DoPToOT Aerospace in need of TEST PILOTS

[little square dot]

Hey guys,

Several months ago I undertook a project to revisit the entire VAB-oriented stock parts catalogue, seeing to all rescales and welds that I could think of to fill the gaps in the available parts, the hope being that I could widen the scope of the game and make it a wee bit more fun, while keeping it all stock so folks can still use the parts long after I've moved on from KSP(<-as if that's ever going to happen...).

I had initially intended on leaving the SPH-oriented stuff out of it, simply because I never spend any time in the SPH except to design rovers, and I am the noviciest of novices when it comes to that side of the game, so I was concerned about offering tremendously unbalanced parts. When I was just wrapping up my Advanced Stock Rocketry, Station Parts Project Redux, and Colonization Parts packs however, I couldn't shake this nagging feeling of having left a job half-done.

So I said eff it, I'm in pretty deep already, so why not just slog it right down to rock bottom? As for balancing-assistance, that's what the forum is for!

Hence, here I am with my .rar full o' after-thoughts, seeking your counsel on how best to balance these parts before release.

Cheers! (pics to come shortly)

Batch 1 -Cockpits. Mk.2, Mk.1 with RAM intake, Mk.1 with super pointy nose, Mk.1 with integrated ejection system and parachute (<-all cockpits equipped with this), UAV pod. (Original concept for Mk.2 Cockpit by polecatEZ. I cleaned it up and added a bunch of features, with his blessing of course.)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Batch 2 -Mk.2. Here we have the Mk.2 parts, and I should mention that for every size of fuselage there are LF & LFO variants, and the small sections have RCS and SAS+battery sections, but I won't go over them individually. ALL crew-capable parts have an ejection/parachute system so your planes are no longer death-traps. There are 2 Mk.2 Crew Compartment versions, one with integrated VTOL engines, and one without.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Batch 3 -Mk.3. Again we have two versions of the crew cabin, one with VTOL and one without, different sizes of fuselage in LF, LFO, SAS+battery configurations, a Mk.3 Adapter stretched in order to match the angle of the Mk.2 Cockpit, and a Mk.3 -> Mk.1 adapter. I think I missed a few Mk.3 parts, but you get the idea.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Batch 4 -crewable nose cones. Practical? Not particularly, but the Nose Cone Crew Compartments are pretty fun methinks. They have space for one brave kerbal and offer a bombadier's view from IVA. 2 models: cupola IVA and landerCabinSmall IVA. The default angles are wonky in order to accommodate the IVA's, but they look normal once rotated and attached. The first pics are cones mounted on stability enhancers, while the second set is flying over everyone's favourite island landing strip at night.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Batch 5 -Integrated Intake Wings. Self-explanatory. These wings come in small(0.625m) and large(1.25m) formats, with RAM and circular models, + one Air Scoop version. Extension pieces are cross-compatible regardless of intake type, and the back nodes can either be used as engine mounts, or you can simply cover them with the included 1.25m/0.625m RocketNoseCone rescales.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Batch 6 -final for now -Engines, Wings, Alternate-attach-point Wings, Control Surfaces, Decoupling Counter-weights, Gear Re-scales, Drop Tanks for both LF and O... etc?

(The engines aren't welded to the fuel tanks btw. The fuel tanks are there for testing purposes.)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I know that I've inadvertently omitted a few parts, such as 1.25m/0.625m RocketNoseCone rescales, among a handful of others, but I'm sure imaginations will suffice for rescales.

I've also noticed a number of cosmetic flaws in the parts, but I'm more interested in balancing the performance at the moment.

Thanks for your help!

DoPToOT Aerospace pre-release

The DoPToOT packs by little square dot are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

(Do whatever you like, but play nice and share... or else.)

Edited March 16, 2014 by little square dot

[GoldForest]

I would like to see some pics before I click the download.

Or to quote someone from the forums(who's name I forgot)

"No pics, no clicks."

[Taki117]

Just Downloaded this and I must say I'm impressed. I like some of the ideas contained in said .rar. Not my cup of tea (Mostly because I don't generally build spaceplanes) but they look very good.

[little square dot]

Or to quote someone from the forums(who's name I forgot)

"No pics, no clicks."

