s20dan

Sorry I wasn't more specific. I have setup a better test craft and was able to generate more thrust this time, problem solved The issue I was having is that the description mentions that it works best over mach2 but my most recent test craft didn't really generate any meaningful thrust until over mach3.5. But I guess that is going to vary with altitude and intake area too. My previous craft were having trouble using the engine at mach 2.2 @ 10km. Cheers anyway.

I can't get the ramjet to generate any significant thrust in 1.2.2 with Realism Overhaul

I'm trying to build a nuclear powered aircraft but when I set the thermal turbojet to use atmospheric mode I get almost no thrust (0-0.5KN). It's connected up to the reactor properly as other propellants work as expected, its just atmospheric mode that doesn't. Anyone know why? Thanks. Edit// Test craft to show what I mean: Atmo: Water:

Even in a small light aircraft like a PA-28 you really feel the ground effect as you land. It's cool :-)

900MB-1GB reducton in memory use with this and a very heavily modified copy Thanks.

Do you have a small anti-matter tank hidden in the top section? If so, lock it up.

That's a very childish response. The dude was only offering constructive criticism that just happens to be completely valid. It's not about like or dislike... these engines are awesome. He was offering advice onto how to make them even more awesome. Simple.

One of the versions posted only required 7k dv for an orbit due to the massive rotational speed of the planet (1500+ m/s).. Obviously that was a bug After I installed that version (3 I think) all of my rockets in carreer mode suddenly had over 2k dv left after making orbit .

Depending on what units KSP actually uses, that could be hotter than the surface of the sun (Approx 5505 C)

@AncientGammoner There's some discrepancy with tank Dry Mass when using Modular Fuels Tanks. Rockomax X200 3200 Liquid Fuel Dry Mass 1.2 Stretchy Tank scaled to the same volume (almost) 3208 Liquid Fuel Dry Mass 2.807 Hope thats of some use to you. Cheers.

Oh WOW. Excellent stuff I'll get testing rght away.

They have a use, but it depends what you want from them. They are good as large second or third stage craft, as it will reduce the mass of your entire launch vehicle for similar DV.

Sure here you go: There is also a bug with the Fuselage tank, they require a BaseMass to be added otherwise a tank using this will have 0 mass when drained and bad things happen, it was done by someone earlier in some configs that were posted. Edit, the liquid fuel and Oxidiser sections should look something like this: @TANK[LiquidFuel] { utilization = 1.0 mass = 0.0005 @amount = full @maxAmount = 40% } @TANK[Oxidizer] { utilization = 1.0 mass = 0.0005 @amount = full @maxAmount = 60% } Note that 0.005 will probbaly be too high. 0.004 or 0.0045 would be better. I personally use 0.0025 but thats along with a reduction of Liquid Oxygen tanks to 0.003.

I just made a few versions of each part containing LiquidH2, LiquidH2 + LiquidOxygen and LiquidFuel + LiquidOxygen but the contents do not scale with the size unless it is LiquidFuel or Oxidiser. IE, its hardcoded to only scale Liquid Fuel and Oxidiser by a pre-set ratio, which also over-rides any changes in fuel ratio made in the tank config. So no Liquid Hydrogen procedural tanks just yet...

Last I heard (read) Ialdabaoth was absent from KSP due to RL getting in the way. But here's to hoping he's ok and comes back

It is the answer to all the problems of the real fuels part of this mod (other than the typos in the config of course )

Oh I see. Why wouldn't anyone want to use it? Is there some philosophical reason not to? (Not referring to the slightly buggy real fuels version of the mod, just the basic one that lets you customise tank loadouts, and tank contents). TBH, its probably down to MFT to add compatibility, as thats what happened with other mods I guess. Great mod btw AncientGammoner, some rep for you

Why reinvent the wheel? Modular fuel tanks does all that, and does it while remaining compatible with everything else. This really needs modular fuel tanks integration. It seems like adding Modular fuel tanks support is about as essential as adding FAR support to the procedural wing mod. (IMO)

I've been trying to do the same but I think g-tolerance is hard coded. You can edit thermal tolerance in the custom.cfg though.

That sounds like a Nuclear Salt-water Rocket. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket

The thing is a lot of engines use LH2, making it more dense would likely make LOX/LH2 rockets far too effective. I've been playing with tank dry masses and a slight tinkering of ISPs, I have a setup that seems to work for LF/OX, LF/LOX and for LOX/LH2, but still not for LH2 + NERVA. LOX tanks use mass = 0.0003 LF and OX tanks both use mass = 0.00025 WRT Volume it seems that values were just picked that worked and each tank is scaled accordingly, but I guess volume (m^3) could be calculated using a fuel's density and the mass of the fuel contained in the tank and checked with the physical dimensions of the tank. I think CaptainArbitrary said he had done something like that.

I don't think this was mentioned, but there appears to be a bug in the RealTankTypes.cfg that basically means that Oxidiser and Liquid Fuel tanks weigh nothing! Code tags don't seem to work? This is from the Default tank section' date=' but every tank has a similar section. Take note of [b']@mass = 0.0005. It's using the @ sign but that line does not exist, the @ sign should be removed. If I'm correct the @ sign is used to replace a line, if that line does not exist it is not added/changed. Therefor Liqud Fuel tanks and Oxidiser tanks have no extra mass.. IE a tank section weighs the same with no internal tanks as it does with a liquid fuel or oxidiser or both tanks. Remove the @ sign and those tanks will have a larger base mass (Perhaps too high), but will fall in-line with LOX tanks.

You're correct. I neglected to account for tank dry mass as I had checked with LF/OX and there appeared to be no change to tank mass.. I assumed the same for others. (That they all had the stock dry mass for some reason :-) ). LF/LOX combo more than triples the tank's dry mass with the Jumbo orange tank. LF/LOX uses a tank dry mass of 2.934. LF/OX uses a tank dry mass of 0.959. I'm sure the values would come out as expected when this is taken into account, I'll give that a try. Edit: It was indeed tank dry mass. You guys are onto something here with the tank masses being off.

Good point. I'm just using Mechjeb and the Kerbal Engineering System, there could very well be a problem there. The test was something like this: The LF/OX actually has less fuel mass than the LF/LOX rocket as it's carrying some dead weight (it was easier to get the desired mass that way) and it still comes out on top. (Oh I realise that's a mod tank, the result is the same with the Jumbo orange tank).

I tried these settings. They just make things way too easy. I strongly get the impression there is an issue with how the game calculates fuel mass flow. LOOK: 2 identical craft, same fuel MASS, same payload mass, same tank sizes. (BOth after tinkering weigh 51 tons, LF/OX has some fuel drained out.) EXCEPT: one uses LF/OX the other uses LF/LOX... LF/LOX has a higher TWR (sometimes) and a higher ISP so WHY THE **** DOES IT HAVE A LOWER DELTA-V?? (The anger is supposed to emphasise my confusion ) Both craft have same dry weight, same fuel mass ect.. what the hell is going on? Just do this test yourself.