O-Doc

Incorrect. Tweakscale with isFreeScale = True mode is still broken as per the video in this issue post which is using a tweaked cubic strut. No wing tweaks used. It took me a number of days to isolate this problem and it is fully reproducable.

Sorry, Windows 32bit w/ 4gb RAM. Everything is a clean install in a fresh downloaded v0.25 of KSP. If you look at the time on the edit, it's useful to make a new post if devs are subbed to thread and you give new information.

I just want to add one more thing. This bug did not exist in an older version of FAR which I had installed a week ago.

Hey, I've got an interesting issue with Far + Tweakscale. I'm running a fresh v0.25 install of KSP and have the following added: ModuleManager v2.5.1 FAR v0.14.3 Tweakcale v1.44 So, everything's the latest and up to date. When I use anything in Tweakscale free mode it totally borks the FAR aero. I hate to speculate, OK, I lied. I love speculating and I'm thinking that Tweakscale is messing up the AttachNode size in rescaleNode() through the isFreeScale logic gate in Scale.cs. Then, FAR is taking those Attach.size values on the rescaled parts prior to raycasting all check during AttachNodeCdAdjust() FARBasicDragModel.cs, but that might be me reading the code wrong. The video shows the bug being fully reproducable. It doesn't only happen when you load the craft. It will also happen while you are editing the craft but it's hard to know what triggers the change in the aero. Loading the craft from save always creates the problem. Watch for that one frame glitch when the CoL seems to almost be in the right position then moves. Could the ordering of the Update() function between the two be an issue? Another interesting "feature" is to load your craft onto the runway and using a data display mod, check out the vertical velocity relative to the horizontal. My craft was generating three times the negative vertical velocity as it had horizontal velocity. Even the gear suspension was groaning under the weight of a 7 ton craft. Interested parties can grab the video and corresponding log file in my drop box(58MB). It would be a shame to have to choose between these two great mods...

Hey guys, I'm building a highly optimised modded install of KSP and and know I'm going to have to do this a number of times so, I'm building an installation toolkit just for myself. However, there's every possibility that some basic tools will come of this that other people will be able to use. If you're interested in integrating TAC Life Support with Tweakscale in your v0.25 build then grab TacTweak.

I couldn't say. Loaded up a rocket and the launchpad blow up. Destructible buildings was then turned off and will be staying off.

I bought the game because I enjoyed the demo. I had seen youtube videos so I knew there was more to the game but, the demo gave me the experience to make a purchasing decision.

I've just started using FAR. Tappy tap tapping my to orbit! Two things you are going to keep in mind with your design. Make sure you have a decent control surface to wing ratio(EDIT: not too much control surface) or you can throw yourself into a stall very easily. I prefer this behaviour but it's not so good for rank beginners. The second piece of advice is to make sure you have enough wing to deflect your aircraft direction when turning. If you don't have enough wing you either won't turn or you will stall out, most likely you will do both. Is this wing weigh related or is the CoM/CoL moving around in a buggy way. Because, I've been getting CoM/CoL all over the shop each time I load the identical craft. I'v ended up ignoring it and designing my craft the way I do in real life. Guesstimation and flight testing.

600T is not much to lift in one go, especially if you are using stock aero. Just put your load together in the VAB, attach a at the decoupler, cook yourself some asparagus for dinner and strap it all down.You can run it up in individual launches, which is my preferred method using SSTOs, dock it all up and send it out to your destination. It'll be slightly less painful than sending one cargo load at a time. But, if you are looking for easy way, just make big fat rocket. It's fun to watch your failures.

The V1 was the first and only HOTOL I know of. The Skylon will technically be HOTOL as it is an air-breathing rocket with a closed cycle.

Do we have a link for this presentation? I trust CNET as far as, well, you know.

Try the assets I've created for PMK.

I've already had my rant about the SP+ wings in the 0.25 grand discussion thread. Having spent the last hour playing around with Procedural Dynamics I'm stunned. Just stunned. Cannot. Pick. My. Jaw. Off. The. Ground. Squad? Hello Squad? Why are procedural parts not stock? Hello, anybody there...?

Exactly WooDzor. To me it's like the update has broken all my saves and I have to start from scratch. I don't mind that too much but the replacements are not substitutes and bring with them plenty of issues that C7 had already solved. This post pretty much sums up my catalogue. 1000s of hours gone. EDIT: OK, maybe one thousand or more...

I agree, with the SP+ MK2 fuselage. Let's have a look at it when used on the MK1: Not so elegant now. It looks completely out of place. But, here's my real problem. I know I'm one of only a handful of builders who make large SSTO lifters but there's also the consideration of builders who make space fairing capital ships and even stations using wing parts. Why not just use a plain whitish colour? Instead we get this the quilt effect. I shall rename this craft the "Baby Blanket":

You forgot the last option: Because you are no longer designing craft with stock parts, pull out all of Squad's parts and use a custom modded install. Don't bother sharing your creations. My question is: given the performance issue surrounding two parts, why were the winglets retained given that SP+ parts fill those geometries?

Then I'm not hearing any complaints about keeping the old winglets in given that they included replacements.

Why are you creating a strawman? We just would have like the new control surfaces in addition to the old ones. How is that hard to understand? They kept the old winglets...

We should engage in some roleplaying to make that happen. I'll be the CEO and engineer, you can be the tester.

Please don't roll out the space shuttle on this one because then we are going to have to bring up heat tiles. You see where this is going? As for the flickering, I assume everyone has that because every youtuber using B9 has that. You can see it plain as day in every video with B9 wings.

I'm pretty sure Squad have not intentionally limited our ability to build ridiculously large rockets. I would say it's more a design oversight than a bug. Why are Danny and Wackjob not on the experimentals team?

SP+ is like B9, every plane looks like every other plane. Some longer, some shorter. Don't get me wrong. I love the cockpit, and air intakes. The wings and control surfaces, not so much.

Why do the options have to be exclusive? It's not like two parts, two parts, two parts are going to break people's computer. Or maybe... ...they will.

They're not spaceplane enthusiasts. They don't get it. The SP+ control surfaces look as silly as B9 control surfaces.

Like I said, I'm quite happy to build new planes. I was really looking forward to using the new geometries to come up with some new shapes. But the quilt effect... Seriously squad, get rid of the black in the SP+ wings. Hot fix that right out of there. That's also going to go a long way to solving that clip-flickering that makes my eye twitch.