I think you mean, "to quote every other person from the forum." =)

I said pics to come because I'm uploading to imgur from my iPhone... gah. soon.

[little square dot]

Just Downloaded this and I must say I'm impressed. I like some of the ideas contained in said .rar. Not my cup of tea (Mostly because I don't generally build spaceplanes) but they look very good.

Thanks. Not my cup of tea either. haha...

(edit: that said, I'm starting to enjoy the SPH, although I'm not quite used to the sensation of horizon expansion...)

Edited March 14, 2014 by little square dot

[little square dot]

Bumpclarification:

Specifically what I would like to know, if anyone has time to load these up, is whether the center of lift needs to be adjusted on the wings and control surfaces, whether my crudely-scaled drag numbers are sufficiently un-terrible so as to have minimal impact on the game, and if there are gaps in the available parts and/or ways to improve the current selection. If you have any ideas for a useful part, or better still a totally useless but amusing part, I'm all earsy-eyes.

I've spent a lot of time testing them, but I have enough trouble creating a balanced stock space plane, so unfortunately failure is the norm for me even with well-balanced parts.

Also, I'd be happy to join forces with anyone creating welds of their own. Amalgamating similar mods such as weld packs would go a long way towards stunting the growth of the mountain of mods everyone has to sift through. It's somewhat annoying trying to remember who did what weld when searching for parts.

[Space_Kraken]

I'll become a tester for you.

[little square dot]

Thanks mate! Any and all suggestions welcome. =)

[Mach_XXII]

I can help with testing if you still need it.

[Roxette]

I think you mean, "to quote every other person from the forum." =)

I said pics to come because I'm uploading to imgur from my iPhone... gah. soon.

This is hilarious, because the amount of data transferred to view the images is several times the amount in the file download. I have to feel sorry for the people who have this attitude towards downloads, because I guess they must be on like 28k8 dialup connection or something

[little square dot]

The more, the merrier.

I haven't received any feedback yet, and given my lack of SPH experience, I think it would be best to avoid releasing the parts blindly.

Obviously they can be tinkered with over time, so the fine-toothed comb routine isn't necessary, but I want to make sure that I didn't massively screw with the balance, make anything significantly over or under-powered, and other such deal-breakers. I'm unsure about my lift and drag numbers, and wasn't 100% on the CoL/M positioning on the various wings and control surfaces.

No rush though. I would like to release the packs within the next few weeks, but I would rather the parts were tested in an 'attempting to have fun' capacity rather than simply testing their functionality, as there's little point in dealing with the technical side of things until the parts offer adequate entertainment-value... well, unless the technical issues are responsible for the fun-vacuum that is.

[little square dot]

This is hilarious, because the amount of data transferred to view the images is several times the amount in the file download. I have to feel sorry for the people who have this attitude towards downloads, because I guess they must be on like 28k8 dialup connection or something

Haha, yeah, well... I've downloaded enough crap to understand the mentality I s'pose. I don't think it's reluctance to use up bandwidth so much as the 'hassle' of dling, restarting KSP, determining the files are crap, deleting them, then having to vent displeasure on the forum that makes people cautious... (<-even though all of that shouldn't take more than 10 minutes, but whatever.)

At least the attitude suggests a willingness to cooperate... I once started a 'stock node revisions' thread in which I posted probably 20 revisions to clear-up the gaps, eliminate clipping etc.,

and node corrections can be ridiculously finicky, time-consuming things, and always mind-numbing, so I was quite amazed when I asked if anyone could think of parts that I had missed and received the following reply:

I believe the Materials Bay falls into this category, too lazy to look in the .cfg though.

Haha... now ^^THAT^^ attitude is much more difficult for me to understand, and unfortunately quite common. Good for a laugh... in a sad sort of way.

Edited March 16, 2014 by little square dot

[Justin Kerbice]

Haha, yeah, well... I've downloaded enough crap to understand the mentality I s'pose. I don't think it's reluctance to use up bandwidth so much as the 'hassle' of dling, restarting KSP, determining the files are crap, deleting them, then having to vent displeasure on the forum that makes people cautious... (<-even though all of that shouldn't take more than 10 minutes, but whatever.)

