RedAV8R

With FASA and RO, if you want to build the Saturn V, don't use the thrust structure, there is a new part, combining the two which you should use.

Not sure of Titan I, but Titan II didn't hot stage quite in the sense that the Russians do, it was more a simultaneous ignition and separation. The Russians on the other hand start the engines while still hanging on, and don't release until computers sense full thrust, THEN it finally lets go.

With a basic install, AIES tanks do NOT have TweakScale 'installed', so you'll need to add it, not modify it. Look for guidance with the actual TweakScale configs in that folder.

Once I work through some more updates including Agathorns updates I'll release Alpha 3 later tonight I hope. Nothing new is up on github yet.

While I'm sure they refill the TEA/TEB after the static fire, I've updated the number to 4...that'll give launch, return/re-entry burn, and landing burn, with a spare in case something happens.

We know of the NP update that was released 3 weeks ago. As time permits we will be working on it. At this time there are no plans to change anything with crewed pods, that may change later on.

Alright, yet another good catch. Updated squad pods for life support with more balanced values, usually 1-2 days worth of supplies.

Good catch jrandom. File added which correctly changes TACLS resources in a PP LS tank.

I'll take a look at that and see what we can do.

Couldn't find what in high enough resolution?

Griffin, First get your install out of the Program Files directory...Second I've noticed you've got a lot of skipped frames, what kind of window are you running in, go full screen, and don't leave it when you launch the program, second you failed at some installs because I'm not seeing TACLS. Fix that and see what happens. I don't see a squad folder did you delete that too? I'm going to write a FAQ, and problem walk through. Romie, need a log to start.

Main KSP folder.

I know with RSS you have to have your detail settings at medium. - - - Updated - - - memory issue maybe. It's your install or something. RO doesn't cause this.

You did not install something correctly. A log is the only way to tell you what it is

How about the 1074 page Project Gemini Familiarization Manual??? Look at this picture. Front and center you see the Translate Left Thruster and the Right Translate Aft Thruster immediately below it. Give me some time and I'll let you know what that protrusion is above it. Gotta do some reading.

What??? No. Gemini did not have RCS thrusters that moved into position. They were fixed. Had 8 roll thrusters around the Bottom of equipment section. 2 rear facing thrusters you can clearly see in your picture out the back of the equipment section. 4 translation thrusters around the retro section. And 2 retro thrusters right next to two of the translation thrusters.

You've got an incompatibility somewhere...The problem is here...you've got several things which modify the basic LazTek to the point that Laz isn't going to be able to help you and if I were him, I would point them in the direction of all that other stuff. Also, you mention you have RO AND LazTek rescale...asking for trouble right there, as RO contains a LazTek realism patch.

Space Junkies...Release v6.0 Alpha 2 is now up at the OP.

Missing NP engines are due to changes in the actual filename of the model, basically the age of the original RealEngines is starting to show. I've repaired that, the RCS, and a few other issues and I'll issue Alpha2 shortly.

Yeah, not sure what happened...Thought I had them elsewhere, smaller RCS blocks are back.

That is correct.

@MODULE[ModuleEnginesConfig] } @CONFIG[name] { %techRequired = blahblahblah } @CONFIG[name2] { %techRequired = blahblahblah } } PLEASE Read the ModuleManager thread, the first couple posts gives GOBS of information on what you need to do.

No it's not. That's just a 'feature' of PartCatalog, that while I will do some things to help people out, this i'm not changing. The node sizes help determine joint strength in KSP and also plays a part in FAR (or at least did), So I don't want a 3.5m engine given a 4 node size which increases the drag in FAR to that of a 4m object. The same being true, I'm not giving a 3.5m object the same strength as a 4.4m object.

Seems like a pretty simple answer, don't put a 3.9m engine on a 3m tank.

The sizes in brackets sounds great. Node sizes have been just that, I have been using the absolute value of the size to determine node size. Ex. 3.0-3.9~=3, 4.0-4.9~=4 and so on. So 0-0.99~=0. Hasn't failed me yet.