OminousPenguin

They worked fine for me with AFBW: That was in 1.0.5 of course.

It's released under a totally permissive licence so I doubt it will be long before someone forks it and makes the various components toggleable, or even better - makes each component a self contained mod. A quick glance at the source suggests it wouldn't be too difficult to do that.

78 mods. 8GB of RAM. Works fine with OpenGL. I expect if I tried to create something with hundreds of parts it wouldn't do so well, but for my usual projects it's perfectly smooth.

Good point. I'll make an issue on Github. https://github.com/snjo/Firespitter/issues/144

I posted about this issue in January. Would be good to see a response from @RoverDude

Excellent. Thanks.

Hi @m4v, I've just submitted a pull request: https://github.com/m4v/RCSBuildAid/pull/29 I was trying to use TweakableGimbal but, as both mods set gimbal rotations in the editor, engines were just flickering rapidly - not much use to anyone. I expect there is a cleaner way to see if the rotation to the desired position has been completed rather than just waiting for some time... I look forward to your comments. Thanks

You still alive @HoneyFox ?

The engine is not the limiting factor - The stated RPM on both is the same. Changing the engine size in the editor does not affect the max RPM that can be reached.

It's definitely a Firespitter engine. I posted here in case anyone is curious: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/22583-firespitter-propeller-plane-and-helicopter-parts-v71-may-5th-for-ksp-10/&do=findComment&comment=2373239

I'm seeing this exact issue. This is the FSPROpellerElectric "FS1PRE Customizable Electric Propeller engine". Confirmed on a clean install with no other mods. Only Firespitter. Is this a known issue that is proving difficult to fix? I can't see any reply to the quoted post.

Thanks for your answers guys. You're absolutely right. Sorry. I'll do that now. Yes.

Hi guys, I'm trying out the FS1PRE Customizable Electric Propeller Engine and I'm getting a bit confused. 1. The engine appears to be fixed RPM and variable pitch. I think this because in flight the 'Current RPM' value remains constant. However, electricity consumption varies with throttle. RPM of 600 but 0 throttle = 0.01 ec/s. RPM of 600 but 100% throttle = 4ec/s. Is this correct? If so, can someone explain why? 2. In the hangar varying the max RPM, number of blades or blade length does not affect the max thrust. Only adjusting the engine size affects max thrust. Increasing the number of blades increases surface area which, for a constant RPM, should be capable of producing more thrust than fewer blades. Is this not correct? Maybe max RPM is engine RPM and not propeller RPM but in either case I'd expect the 'Current RPM' value to fluctuate in flight when I suddenly change the throttle and thus blade pitch. What am I missing? Thanks

The atmospheric lighting in the I-Novae engine is seriously impressive. Modelling scattering and absorption of EM wavelengths depending on atmospheric composition? Check.

I'd like to bump my suggestion of reducing the antenna masses to more realistic figures.

I'm guessing you haven't tried Sublime Text.

Why anyone would ever use anything other than Sublime Text is a mystery to me.

From your experience, if a vessel has more than 1 antenna (of the same or different types) should the extra hardware be duplicated as well? (In addition to duplication for redundancy.)

That PDF is a good find Sigma88. Thanks. @Stone Blue, yes the weight needs to include additional supporting systems, however: The cores already contain transmitter/receiver hardware, albeit but with a much lower power antenna. The power source is external - solar panels etc - so just transformers and regulators are required. You could bump my proposed masses up by 25kg or more and they are still going to be a lot more sensible than the current 1000kg and 500kg values.

Ah yes good point. The fixed ones that can tolerate atmospheric stress should be heavier, but still no where near what they are. Cassini was one that I looked up before making that post, but I can't find the mass of the antenna anywhere. The orbiter has a total mass of 2125kg - Just guessing that the antenna doesn't account for anywhere near half of that The 0.9m antenna on the GPM satellite has a mass of 24kg including two gimballing motors. [ref] This 10m antenna has a mass of 230 kg. [ref] Note that this antenna is for a radio telescope rather than data communications and so will have different physical requirements... and it's 10m. I'll revise my suggestions: KR-7: 35kg, KR-14: 50kg, CommTech-1:90kg and GX-128: 120kg. - I still think these are a bit high but I think they're balanced for gameplay.

I've noticed that the masses of the RT2 antennas are ridiculously high. 1000kg for an antenna??? Decimal place is definitely in the wrong place. I guess most people don't really pay attention - I know I've only just noticed it after playing with RT2 for well over a year. - Normally you just add enough fuel to get the delta v you need without really paying attention to the mass of individual parts and comparing it to real world equivalents, but that's what I did tonight hence noticing it. The folding ones should probably be the most massive.. Fixed ones like the KR-7, KR-14 and CommTech-1 should be lighter at around 10-20kg. The GX-128 should obviously be the heaviest at around 50kg (not a ton). Anyone disagree? If so, please explain your self!

Thanks. The stack tank has radius and height 0.3125m so total volume of 95.87L. Three quarters of that is 71.9L so 70L looks right. The radial tank has radius 0.15625m and height 0.625m so a total volume of 48L. So a volume of 40L looks about right too. So just scaling the stock values of 700 and 400 down an order of magnitude seems to be correct

Thanks. I just looked up the pressure that Xenon is stored at on space craft and it's in the region of 62 atmospheres. At this pressure Xenon has a density of 359.58 kg/m3 Is the litres value specified supposed to be the volume when pressurised? What does the utilisation property do? Is the idea that engines should have have realistic specific impulses and fuels should have realistic mass, but the flow rate is adjusted for gameplay purposes? Sorry for my noob questions.

Obviously, but not 3/4 of its volume! Even if you say internally the tanks must be spherical because of the pressure, the geometry would indicate their capacities should be equal at least. That would still leave 1/3 of its volume for structure.

Hi Nathan, The volume values for the two Xenon tanks appear to be incorrect. The radial tank is about 2/3 the size of the stackable tank and yet can hold nearly 3 times as much Xenon. xenonTank (PB-X150) Stock capacity: 700 units of Xenon Real Fuels capacity: 70 L xenonTankRadial (PB-X50R) Stock capacity: 400 units of Xenon Real Fuels capacity: 200 L I haven't taken the time to understand how you're representing density and pressurisation etc so I'm not sure what order of magnitude these values should be, but I am sure that these values are incorrect relative to each other. Thanks Squad_modularFuelTanks.cfg @PART[xenonTank]:FOR[RealFuels] { MODULE { name = ModuleFuelTanks volume = 70 type = Xenon } } @PART[xenonTankRadial]:FOR[RealFuels] { MODULE { name = ModuleFuelTanks volume = 200 type = Xenon } }