At least the attitude suggests a willingness to cooperate... I once started a 'stock node revisions' thread in which I posted probably 20 revisions to clear-up the gaps, eliminate clipping etc.,

and node corrections can be ridiculously finicky, time-consuming things, and always mind-numbing, so I was quite amazed when I asked if anyone could think of parts that I had missed and received the following reply:

Haha... now ^^THAT^^ attitude is much more difficult for me to understand, and unfortunately quite common. Good for a laugh... in a sad sort of way.

That's funny and I totally agree with you.

One thing for your imgur albums, as someone taught me, remove the # and following characters to make them looks as they should (removing the outside with imgur UI)

I'll give it a shot, all those parts looks nice and allowing more plane design.

One idea maybe, for what it's worth, splitting parts set into smaller, related sets can help in KSP memory management. I mean, all parts as it is now can make the game eat all its avail mem, especially if some others mods included lot's of stuffes, so you may have commands pods set, engine sets, fuselage sets or other themes like this. Because people are also lazy to drop parts they don't use, I do so most of the time I have to admit.

I don't have B9 or other memory "eater" kind mod but on my test install, I start having memory issues !

EDIT: didn't notice it was "only" part file without models/textures, and like the "donotreadme" style file (which is badly located by the way, do not put such thing inside GameData please, if people don't read it if it is in the root of extracted directory, they don't read it either when it is located deep into where it is not supposed to be)

1st try:

sadely there is no mk1 fuselage/fuel tank whereas there are two mk1 sized "pods",

the larged fueled wing (based on swept wing) is in command pod part group, I use PartCatalog autotag so not sure who's made the mystake here,

(again partcatalog) many fuselages are in propulsion category (mk3 fus. LFO for ex) and some other go to utility (mk2 crew cabin + vtol for ex),

nosecones with viewport are weirdly rotated,

the XLR12 engines are... awesome AND too crazy and too strong, my first "plane" reach more than 400 m/s so fast (14t plane badly built)

Edited March 16, 2014 by Justin Kerbice
update 2

[little square dot]

1st try:

sadely there is no mk1 fuselage/fuel tank whereas there are two mk1 sized "pods"

First-off, thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. =)

As for the Mk1. parts, I didn't create a Mk.1 crew compartment because there is no conceivable way for a crew compartment to be crammed into a 1.25m fuselage, and given that so many 1.25m options already for resource tanks, batteries, sas, etc., I didn't see much point in adding more. I can throw something together though... the mk.1 fuselage is definitely the easiest of the three to work with.

the larged fueled wing (based on swept wing) is in command pod part group, I use PartCatalog autotag so not sure who's made the mystake here,

(again partcatalog) many fuselages are in propulsion category (mk3 fus. LFO for ex) and some other go to utility (mk2 crew cabin + vtol for ex),

Yeah, I plan on going over all of those little details before releasing the pack. Several of the parts need revised descriptions and stats too. re: mk2crewCabin in Utils and Mk.3LFO in Propulsion, I'm just following Squad's lead. They placed the Hitchhiker container in Utilities and the fuselages with fuel tanks in propulsion. Do you think they should all go under Aero, or in Propulsion like the stock fuselages?

nosecones with viewport are weirdly rotated,

Unfortunately this is necessary in order to accommodate the IVA's. If they weren't rotated like that, you would be staring upside-down and backwards at the cockpit, or upwards into a big empty sky rather than down and slightly forwards. The cupola IVA is +Y and the smallLander +Z, and I don't think I can alter that without messing with everyone's IVA configs. I explained this in the part description, as I am aware that some people might be turned off by the zany default angle and the rotation requirement, however they attach normally, and look perfectly fine when attached. What it boils down to is we can either have the nosecones and deal with having to rotate them, or scrap them altogether,

the XLR12 engines are... awesome AND too crazy and too strong, my first "plane" reach more than 400 m/s so fast (14t plane badly built)

Haha... yeah... well I gave them a little boost in order to get a Mk.3 design into orbit. A pair of Rapiers just weren't up to the task, but I wouldn't say that the XLR is that much more powerful.

Rapier Air-mode / Closed-cycle

175 205

XLR12 Air-mode / Closed-cycle

190 220

Alright, thanks man. I'll see what I can cook-up on the Mk.1 front, and maybe knock the XLR's down a peg or two.

