MaxP

Yes, but you gave us the link on TextureReplacer-0.5a.dll on previous page I mean, may be he's put it near the TextureReplacer.dll, and it is loaded before. Once I've done the same ))

shaw, 0.5a works fine, may be he is using 0.5 version, loaded before last one.

All plugins I have installed (to know it is not conflicts): TextureReplacer.dll Toolbar.dll MultipleSavesDA.dll CrewManifest.dll DevHelper.dll RealChute.dll WarpPlugin.dll MechJeb2.dll TextureCompressor.dll NearFuture.dll DeadlyReentry.dll FerramAerospaceResearch.dll KerbalLocalTime.dll InfernalRobotics.dll StretchyTanks.dll MMI_Kethane.dll RemoteTech2.dll ModuleManager_1_5.dll VanguardTechnologies.dll KerbalJointReinforcement.dll RasterPropMonitor.dll SCANsat.dll ferramGraph.dll KerbalAlarmClock.dll LandingEngine.dll FrementGUILib.dll ExsurgentEngineering.dll ProceduralFairings.dll KerbalIspDifficultyScaler.dll VOID.dll IoncrossCrewSupport.dll Firespitter.dll SelectRoot.dll KAS.dll KineTechAnimation.dll ResGen.dll Targetron.dll ChargeMeter2X.dll EditorExtensions.dll DYJlibrary.dll EVAParachutes.dll Basicpropscript.dll CleverBobCat.dll Multiwheels6.dll

Do you rename textures, appropriate to included ReadMe? You must use GalaxyTex_Negative*.*, not SkyBox_Negative*.* from Universe Replacer.

You're making new versions faster than my KSP loading P.S. He-he, with the starless skybox it runs faster than stock Not a big difference, just 50-51 fps versus 49, but 've noticed, and it is a fact )) And it looks fantastic... Just feel it: Thank you, shaw.

Wow wow wow man... You've done it. Where you've been hiding so long? )) 38-40 fps vs 40 w/o plugin - at least we have it. That results is for 0.5a, I've tested on orbit. 0.6 shows only 16 fps with the same options - only skybox.

Skybox replacing for the last plugin version (0.5) doesn't work. Textures loaded [LOG 02:42:41.339] Load(Texture): TextureReplacer/Textures/GalaxyTex_NegativeX [LOG 02:42:42.119] Load(Texture): TextureReplacer/Textures/GalaxyTex_NegativeY [LOG 02:42:42.722] Load(Texture): TextureReplacer/Textures/GalaxyTex_NegativeZ [LOG 02:42:43.375] Load(Texture): TextureReplacer/Textures/GalaxyTex_PositiveX [LOG 02:42:44.058] Load(Texture): TextureReplacer/Textures/GalaxyTex_PositiveY [LOG 02:42:44.674] Load(Texture): TextureReplacer/Textures/GalaxyTex_PositiveZ but nothing changed. But works fine with previous version. Tried with the same textures.

I'm doing the same. And Texture Replacer gave me frame drop with just plugin installed )) But it is a little faster.

I've got 20 fps vs 40 fps (on assembled Mir from Soviet pack). Yes, it works better than UR, but whether there is a way to make the starless skybox (or just modded) without 1.5-2x fps drop? It would be great.

That pdfs was in old Soviet pack 1.9.1. I uploaded all of it here (Mir, Soyuz, Proton and LK).

SPU module is needed to remotely control your vessel. Without it you can control the vessel without signal delay - you'll see "Local control" in yellow at the top of the screen. And you'll get a large perfomance drop. SPU module in RT2 is installed in stock probes (Command section, look for "Remote Control/Command capable") and in the AR202 part (MechJeb2), so you need to install at least one of these parts.

Have'nt noticed any perfomance drop for connected sats. You'll get it with such number of vessels, not the mod. But you'll get big lags without SPU module on active vessel (yellow "No control" on unmanned ones), and may be, for others.

1. "Parts are wobbly". That is why I'm trying to use as many connections as it can be, even with JointReinf. mod. And almost all of my heavy multistage projects were failed )) 2. With massive ships you will not able to circularize orbit (before falling down), yet you will have enough thrust, even with 10k ISP. So they're very efficient in space for large ships.

Didn't see that, will try to find, thanks. But I meant not restart limit, only starting ability. Some of engines cannot be activated in space, but for now we can burn with powerful first stage engines on orbit. Yes, we can ignore it, and drop 1st stages in atmosphere, but... ))

What about the idea of making ability for some engines to be activated (or not) out of atmosphere, like the real prototypes? It will bring some of necessary micro-management to vessels planning.

Emm, sorry for stupid question, but the planet surface cannot be shined by lights - is it normal for this version? And if there is a way to remove graphical glitches on surface (when viewing landed vessels)?

Guys, whether is somewhere a new manual for Soviet pack 2.0? I already saw this while searching my post in historical crafts )) Just missed...

Cliph, how about the idea to add some radio functionality to connected vessels, like radio chatterer? Maybe, merging original RadioChatterer functionality with RT2, with disabling chatterer?

Sacred Aardvark, my mistake is in using additive model. It is sad, and I'll be waiting for fix with impatience ))

I've tested within the SOI, and the problem still there - see corrected post. Within the SOI or not, it doesn't work for me ((

Are you sure you have a connection exactly with directional antennas? Did you tried to deactivate omni-directional ones? Omni-antennas works fine. May be it is a problem with the identical dishes? I have the lander on Minmus (on north pole) and repeater on Mun (north pole also), both with KR-7. If both are pointed at palnets - I've got "No contact" in all situations. With one pointed directly to another vessel - all fine. Then, another example. That Minmus lander has two dishes, one pointed at Mun and another pointed at Kerbin, and comsat, orbiting the Kerbin, which is within both dish angles and range, and have KR-14 pointed at lander. The commsat has connection with KSC, but no change with lander. How it works?

Guys, why not to make some small additional signal delay in SPU? It will be more realistic and interesting, due to more accurate planning of sats deployment? And the dishes are bugged till now? The planet targeting doesn't work, for Reflectron KR-7 at least... At least one dish must be pointed directly to vessel, though another one is works fine with targeting planet.

As you can see, the SAS is located near the center of mass But this engines wth vertical thrust vector is no good for VTOL - the distance from the vector of thrust to the CoM is maximum, so you've got maximum overturning moment from thrust assymetry, and unstable vessel. The small thruster re much better, because of its angle. You can make you vessel more stable by creating one engine inclination and correcting distance from thrust vector to CoM (to minimum), and only then placing second engine in symmetry mode.

deleted due to reading last page )) I like it, but I think you need to make the display smaller.

The AR202 from 107 dev build cannot be attached to vessel in VAB, log is full of exception. With stable version all is stable (weird things )))