Agathorn

Well of course not. But isn't the entire point of setting the node sizes, so that you see the compatible tanks? Split the middle, a 3.5m engine. If it has a node size of 3, I see all tanks that are too small. If I have the node size at 4, I see all tanks that are big enough.

Well actually i'd say that is backwards. The problem, IMHO, with doing it that way is that you end up with engines too big for a tank. If you have a 3.9m engine defined as a Node 3 size, and put it on a 3m tank, its going to stick out and look silly. On the flip side if you define it as Node size 4 and put it on a size 4 tank, it will be slightly smaller than the tank and look fine.

Ok so i'm noting the engine size in brackets after the name, IE: "LR-91 [3.0m]" or "LR-87 (two) [3.0m]". I'm also verifying node sizes as I go. I only had to make a couple fixes there. both AIES and KW Engines are done on my side.

So do you just round down on sizes? I mean almost nothing is an even size in KSP. there are no 1m parts. They are mostly 1.25m for example. Or 2.5m. Dow you just round down for the node size? EDIT: Actually I guess it would be better to round up on engines. That way a 3.5m engine would be 4, and would fit better on a 4m engine than a 3m engine (which would leave bits of the engine sticking out). I'll make sure to update sizes as I am going through things if I see a problem.

What is node resizing? EDIT: Are you talking about the last number in a node defintion? 0 for half meter, 1 for normal, and 2 for large? If so i'm not sure how useful that is? I was rescaling something to a half meter size, and set that to 0 and the attach point became so small you couldn't even see it. So I set it to 1 instead. On the flip side of things, almost every engine in RO is over 1m so wouldn't like 90% of the nodes be sized 2? I can put them into the names though if we want to go that direction, because that is what i'm in the middle of is compiling a list of engine sizes. It is a good idea actually.

Someoen else on page 8ish had this same issue. RedAV8r told him to install his KSP in somewhere other than C:\Program files which is very solid advice, but he never reported back one way or the other if it fixed it.

So are you saying take a PP part and size it next to the one you are changing, then work the math backwards from there? I wish I could "Reload All" form the debug panel more than once. EDIT. Hah actually what works pretty cool is apply the TweakScale module to the item, set it to free, and then resize it in game. It gives you the exact multiplier you need, then change the MODEL{scale} value by that much. Seems to work EXCEPT I still need to figure out the attach points. Wonder if I just need to move them by the same percentage... MORE EDIT: Yep that works! Genius! No more guessing at all.

Geesh these forums are down more often then they are up lately Anyway. Does anyone have any tips on rescaling parts? I seem to be blundering my way through in a most inefficient manner! First off I don't seem to understand the difference between MODEL{scale} and PART{rescaleFactor}. Secondly having to restart the game every time is a huge PITA when I feel like i'm totally guessing at values. Is there some easier way to mathematically derive what I need, or close to it?

Hmm someone else was having that issue as well but I don't remember if it was resolved. Anything interesting in the logs?

Yeah that was me

Thanks for getting that in so quick Nathan. You are amazing! So can I modify pieces of CONFIG nodes just like normal MODULEs using MM?

Honestly i've always questioned why the stock game provides so many size ports? I'm just curious. Why do you even need more than one size? The only thing I can think of is maybe needing a small one for very small craft like satellites or something. In reality you don't need to use a docking port to connect to a satellite to do things to it. They use capture points instead. Which we don't really have in KSP.

So really that sounds fine to me then. If they all pretty much use the same size. I Assume you can do the 1.55 + 2.0 in one as I saw a part that had two docking sizes already. It might pose a challenge for smaller craft but i'm actually ok with that.

What size ports are used now though with the ISS and international standards? Is it the same as Agena? I'm guessing not. What about earlier, like Skylab?

No the ones I was looking at didn't even have the TweakScale module applied. I see it now though. It just so happened that the ones I was looking at didn't have it. Most do, just not all. AIES tanks for example aren't hooked up. I'll see if I can get to that here soon.

I think the intentino was to move to one standard docking port size. Not sure the reasoning behind it, but RedAV8r mentioned in in the old thread.

Really? Absolutely none of the tanks I tried had it, and looking at the configs for said tanks I didn't see TweakScale added.

Well right now I don't think any of the fuel tanks have it enabled. It does seem to re-calc fuel though in my own tests.

Some tings have it, some don't. I assume its still a work in progress.

Not sure but I think that might be your problem

Well that is all done by RSS. RO just modifies the parts to be more compatible with the resized solar system. Did you also reinstall RSS? Did you install any other add-ons that might use RSS such as Better Atmospheres or something?

ooooooooo I need to do a bit more testing but I think I finally found a way to fix the flickering hard to select buildings on first startup

Oh Kerbin. You said stock size, I thought you meant parts. Well on that note RO doesn't have anything to do with Kerbin being Earth either.

Install the latest RealFuels

??? RSS adds Earth and the Moon. Those are the only real planets I know about.