Edited March 16, 2014 by little square dot

[Mr.Rocket]

This looks nice. In notice of test pilots, do you need tests with stock or FAR aerodynamics, i have an install for both?

[Justin Kerbice]

First-off, thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. =)

As for the Mk1. parts, I didn't create a Mk.1 crew compartment because there is no conceivable way for a crew compartment to be crammed into a 1.25m fuselage, and given that so many 1.25m options already for resource tanks, batteries, sas, etc., I didn't see much point in adding more. I can throw something together though... the mk.1 fuselage is definitely the easiest of the three to work with.

You're welcome

I'll try later to make something useful with stock or other parts.

ok

Yeah, I plan on going over all of those little details before releasing the pack. Several of the parts need revised descriptions and stats too. re: mk2crewCabin in Utils and Mk.3LFO in Propulsion, I'm just following Squad's lead. They placed the Hitchhiker container in Utilities and the fuselages with fuel tanks in propulsion. Do you think they should all go under Aero, or in Propulsion like the stock fuselages?

Squad path might not be followed blindly, as career mode, things have been made drafty for now (look at folders and categories for ex), just common sense and a little time to think, IMHO, fuselage ("dead weight") wings, noses = aero, fuel tanks or whatever hold fuel = propulsion for now, all things with engines = propulsion, and so on.

Unfortunately this is necessary in order to accommodate the IVA's. If they weren't rotated like that, you would be staring upside-down and backwards at the cockpit, or upwards into a big empty sky rather than down and slightly forwards. The cupola IVA is +Y and the smallLander +Z, and I don't think I can alter that without messing with everyone's IVA configs. I explained this in the part description, as I am aware that some people might be turned off by the zany default angle and the rotation requirement, however they attach normally, and look perfectly fine when attached. What it boils down to is we can either have the nosecones and deal with having to rotate them, or scrap them altogether,

ok.

You know, it's not a big deal, just we have to play a bit with rotations in editor, but node snapping works well in this case, so it's ok.

Haha... yeah... well I gave them a little boost in order to get a Mk.3 design into orbit. A pair of Rapiers just weren't up to the task, but I wouldn't say that the XLR is that much more powerful.

Rapier Air-mode / Closed-cycle

175 205

XLR12 Air-mode / Closed-cycle

190 220

Alright, thanks man. I'll see what I can cook-up on the Mk.1 front, and maybe knock the XLR's down a peg or two.

mmm NO I would like to have "super-strong" engines too to make more sci-fi style planes/ships, there is plenty enough real/accurate/stick to our human world engines anyway.

Maybe some "redbullized" version could be fun.

Also, small/tiny/mini part are welcome to make small plane (I have a tiny glider without landing gears cause stock parts are too big).

Edited March 16, 2014 by Justin Kerbice
QUOTE are very case sensitive !!

[little square dot]

This looks nice. In notice of test pilots, do you need tests with stock or FAR aerodynamics, i have an install for both?

I'd be very curious to hear how the parts perform with FAR... I have a feeling that FAR will emphasize my noob scaling of the aerodynamic parameters.

Really though, any testing at all would be great. Ideally I would like the parts to be usable for everyone, FAR or stock.

It would be great if I could get some feedback re: the VTOL fuselages as well. In order to make VTOL work in atmosphere I gave the engines some punch at the cost of efficiency, however this means that they're a bit OP for low-G bodies. Of course engine thrust can be limited by the player, however the efficiency still suffers. I'm worried that atmospheric VTOL use might be more gimmicky than practical, and maybe I should decrease power and increase efficiency? On the other hand, it might be that giving spaceplanes the ability to land on low-G bodies is the gimmicky thing to do. I know that it's doable with a refueling support system of some sort, but tbh it's a bit of a hassle and not likely something that I would do... maybe the VTOL's are just all-around gimmicky, haha..

I'm so out of my league with this stuff. Rocketry is so much simpler.

[little square dot]

IMHO, fuselage ("dead weight") wings, noses = aero, fuel tanks or whatever hold fuel = propulsion for now, all things with engines = propulsion, and so on.

So basically, just reassign all fuselage sections currently under Utility to Aero. I debated doing this initially but opted to march in-step with Squad for uniformity's sake, which in retrospect was probably a bad idea because their parts are all over the place. I will reassign them.

A revised pack containing corrections, revisions and a few Mk.1 parts that I cobbled together should be up tonight or tomorrow. Cheers.

[Justin Kerbice]

I'm back with a bit more data.

This time, I've finally manage to build two aircrafts which actually fly and also are not to hard to control.

I haven't give a real name yet to this plane (RRLGTO for now: Rise Rear Landing Gear to Take-Off), the v1 have only liquid fuel, the v2 have more oxydizer for SSTO duty.

Both have a little design issue and in order to take-off, we have to retract rear landing gear when speed reach ~ 100 m/s

The small jet engine are very good, and use so few fuel, but the small RAPIER (1/2 scale 0.625) sadely doesn't do the same and in "rocket" mode they use 4-7 units/s, made them not very useful at all, at least for such light plane (~6t at take-off).

Decoupler equipped fuel tanks (0.625 Aux. Oxy Tank + Decoupler) doesn't work as expected, decouple action do nothing :/ (I know it's a test release ).

There is also the 'BAMA' drone, very fast take-off (be easy on throttle !), fast, slow on turn and tricky in high atmosphere.

It's great to have small aircraft parts, but in the other side, big, or even very big, parts could be fun too (gigantic wings and enormous engines, to make crazy big crafts without killing gameplay due to too much parts use).

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Crafts files

[little square dot]

I love your drone... looks very cool, but I imagine the wing-tip mounted engines make it a handful to fly?

Both have a little design issue and in order to take-off, we have to retract rear landing gear when speed reach ~ 100 m/s

Try adjusting your angle of attack or using larger control surfaces if it's difficult to get the nose up without retracting your gear. I usually rotate my wings back slightly or keep my nose higher than my tail. Makes 'em lift-off with very little urging, smooth as buttah. =)

the small RAPIER (1/2 scale 0.625) sadely doesn't do the same and in "rocket" mode they use 4-7 units/s, made them not very useful at all, at least for such light plane (~6t at take-off).

It's possible that I messed up a number, but it could just be the nature of the rapier. I've found it to be a very finicky engine to use on space planes because of the rate at which the closed-cycle engine eats fuel. It's a balancing act, but I've made it to space with a pair of them powering a big Mk.3 airframe... no fuel remaining to circularize my orbit, but I made it to 74,000m.

Decoupler equipped fuel tanks (0.625 Aux. Oxy Tank + Decoupler) doesn't work as expected, decouple action do nothing.

Note to self: reference decoupler module in parts that are supposed to decouple... *facepalm

(thanks for catching that one)

Edited March 19, 2014 by little square dot

[Justin Kerbice]

I love your drone... looks very cool, but I imagine the wing-tip mounted engines make it a handful to fly?

What do you mean ?

It was not as easy as the Aeris 3 but it works.

The drone is very light as well as engines themselves.

Try adjusting your angle of attack or using larger control surfaces if it's difficult to get the nose up without retracting your gear. I usually rotate my wings back slightly or keep my nose higher than my tail. Makes 'em lift-off with very little urging, smooth as buttah. =)

In fact it was not a real issue, I wish to make a plane but I create a racing car at the end (wings angle with the landing gear may produce more downforce than lift ). I just was a bit lazy to choose a right place for the right landing gear size.

It's possible that I messed up a number, but it could just be the nature of the rapier. I've found it to be a very finicky engine to use on space planes because of the rate at which the closed-cycle engine eats fuel. It's a balancing act, but I've made it to space with a pair of them powering a big Mk.3 airframe... no fuel remaining to circularize my orbit, but I made it to 74,000m.

Note to self: reference decoupler module in parts that are supposed to decouple... *facepalm

(thanks for catching that one)

mmm looks like a SSTO desease, it seems to be a deadend in some way as the mass of propellant prevent to make "small" planes, unless you just got enough to rdv with a fuel deposit. It might be great to have an easy on fuel engine, even at the expense of thrust (maybe another RAPIER with low thrust/low consumption).

[little square dot]

What do you mean ?

I just mean that generally-speaking, the further down the wing(away from centre of mass) you place the engine, the less stable the aircraft. Drones and small aircraft can be pretty forgiving though.

mmm looks like a SSTO desease, it seems to be a deadend in some way as the mass of propellant prevent to make "small" planes, unless you just got enough to rdv with a fuel deposit. It might be great to have an easy on fuel engine, even at the expense of thrust (maybe another RAPIER with low thrust/low consumption).

