RedAV8R

OR. Just replace the file.

@xmrsmoothx: Some engines have made it in even though not being production engines. M-1, CECE, some J-2s, aerospikes, etc. With increased budgets and time, all those *could* have been built, and realistically worked well. As I mentioned before, I said 'production capable'. What I mean by that is that the actual use of fluorine has way to many negative aspects to it to simply outweigh the efficiency gain of current LH2/LOX engines. It's exotic, and for good reason, nobody *likes* to use it. IMO, while low thrust (for now), electric propulsion has way better efficiency, is in use now, and is the propulsion of the future. That and methane.

@O_Nerd: Thanks! FASA is coming, FASA is coming. Very soon! @xmrsmoothx: While RealFuels includes those resources, there are no real production capable engines around. Flourine and lithium are expensive, toxic, and corrosive. The cost, danger, and engineering of using such compounds doesn't justify their increased efficiency. I wouldn't count on finding it in RO any time soon, if ever.

@S1gmoid: IRL the Apollo computer constantly calculated CoM and gimballed the engine accordingly to take into account a non-zero CoM. In KSP there is no such thing. So yes, in KSP, ones 'heading' is simply the z axis of the craft, however with offset CoM, with the proper gimbal trim, one's actual direction of travel will be different than where it's pointed. The best analogy I can think of is a crosswind takeoff or landing of a conventional aircraft while crabbed. Aircraft pointed in direction of the wind, while the actual direction of travel is down the runway.

Why not use Aerojet Kerbodyne with the Taurus, since it was designed to work with it and all.

@Felger & @Kejchal: Awesome guys. Kejchal, your description the first time including you were talking about EVA would have been especially helpful on my end. This is why I ask for details people. Felger, yep, you are right. Thank you. I'll make the changes necessary.

In reality, you don't. H-1s are designed as sea level first stage engines. To use them otherwise is not optimal because the nozzle is designed for sea level pressure, not high altitude/vacuum. Otherwise requirements are TEATEB, ElectricCharge, Kerosene, and LqdOxygen. I'll be honest, I've set things up so that the parts included with EI are not needed. I don't even have them installed on my dev or test computer.

@Kejchal: Um...I want to see (pictures) what you are talking about. Because in stock condition. The MK1 Lander Can has a "Crew Report" button on right clicking the part. The same button is there upon right click with Realism Overhaul and dependencies installed. I have never seen that visual model scaling could/would affect science in any way shape or form.

Procedural Fairings has a thrust plate with multiple nodes.

Whatever you want/need, please PM me. Which BTW, your boxes are full so I can't PM you.

Oh gee. Forgot I even helped:) You are welcome! Plans are to get to this for RealismOverhaul in the near future, after the 0.25 release of course, if you don't mind:)

Nothing that's supported at this time. I'll be working on KW and NP here soon after I get FASA done, those shouldn't take near as long as what FASA is.

@Keudn: Man, had me scared there for a minute. Thought RO had it listed as WIP for support. Nah, the latest version of Procedural Parts works great with KSP 0.25. Install and have fun!

No problem. http://www.spaceflight101.com/delta-ii-7320.html has some good info on it.

@Keudn: While this really should be in the discussion thread rather than this support thread and I'll have it moved later, I'll answer this now for you. Not sure where you got the 37,900 figure, and that actually sounds about right......but that's fuel, kerosene. Not both. That figure doesn't include the LOX, the oxidizer. - - - Updated - - - Do you see it mentioned anywhere on the OP? It's not. Therefore I haven't tested it, or integrated it with anything. Considering career mode support is not happening by me, which includes cost, which KCT depends on, I wouldn't bet on it.

@Keudn: Remember, it's bug with FAR/PF. Until you see "isShielded = True" on the part while in the VAB, it will fall off if aerodynamic forces get too high, as if it weren't under a fairing because according to FAR, it's not. That's a bug with PF/FAR that until it's fixed, you will continue to have these types of issues.

@Keudn: It shouldn't, and I admitted this fact previously, that is a known issue right now with FAR and PF. I'm going beyond that though and telling you your launch vehicles are not as they should be, and if things fail, it's not necessarily a bug with anything. Physics suck, I know. But that's what RSS/RO/FAR/DRE is all about.

@Keudn: It's all relative, if your launcher is too powerful then forces are too extreme which cause not good things to happen to payload/rocket. So while you may not be looking for an optimal rocket, it's required in order to perform a proper successful launch. FWIW, FAR and PF aren't playing nice when the base is resized. Known issue. Which could be the problem, but I need some more testing.

@Keudn: Your second craft is suffering from nearly identical issues as the first. It's simply too powerful. Once again, the vehicle has over 16000 dV. That is simply not needed for your intended mission. I didn't make it to my big machine yesterday, so hopefully I'll take a look here this afternoon. In the mean time, build some replica launchers based on real vehicles to learn the basics, then go from there. There is a repository and a discussion forum that would be helpful for you. Once FASA is done here, you can use some Titan's or even Atlas-Agena's to launch what you need. I also suggest you use the RT settings file provided which adds more ground stations. I found the solar panels, sneaky buggers. That and they were hidden by you using tweakscale, not your fault, just that craft files don't load right when tweakscale is used.

@Phredward: No he's talking about EVE Overhaul, rather than the 'vanilla' EVE. RO has nothing to do with EVE in any form, or for that matter RSS, it simply changes/adds parts.

