Shad0wCatcher

Looks really neat. Can't wait to break it.

Any sort of "Large Address Aware" or 4GB patch like what you're describing jospanner just allows a 32 bit program to access 3.5 GB of virtual address space. You're still limited in address space. 64 GB executables bypass that limitation (but in the case of the 64 bit windows executable it's highly highly unstable).

Looking very pretty Pingo. For the poll: Personally use 6.4 sized Kerbin config for RSS.

That's no lie. No red text to mull through at all. Haha.

Welllllll it IS possible with lo-fi's Mirror Plugin LINK but that would require this to be dependant upon that plugin.

Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. I surmised the issues with the pumps / chamber / nozzle would be a fairly big chunk of the problem with the rather extreme environment they're subjected to. Did not know about ablating material in the nozzle / combustion chamber though. That's interesting. Never understood why we ever decided on re-usability on the SSMEs in the first place outside of politics or PR.

That's no lie; this will be an instant addition to my already distended Gamedata folder.

Oh yea for sure. I wonder if it might be within the transparentIVA code recursing all the displays. I'd gladly take a static display (though I have to admit it is REALLY cool watching the navball in the pod change with pitch / yaw / roll input. Makes me giddy every time) to allow for many pods to be active at once.

@Ixonal The power increase between the different reactor types is really low (compared to the original). This is exacerbated by tweakscale's configurations. Take Fusion for example: (@ 40-50% carnot vs 85% w/ direct conversion of the original; one of its main draws) 0.625 m = 63 MW vs 66 MW minus the efficiency losses; which I won't add to reduce the clutter this post already will contain. 1.25 meter = 250 MW vs 625 MW. 2.5 meter = 2 GW vs 6.8 GW. 3.75 meter = 13.5 GW vs 54 GW (rounding). That's within the same family of reactors. Scaling shouldn't be linear. These new numbers feel arbitrary. (I really don't mean for this to sound as harsh as it sounds Wave; as seriously I appreciate this mod and the work you put into it to get it working well <3). I won't get into fission reactors as the smaller form-factor reactors have stepped firmly outside the bounds of plausibility with their power/weight ratios. This helps out newer players wondering why they got less than 0.5 TWR and worse efficiency than the stock LV-N with the same form-factor. I also won't get into the particle-bed fission reactors (very happy with the change overall here; even though its identity is gone and it's now just a stepping-stone). Their whole niche was based on high-efficiency of power-output. In practice it was about worthless as they were heavier than the base fission reactors and never put out meaningful amounts of electricity. Fusion and Antimatter reactors now are just....*shrug* not even sure where to begin.

Why have I not seen this until now? *click* Thank you for this Toadicus! Really dislike losing probe control due to LoS issues.

Really? Guess I haven't tested enough pods in one scene to notice the FPS drop. I did notice the 0.625 meter node up top which makes the Cyclops perfect for Spaceballs-esque escape pods. Now all we need is a large grizzly bear to clasp together for a seat belt and we'll be set! I'd love to see a 1.25 meter or larger pod with horizontal attach node for tug purposes; but that's wishlist-type material. Lord knows how much work each of these take. Great job though. I need to get a modulemanager config up for these to play nicely with Raptor831's stockalike engines monoprop->hydrazine changes but that's on my end.

Yea I suppose just a bit. But I agree in that the difference between completely "stock" gameplay and modded with some realism in mind (FAR / DRE / RF / Engine Ignitor [don't personally use this currently] / RSS [in my case 6.4x to avoid needing human sized rockets for half-pint green pope-hatted aliens]) is stark and absolutely astounding. All we need now is to have that n-body integrator finished up and we can take over the worl...*cough* make the game even more hilarious. At the risk of becoming even further away from the topic what's the (typical) main problem facing restartability? Cost? Fuel instability? Or are the typical turbopumps just not designed for multiple starts? Genuinely curious. On topic: I seriously love these engines for my probes and light landers hooji. Thank you for them. <3

Technically for its size prior to the re-imagining it had a really really solid performance/weight ratio (12 tons vs 54 tons vs 36 tons compared to the antimatter and fusion reactors in 3.75 meter size respectively; it was however, complex and expensive to get running as it needed both He3 and antimatter. Antimatter being the easier to obtain resource in large quantities). So far not a big fan of the blanket reductions in power output of the later tier technology.

@K3|Chris Wellll I currently have a game where the IVA from the 3e4aba73ffef build (last night after 2130 CST's commit) specifically M27 cockpit has been cloned and is flying away rather slowly. I figured Jeb was just eating shrooms (EVA makes the cloned IVA cockpit go away). Gave me a good laugh. Also regarding the VexcomHud I use it; it does nothing for the ADI; though its transparent Navball works(looks) just fine.

Apologies for the double post. Tried these out extensively. Absolutely love the ultralight (have one running off a firespitter propeller and fusion power pushing me well past 0.5 mach and it weighs less than 3000 kg). Still trying to think of a design where the Cyclops (larger) pod would be useful but that's more a lack of creativity on my end than anything wrong with this mod. (replacement cupola perhaps? It only having a bottom node feels weird to me) Also the pictures here don't do these justice; the emissives at night are gorgeous. My one and only (minor) gripe is lack of brightness of the displays, but that may be one of the vagaries of OpenGL rendering.

Dat shameless plug but so very true.

Xaiier - Thank you. No seriously. This will save quite a number of my designs.

Looking good so far. Shame the canopy view is still so unusable (I blame the pope-headed kerbals)

Thanks Hoojiwana. Saves me from having to dig through more config files. <3

@Stephanie the Viking Having the same issue as you are without infernal robotics installed. I'm getting the problem with SDHI's docking node / chute combo and spaceplane+'s hideable docking node. Can't check the physics significance thing right now as I'm not at home; but will check when I get home in about 45 minutes

@Raptor The terrain looks great. Still some funky aliasing between the shores and water but otherwise this looks absolutely beautiferous. So far I can only get a "SSTO" up to about half of orbital velocity using spaceplane+ (4500 m/s and just barely touching space). Also near future propulsion / KSPI aren't the end-all be all overpowered solutions for everything anymore .

.....YOINK. Will Test when I get home (At work now; should be home in approx 1 hour so long as a deer doesn't decide to fight my car >.> )

Lol it's always fun when you have to manually tilt the camera to get at all the options EDIT: To get back on topic; maybe separate the cryogenic fuels and storable fuels? Not sure if that'll give you enough separation though(since you'd only have HydroLOX // KeroLOX // MethaLOX and their remnants).

Needs a bigger list imo. Literally laughed out loud when I opened that picture krike. Reminds me of some of the early biomass modules.

@rentaspoon Feels that way from what I've tested. All the reactors have a use now however unrealistic they may be. Still quite a lot of fun (And not sure if I prefer this yet over the old one; I keep looking at the particle bed reactors saying "yep" then looking at the fusion reactors saying "nope" lol)