The problem with sacrificing thrust is that it only puts out about as much as a poodle as it is, which is only enough for a small space plane. I thought the drop tanks might help a bit, but they get eaten in about 10 seconds on closed-cycle.

[Justin Kerbice]

I have add the TouristStar, 18 passengers + 2 pilots, not a pretty plane but capable and not too hard to fly, and quite easy to land. Pics on my imgur album above.

So for these "greedy" RAPIER/XLR12, could you try at least adding a clone with tuned consumption, I know it's tricky in KSP to do this, I may give it a shot myself.

AFAIK, it's done by tuning atmopheric curve.

If yourself have some nice planes, it would be nice to share them.

I have tried a kind of A-10 inspired design, it's looks like a bird, but I didn't even manage to take-off with it !

[Mr.Rocket]

Hmmm.. any chance this could be made into a .zip file, i can't open .rar files?

[Justin Kerbice]

I got a weird issue today but not sure what cause it, the craft, stage are not displayed after craft loaded and of course, I can do nothing, and funny thing, speed displayed is 174.6 m/s (very precise value is this the kerbal 42 ?)

There is this soemwhere in log

stage count is: 0

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/ea95e74f6e5f192d/Runtime/ExportGenerated/StandalonePlayer/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 54)

ArgumentException: Getting control 1's position in a group with only 1 controls when doing Repaint

Aborting

at UnityEngine.GUILayoutGroup.GetNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at UnityEngine.GUILayoutUtility.BeginLayoutGroup (UnityEngine.GUIStyle style, UnityEngine.GUILayoutOption[] options, System.Type LayoutType) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at UnityEngine.GUILayout.BeginHorizontal (UnityEngine.GUIContent content, UnityEngine.GUIStyle style, UnityEngine.GUILayoutOption[] options) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at UnityEngine.GUILayout.BeginHorizontal (UnityEngine.GUILayoutOption[] options) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at PartCatalog.GUIEditorControls.DrawMouseOverWindow (Int32 id) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at UnityEngine.GUILayout+LayoutedWindow.DoWindow (Int32 windowID) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at UnityEngine.GUI.CallWindowDelegate (UnityEngine.WindowFunction func, Int32 id, UnityEngine.GUISkin _skin, Int32 forceRect, Single width, Single height, UnityEngine.GUIStyle style) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

(Filename: Line: -1)

deleting part sPlaneWingHori(Clone)

then:

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/ea95e74f6e5f192d/Runtime/ExportGenerated/StandalonePlayer/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 54)

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object

at ModuleDecouple.OnDecouple () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at ModuleDecouple.OnActive () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at Part.ModulesOnActivate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at Part.force_activate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at ExLP.ExWorkshop.OnStart (StartState state) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at Part.ModulesOnStart () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at Part+.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

(Filename: Line: -1)

LazorSystem : RuntimeLogic : OnVesselChange()

finally, a lot's of

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object

at ModuleParachute.FixedUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

(Filename: Line: -1)

dT is NaN! tA: NaN, E: 3.14159265358979, M: -8.40714670366795, T: NaN

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/ea95e74f6e5f192d/Runtime/ExportGenerated/StandalonePlayer/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 54)

dT is NaN! tA: NaN, E: 3.14159265358979, M: -8.40714670366795, T: NaN

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/ea95e74f6e5f192d/Runtime/ExportGenerated/StandalonePlayer/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 54)

getObtAtUT result is NaN! UT: NaN

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/ea95e74f6e5f192d/Runtime/ExportGenerated/StandalonePlayer/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 54)

getObtAtUT result is NaN! UT: NaN

...

problem!

[NaN, NaN, NaN] - [NaN, NaN, NaN] - NaN - [NaN, NaN, NaN] - NaN

...

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object

at ModuleParachute.FixedUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

Fortunately, no kerbals die on this test .

If anyone can try the craft and tell is there is the same issue, it may help. I don't know at all which cause this, but as I use mostly DoPToOT parts here + stock, I don't believe some mod interfere remotely but who knows...

(what a shame, I call the craft "superfast" but it doesn't move at all ! Cruel irony )