@mdosogne: AH, see, you didn't say you started fresh. Had you done that, would have avoided things. I also didn't state that it does work on Win. So that's my fault. A mis-communication due to lack of details on both our parts. You also have to realize that normally we aren't dealing with people as well skilled as yourself. We have to start with the basics. That means not assuming that the user did what you did, unless they say they did (you didn't), and even then we've seen people screw it up. No harm, think our minds are meshed now. So, the bottom line is, this MAY very well be an issue with linux/macOS that is NOT present on Win because the current default installation does work on Win platforms. I would say though, I personally don't see a reason for the extra folder, even on windows, so to prevent these issues, I'd be welcome to see them placed all in the 'plugins' folder. That is unless NK has a specified reason for the departure. Last, this is not an RO issue. This is a TweakScale/RF interaction issue which would present itself regardless if RO was installed or not. Regardless of platform or computer. So I'm going to consider that particular issue closed, at least on this thread. I have taken note of your findings with the probe cores however and will be spending some time on them in the near future.

@Keudn: I mean deep space probe, like Voyager. You don't need 17km/s+ of dV for a geosync orbit. What you've got is enough for a moon landing and back, not including the RCS budget. You seem to have glanced over the entire fact that your launcher TWR is WAY too high, not to mention your ascent profile is less than optimal, you shouldn't be going straight up at 20km alt. I'll test your other bird here too. @Phredward: RL-10. Yep, found a NASA reference, but no corroborative evidence yet. For the time being I'm going to turn that back to non-throttleable. KW is no longer supported at this time, though it will be, so don't be surprised about differences. As for the CECE, that was my plan, but others thought it better to be separate. I'm more in favor of having the CECE be a part of the RL10 rather than it's own. It's part of the family, and the differences between the A and B series is substantial, yet I find it better to keep them together. Since there are few REAL models available, for generics, doesn't seem to much matter to me. Yeah, the DRE decoupler is the one to use. I need to add a special one just for the Mk1-2 pod, as the DRE decouplers have been modified to use TweakScale. You are correct about the Mk1-2 having no prograde thrusters. What RCS it has is built around Apollo, which didn't have them either. UI, that's RealFuels, you can blame NK for not allowing RF to find engines to fill them. I can't do anything about that. I've purposely left extra room for a person to add anything they want. Procedural Fairings has a procedural thrust plate that can be modified for various engine configurations. Best to increase size before attaching to craft. Ex. Pick in part list, and don't attach, just drop it somewhere you can right click on it and increase it's size, then place and place engines. Editor extensions does have the radial, BUT it uses the part origin to place them, so that's why they sink in. Another comment directed mostly at NK will follow a bit later. Lights are there, not sure why you can't see them, but they are there. @NathanKell: I really do like the idea of turning the LR-1R into the LR-101. I'll get on that...and by that I mean copy/past the FASA config:) If there were a way to turn surface attachment on/off I'd be ok with it (default to off), but it's not that big of a step to use an extra part to place multiple engines. In my experience, having surface attach engines were more a PITA than it was worth, and the added unrealistic possibility that a person can add 4 radially attached F-1s to the side of their launcher, not that a person should or would. I've also experienced enough models where angles are treated weirdly enough that surface attach works oddly. @ThorBeorn: /\ /\ /\ @mdosogne: I do need to work on the stock cores a bit more. Most don't have a real world analog yet, though open to suggestions. The ranger I need to research my self, that's left over from when NK was doing the configs. If you want to help, great. Glad you figured out your TweakScale issue...though you didn't do what NK told you. Fact is the default installation paths when using the most current version of both RealFuels and TweakScale *DO* work, there is no need to move files around.

@Keudn: You launching a deep space probe? That's a heck of a launcher for such a small payload. I've gotta test on my big machine yet, but what I do see. #1. A pre-launch TWR over 1.88 SLT is WAY too much. #2. The winglets and control surfaces are not needed either. You have a main core engine capable of all 3 axis of movement. Anything more can lead to problems of it's own. #3. Your upper stage is too powerful as well. No good reason for a 1.86 TWR. #4. Your core stage needs a small boost. Not 4x 5-seg Shuttle SRBs. Otherwise it nearly has enough to achieve LEO on it's own. What MAY be happening is some over agressive maneuvering at high speed and low altitude. While FAR shouldn't be breaking things being covered, your launch vehicle is far from optimal too. Also. Your satellite itself, I would prefer to have some form of power generation. Be it RTGs or solar. Running batteries alone...you'll be space junk sooner than you realize.

@goldfang35: Mmmm...I *DO* think so. When I said it the first time I wasn't lying, you'll see clear as crystal in your log. Now, let me get this straight you have Windows 8 32-bit, running the 32-bit KSP application? If you wanna bicker about running out of memory, I can't help you. The fact is you *DID* run out, and you need to do something. ATM or Texture Replacer would be beneficial. If you plan on running any sort of mod(s) other than stock + RSS, it'll be essential. There is the new DDS loader that is showing promise too, allowing a person to utilize their graphics memory too (I think). My recommendation, decrease resolution on those bodies you don't plan on going for a while, while leaving Earth, Moon, Mars higher, as you can mix and match what textures you use.

@goldfang35: Out of memory. Need to decrease your texture load somehow.