OOM

Just play with the x2.5 scale, which is considered the best in terms of optimal difficulty / realism The planets are now the size of real moons and no longer look so cartoonist. The DeltaV demand is approaching the limit of many chemical liquid fuel rocket engines, which allows for a better understanding of why rockets are built in 2-3 stages, and SSTO is a more complex option.

Intergalactic flight even with the Warp Engine looks tough, not to mention flying at a speed of light of 99%. Even in Star Wars, the intergalactic flight was fantastic)))

I have zero expectations both in the visual part and in the realism of the new mechanics. But I really hope for modifications. They will make garbage worth a masterpiece as it was with the original KSP. Take a screenshot of my post. But the graphics in KSP 2 will be at the "spectra" level for the original KSP. This is of course far from a beautiful AVP.

Plasma rocket engines can be any, even a chemical rocket engine that essentially emits plasma during combustion. NERVA nuclear engine also emits hydrogen plasma. A magnetic nozzle working together, fusion reactor will also use D-T plasma.

It is legal?

I don’t even know in which direction to move. Almost all engines / reactors have their pros and cons. But, probably, I would recommend using the very first MIF fusion engine, in which lithium balls are used as “fuel”. It has good thrust, 5000 specific impulse, low power consumption and a small amount of heat. I think a ship with a MIF fusion engine would be ideal for faster interplanetary flights with crews of up to 6 Kerbals.

For reference. To obtain 8000 m/s using a traveling-wave nuclear engine (160 kg mass) per 1 ton of dry weight, 2.7 tons of liquid hydrogen are needed. As you can see, the tank with liquid hydrogen is very large against the background of the rest of the details of the spacecraft.

If you had nuclear engines like NERVA \ LANTR \ Thermal Nozzle + Reactor then nothing surprising. You just took not enough liquid hydrogen, it needs a lot, unlike stock "liquid fuel". Therefore, if you need less than 4000 m/s Delta-v then the use of nuclear engines does not make sense. Therefore, you are most likely right, to unlock the potential of nuclear engines is possible only on large and medium-sized ships. The exception is a traveling wave reactor a nuclear engine. This tiny nuclear engine weighs very little and produces 4 kN of thrust. This is great for small space probes and does not require a lot of liquid hydrogen to achieve effective Delta-V

You will have to spend at least several days studying this mod. It's nothing you can do. Since Interstellar offers cutting-edge experimental technology, you should learn about their principles and how they work in real life. To do this, you can read this online magazine in your free time. You will not find documentation on this mod there, but some knowledge will definitely come in handy for a future game with KSP-I. In addition, you can right there knit several ready-made drawings of spaceships. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/ In your particular case, you used the nuclear movement to take off from Kerbin. Do not do that. The best way to enter orbit is to use conventional chemical rocket engines. Almost all KSP-I engines are designed for interplanetary flights from orbit to orbit. At the expense of fuel - everything is simple here. 1. For nuclear engines, use liquid hydrogen but a lot of liquid hydrogen (since it has a low density) 2. For fusion engines (if required) also use liquid hydrogen as a working fluid. 3. For electric rocket engines, use the following fuels: hydrogen, sodium, cesium, xenon. Each fuel has a different specific impulse and thrust. Liquid ammonia can be used as a substitute for liquid hydrogen for nuclear rocket engines, but you will lose a specific impulse. The calculation comes from the fact that ammonia can be obtained using ISRU. Therefore, in some cases, the use of ammonia makes sense (it also does not "boil" and has a high density). But look here according to circumstances. Hydrazine is used for RCS engines as well as the best fuel for the ATTILA electric arc engine. The remaining types of fuel and working fluid can be used for their intended purpose where it is really needed. Perhaps as a transition product for processing at ISRU. As I said - the same Nitrogen is needed to create ammonia in ISRU.

If I understand correctly, in time you are going to release a new version of RealFuel Stock, which is initially balanced for x2.5 and other sizes? If so then it will be a masterpiece.

Unfortunately, this mod is not compatible with "BDB". Due to a significant change in the DENSITY of liquid hydrogen, there is no longer enough Saturn V fuel of the 2nd and 3rd stages to put it into orbit and direct it to the moon. Scale - x2.5 Without "Real Fuel Stock," everything works well.I literally manage to gain 2800 m / s using the second stage of the Saturn V. Without the "Real Fuel Stock" mod, the second stage even has a reserve of 3800 m / s, which is enough to put into orbit at a size of both x2.5 and x2.7 (almost the same thing) I hope I wrote it clearly. ps also since I play x2.5 with the value "realistic mass engine\fueltank I have "false" I also noticed some misunderstanding in terms of engine mass.Stock: LV-TX87 weighs 2.0 tons.Real Fuel: LV-TX87 (realists mass Ture) weighs 0.4 tons (if I remember correctly)Real Fuel: (realists mass False) LV-TX87 weigh 2.64 tons? WHY? I thought that the values "False" will leave the engines in stock condition and not add to them even more weight than was in stock ....

Unfortunately, this mod is not compatible with "Real Fuel Stock". Due to a significant change in the DENSITY of liquid hydrogen, there is no longer enough Saturn V fuel of the 2nd and 3rd stages to put it into orbit and direct it to the moon. Scale - x2.5 Without "Real Fuel Stock," everything works well. I literally manage to gain 2800 m / s using the second stage of the Saturn V. Without the "Real Fuel Stock" mod, the second stage even has a reserve of 3800 m / s, which is enough to put into orbit at a size of both x2.5 and x2.7 (almost the same thing) I hope I wrote it clearly.

I don’t know if I understood your message correctly, but I also have problems with aerodynamics. HER NO! The rocket stage and the BFR practically ignore the atmosphere and do not want to start to slow down. This mod is broken

Liquid fuel was never the recommended fuel in the KSP-I. Use realistic fuels: hydrogen, methane, kerosene, ammonia. In addition, they can be obtained using ISRU. It could also be a bug. I have seen that NERVA can use aluminum and oxygen as a fuel, but in reality it does not work.

Is my SMURFF optimally configured (0.13, where 1 is the real system, 0 is stock) for playing in x.2.7? I just want to make spare parts more confident, but still have big planets. Especially when you consider that I have a mod “Kerbal health”, which makes the ship a little heavier due to additional radiation protection

This is me after the daytime brain strain in KSP lol

Do not tell me the optimal settings TUXF? I just discovered a problem with darkness in places where there is no sunlight (although the light should be reflected by the surfaces of other objects) This is with TUFX. Too unnatural darkness. You just look at what a realistic picture I achieved using TUFX. But unfortunately I can’t remove the problem with darkness without hitting the picture. How to fix it? vs stock

It's a pity, but in this case, all Ryzen and Intel processors (without K-overclocking) are a pretty weak spot for KSP.

There is no official news. But since this is a modern game, it can be assumed that it will require 8 gigabytes of memory, 4 processor cores and a video card with a level of at least gtx 1050 \ rx 460 for 2 GB. But if we take into account additional graphic modifications, as well as devices with a large number of details, then the requirements, of course, will be higher. From the personal experience of the original KSP - i7-8700, vega 64, 32gb ram, playing on SSD. The game still does not pull with 100% graphic modifications. Well, this is most likely a very poor 2011 optimization. I hope that KSP2 will be able to rationally distribute the load on the processor \ graphics card and use 6+ cores \ threads

If the "person" does not know about KSP and thinks that it is for children - he has nothing to do in this game. So the problems disappear by themselves.

If you run version 1.8.1 on client 1.9.1, you will get the result equal to eating a rotten egg with an expired shelf life.

Thomas.P is alive! The last time until recently, he was online on April 8, now I see good news. Now we just have to cross our fingers and humbly wait for the update.

KSP 1 is a game about one space agency, that explores its system and creates small outposts. KSP 2 is a space colonization game in which the WHOLE world is involved.

KSP-I INCOMPATIBLE with Near Future Electrical and Propulsion. They have different operating principles, and if NFP just adds arcade electric engine, then NFE will break the balance of KSP-I I am still waiting for the moment when NFE can work with KSP-I. For example, some parts of the unreleased Far Future Technology (FFT) mod work great with KSP-I.

Is it possible to somehow lower the height of the clouds? It seems to me that they are too high, almost in the stratosphere, which greatly spoils the picture. This problem is solved by increasing Kerbin in the amount of x2.5. But what about stock status?