder airbrake. FAR is not able to handle multiple aero surfaces as a single part, but it is good enough for reentry now. I would actually like to adapt these to stock-scale configs, but again, I've been too busy to tackle it yet.

I would strongly recommend creating a new folder to add mods to, instead of the normal Steam installation location. RO in particular must be played on 1.10.1 and is not tolerant of newer versions at all. You can literally just copy/paste your game files to another folder and it will still work. I'm not really sure what you mean when you say Steam isn't changing the game files, but if you copy them over manually it will work fine.

You need to build a new launch pad from the Kerbal Construction Time menu. At the bottom of the KCT menu where it shows your build queue, it should have a button that lets you build a new pad.

The real reason I'm downloading

It's a perfectly cromulent engine

How do you do things like this so quickly?? Teach me your ways!

Yep that seems to have done it! Thanks for your quick turnaround with these fixes. I absolutely love this tool and am glad to see that you're still improving it!

Another couple of bugs Attempting to add a new sequential event while having anything but the first event selected deletes all events and adds the new event in place of the first event None of the events can be edited. The UI opens up, but the changes are not saved. The error thrown in the log looks to be pretty much the same as the one from the engines issue I posted about Events cannot be deleted, and the 'Delete Events' button is greyed out. Saving and reopening the mission file allows events to be deleted, but only until one of the above actions is attempted Editing an engine that already has a tank connection defined causes extra <that engine to tank> connections to appear in the connections list. Once this happens, the connections can't be deleted. Deleting the engine does remove the connections. Looks to be a similar issue to the engine thing I saw earlier.

No.

Try this config insead: I suspect that KeaKaka's config needs the Stock Waterfall Effects templates, whereas this one uses the ones already included in the normal Waterfall install. FWIW, this is the config I use.

Yes

When the game is loading the ModuleManager patches, does it show any warnings or errors? If so, looking at the module manager log could help. If not, then I'm not sure where your problem is.

Do you have ReStock as well? If you do, remove the &!ReStock from the first line of the config, as that causes it to be disabled if it detects ReStock. Since Benjee copies the engine before ReStock changes it, this part is actually unnecessary, and is just a holdover from the config KeaKaka used to create this one.

That looks to have fixed it

I mean sure, if you want to put in the time to do it. It's not just the physical size of the part though, you'd also have to alter the mass, the fuel types and amount, the engine thrust levels, pretty much everything. You can take a look at the patches that do exist in Realism Overhaul and try your hand at it yourself.

Realism Overhaul contains some compatibility patches for Bluedog Design Bureau, but they aren't updated for some of the newer parts that exist here. They're maintained on that end, not by the BDB developers. Edit: If you're JUST using RSS, then this should still work but the rockets are still sized for smaller planets so the parts will be underpowered.

The new Graphical Analysis task system is so nice! Also App Designer FTW! I've been migrating some of my tools at work to the App framework and its very nice. I am seeing a strange bug with adding engines to the LVD though. I haven't tried the last few release candidates so I'm not quite sure quite when it started. I've raised the issue on GitHub.

There are some Waterfall configs for the SSME's posted somewhere in this thread.

Module manager patches can go anywhere inside GameData, as long as they have .cfg extensions. I personally keep all of my patches in my own folder so that they aren't deleted when updating mods.

I have my own Kerbalism config that I've been playing with. I basically took a look at the supported stock parts done by the Kerbalism team, looked at part mass, tech tier, and tried top come up with a rough analog for what it might represent. Then I SWAG'd it and gave each BD command part what looked to be a reasonable amount of storage space given the stock part values. It's by no means well balanced, but it gets the job done as a rough first pass. I can't remember how long ago I did this so it may be missing a few of the newer probes. Link to the spreadsheet where I collected the data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U2n69EpNO9iY7HHjsI_wsiSxg14V7FS8lFabzrnEt8A/copy And here's the config: