RedAV8R

You wouldn't have spammed this page if you followed directions which told you do exactly what to do. However, what this log shows is you failing to read, understand, and follow directions. Support denied.

1. Did you read the OP like I told you 45min ago...??? Must not have...so here it is in big bold letters...THERE IS NO SUPPORT FOR CAREER MODE!!! 2. Yes, the Mk1-2 Pod is ~4m...YES, there ARE 4m tanks and adapters with stock and KW when TweakScale is installed. Near Future, WIP, I have no idea at this point, haven't gotten to it since the big 2.* update. 3. OH WAIT... Read Number 1!!! 4. Must not have read the OP...Realism Overhaul is PART mod...that's it. So what you are describing isn't related. 5. Not very well you didn't.

Yeah, could probably make an adapter...haven't tried myself, go for it. SpaceShuttle engine mod, you are right, it's not required, but there will be some benefit to doing so for a few select engines. It still is supported though for mainly that reason of getting the great RS-25's.

A Viking isn't a bad idea at all. Good one!

ENGINES: @Hodo: - Yes the linear spike... I asked for suggestions....though as @R0cketC0der mentioned the RS-2200 and/or the XRS-2200 is really the only viable engine. So that's settled...unless you have an idea of something else? @Woopert: I'll look into both the CZ-5-500 and RS-88. While both are possible, I'd like to stick to current or past engines where possible before venturing into future engines...So maybe something like the RD-253 or RD-180. @R0cketC0der: (X)RS-2200. Copy that, that one was pretty much a given:). As I mentioned with @Woopert, I'd rather stick to past/present vehicles rather than test articles. @Traches: Um...well you are half there...First, humor me, and get your KSP install out of (X):/Program Files (x86)...Bigger problem...You've also buggered up the install of RealFuels, TAC LifeSupport and a few others. IE, you didn't follow those instructions properly. OTHER PEOPLE WHO FAIL TO READ AND FOLLOW DIRECTIONS: @griffin247: So do you have a problem? Oh wait, you didn't read the FAQ on the OP...why don't you do that first, then come back if you want to knock on the mod and those who are playing with it. @mecki: Same to you, read the OP before you start rambling. @O Nerd: No log, no support. Read the OP.

Alright RO users...now is your chance to directly affect what engines will be featured with the RLA stockalike engine set... The following engines all need a real life counter part, no need to post specs or make the config, but I want ideas. What do you folks want to see: RLA RLA EE-R-10 Resistojet Thruster RLA_resistojet_med RLA RLA EE-R-01R Resistojet Thruster RLA_resistojet_micro_r RLA RLA EE-R-05 Resistojet Thruster RLA_resistojet_small RLA Rockomax "Cutter" Linear Aerospike Rocket RLA_linearspike_med RLA MPR-45 Monopropellent Engine RLA_mp_med RLA MPR-5R Monopropellent Engine RLA_mp_rad RLA MPR-5 Monopropellent Engine RLA_mp_small RLA MPR-1 Monopropellent Engine RLA_mp_tiny RLA Rockomax "Spinnaker" Liquid Engine RLA_s_highengine RLA LV-T5 Liquid Fuel Engine RLA_s_lowengine I know there are some real resistojets, however the model for the resistojet looks more like a normal thruster, while the arcjet models look closer to the resistojet, so there will be no arcjet engines, but the arcjet model will be used for some resistojets.

@Hattivat: I have seen that... Haven't tested it myself yet though... We don't so much have a list of 'compatible mods' we have a list of mods in which RO adjusts to make work with the RSS world. What we could do though is add a section of mods which are already RSS ready. @Smartbrain5: No you aren't. Read the FAQ on the OP. If you still think you are having balancing issues, read the FAQ on the OP. Lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually the light-bulb will go on. @mecki: No it won't.

There is an FAQ for this type of stuff.

@Woopert : Yep...the Dragon Parachute is bugged...won't be in about 5min. Latest is now on Git, grab it there, won't make a release until tonight after work.

As static museum pieces maybe, there hasn't been a Titan launch for nearly 10 years. Unless you'd care to share your source?

@Jetwave: I will say my focus has not been on career mode, and I haven't spent much time there. My focus is on realism, and in it's current form, the contract/science/techlevel/science based system of KSP isn't realistic. It's built on 'fun', and play-ability. For true realism, it requires essentially gutting the existing way of doing things and starting out fresh. Aspects of the system might very well be of use, but for realism, this is going to take some major coding, and I'm not talking about simple MM edits of cost and TechRequired for parts (although there will be a ton of that as well). Like I said, "TechRequired" for parts availability becomes something based on "yearIntroduced" or something like that. Cost however becomes the main hurdle. Does one have the money to build a rocket using the parts they want. Build it wrong and blow things up, or fly it wrong and put something into the wrong orbit and a contract is left unfulfilled and therefore no money is gained from it. Maybe introduce a money system where loans can be made, and then repaid. Successful contracts generally can bring in money, and increased reputation, which makes more lucrative contracts appear for even more money. Maybe some contracts where there is no monetary gain, but larger increases in reputation (like building a GPS constellation. I could go on and on. The sky is endless. BUT the key is to recognize that the current system will NOT work as I see it.

@Dragon01: You do bring up a good point, and so something needs to be designed on a part config based system, where some parts are obsoleted in certain years (likely an X number of years after it's last use), or X number of years after introduction, while others that never are obsoleted. Maybe there could be some way to obsolete parts based upon it's use. Keep using an object, then you can 'change the timeline', and push back it's obsolescence in game. So, in it's true 'RO' form, objects in general, specific part mods especially, will have an obsolete date. The FASA Gemini will become unavailable. Sure some technology is cheaper, but some can also be prohibitively expensive, especially when OTS proven hardware can be substituted in it's place, to a point when there are so many newer/better/cheaper ways to build something...at what point is Gemini actually Gemini and not something that simply has a passing resemblance to it. WALL-E is not based on Johnny 5. I call BS on that one.

@Jetwave: Well, that's a person's choice, if somebody want's to warp, then so be it. Maybe a person wants to play starting in the 80's. Either by warping from the 50s, or having RSS have the capability of starting automatically in the 80's. Either way, a person who wants to start then shouldn't have to launch Explorer just to get funds or science or whatever to unlock enough stuff to actually get to what's available in the 80's where they started in the first place. In the grand scheme of things a real 'progression tree' should also REMOVE technology from previous years...We aren't going to launch Gemini (as it was) today in 2014. Think of it this way...Programs haven't advanced because someone launched into a certain orbit for a contact or put a probe on mars for science. They advanced because the science community and governments have poured money into making these things happen in order to get some form of return on that investment, be it intelligence gathering, communication, etc. What I see in 'career mode' is not the advancement of technology, but making a viable business through the use of contracts and achievements for maximum profits and reputation. In other words...the technology is there as time progresses...but it's the cost that will drive what happens. Using science gained and reputation to drive what kind of contracts are available, which in turn gains more money and can increase reputation. Maybe even some form of dynamically decreasing cost of certain technologies as science is gained. There can be other optional contacts which are done at a loss financially, but gain huge rewards in reputation because it makes things easier for life on Earth. (Like the GPS system). What this needs is something like a 'star rating' or some form of 'milestone rating' or something for a company, get so much reputation that your 'star rating' goes up a notch, blow up a rocket or something (maybe it takes a couple times) and reputation decreases. In other words....with my vision, just because the technology is there for somebody who warps...doesn't mean their coffers are full and game over. TechLevels with engines won't be there or used..each CONFIG node will have a year associated with it...which will dictate when each specific version or whatever was introduced/used. BUT yes, something like the techlevels enabled with RealFuels could be modified using a time based system giving a multiplier to cost/mass/volume/whatever. @Ophiuchus: Yes...It is a part of ModuleEnginesConfig...like the following: PART { MODULE { name = ModuleEnginesConfig origMass = some mass CONFIG { name = GroundFired massMult = multiplier1 } CONFIG { name = AirFired massMult = multiplier2 } } } End result is GroundFiredMass = origMass * muliplier1 while AirFiredMass = origMass * multiplier2

That is Correct.

There were a couple and every one of them is my fault - you just copy/pasted which took those problems to yours as well. You can see the changes in the latest commit on GitHub. I could post here, but easier and cleaner to just point you in that direction. The file in general also shows you how to add multiple configurations...of which the air lit is now part of it:)

@AnyCH: THANK YOU! And you pointed out a bug/typo with the Isps that has been corrected! All works now as required:) @ninjaweasel: A GEM40 is a good idea, I already made one copy of that model to make the 4BXL and being the GEM40 is a widely used part, and we've got the GEM46 and GEM60 it's not a bad idea to copy that great model and make it. Look for it in the next update for all to have! Career mode, I feel the same way, I do not use RPL because it requires RftS, which kills my RealEngines, I also at this time don't care about career mode, so RPL doesn't concern me anyway. I'm sure NK and I would welcome you aboard with open arms, as well as the rest of the KSP community. Thinking out loud though, some requirements I see of integration: *The 'tech tree' for realism sake must be TIME based, not 'purchased'. *In addition to being time based...objects such as fuel tanks...anybody can make a tank...of any size...the question is, is it strong enough and light enough to fulfill the objective at hand...So some 'generic' objects are going to require cost/mass/strength changes as the tech tree advances that are in line with current technologies. IE don't want a generic tank of same characteristics as a Titan tank as found in FASA to have different mass/strength/etc. *Cost, everything has a price. So how do we deal with inflation...to me this requires another plugin to automatically adjust cost based upon inflation at that time. Obviously there are going to be some guesses here as cost figures are likely going to be few and far between. Then there is a point, cost figures are likely going to be for a whole launcher or at least pieces as an aggregate...so balancing the cost individual small pieces as found in KSP is going to be a challenge. *I agree with your contracts, I honestly haven't played with 0.24 contracts so I don't know the interface they used. But having restraints on an apoapsis between two points and a periapsis between two points would be ideal. I remember playing with one older mod, (not sure if it's been updated) which did such things. *Wish list...RSS is designed to start in the 50's...with planets and everything in their respective places at that point in time...maybe with some help with NK and RSS, a person can choose at what point a person wishes to begin their game. Be it 50's, 60's...whatever.

Yes, I have edited the OP for clarity. It is referring to the MM files included in the "extract to use" zip archives.

If RftS or Stockalike in any way, shape or form is used, it automatically disables RealEngines in it's entirety. I also do not know what stock alike or RftS uses, I'm not involved with those projects, and projects I'm not involved with I don't investigate what is or is not used. Yes there are several 'small' engines with stock, a couple 1K thrusters, radial and stack mounted, a couple other radial engines usually used as vernier engines. FWIW...there is no shame in using RCS pods as propulsion for probes/satellites. Quite a few use them as such in real life, not always dedicated thrusters as a means of propulsion. Been a while since I've glanced at NovaPunch and I'm waiting for their update before I progress to them. I'm currently working on RLA and there are several small engines with that as well.

Sorry gals/guys...At this time RO+RSS is being worked on for sandbox mode only. I have enough on my plate as it is just getting things to work at all then to worry about career integration with cost/science/progression. If somebody wants to start that project and adjust cost and progression you are free to do so.

If you have a problem with RO, then you need to ask questions on the RO forum, not here. Frizzank has NOTHING to do with RO and isn't going to support it either.

It's called a change log. It can be found HERE.

Yes B9 has barely been touched, it's on the list.

Thank you for info about SCANsat. As for out of date mods...how does this belong in the Realism Overhaul thread??? Is Realism Overhaul causing it...no. Disable...version checker is built into each mod individually, so ask the appropriate mod that IS outdated to update it...or compile new source with the version checker updated.

@Kitspace - Quite frankly, I don't know...I haven't used them, simply know I'm going to add the set to Realism Overhaul.

Support in this case would be size and mass of parts.