Shad0wCatcher

No biggie man. Personally just got tired of seeing the awful fuel mixes for a couple new NTRs (mmm, thermodynamics); but usability takes precedence over shininess. That and RAM limits *shakes fist at unstable 64-bit windows*. Enjoy the holidays and don't burn yourself out! I'll see what I can do on my end with this awful internet connection (9 friggin' months of this so far; even my patience is getting tested [911 dispatcher; must..have..patience]).

@BlackHeart Using FAR / DRE / just about all the other realism mods available. Using the Mk 1-2 command pod. ICPS isn't ignited until it's in a semi-stable orbit (periapsis of at least 100 KM). The DV I gave was combined ICPS / Exploration Service Module. Just curious as to what its designed to do. Love the models and I would absolutely LOVE to use something like this for more than an orbital rendezvous vehicle. But if that's what the modules were designed for I completely understand.

I was using OpenOffice 4.0 but I know development on it slowed a couple months ago. I just downloaded another suite called LibreOffice and am going to try that after I get off work tonight. Transferring to a web-app should make things interesting. I was just going off the main page on the xls far as what it was stating to do to get the finished modulemanager config for the engine. Everything calculates properly on the engines page. Where on that page is the config referenced? I pored over it the other day when I was trying to add some new engines that hadn't been added yet but had no luck finding anything. EDIT: Per the instructions section AG on the engines tab is Ignition count for EngineIgnitor. Just loaded up the document in LibreOffice and still no dice. EngineOut tab is all #VALUE! and #N/A for all the data cells.

Raptor; weird question; I was trying to add SpaceX's NTR to the config but (using openoffice 4.0's spreadsheet editor) the calculations weren't being transferred over to the engine output page. Are you using M$'s excel or some other spreadsheet editor to make changes to the xls? Question really goes out to anyone who edits the xls document. Just downloaded LibreOffice

Oh blackheart; meant to ask: Is the ICPS meant only for LEO / LKO rendezvous? Using 6.4 Kerbol with a ballpark fuel estimate for real fuels (did the whole add propellants together and multiply by 5) and the ICPS combined with either the transfer module or exploration module aren't even enough to get to the Mun (using hypergolics it's about 1900-2100 DV; LH2 / LOX isn't even close).

Honestly not a fan of how those thrust plate adaptors are set up (conical vs cylindrical; seems like it'd have too much point pressure versus spreading out over the entire thrust plate). However I can certainly see the use of them to lower costs of heavier launch vehicles (compare the 5 meter engine cluster to 13 of the 1.25 meter lower stage engines; so long as the costs work out you're fine. As well it makes more sense from a point of failure standpoint [if you use a mod that includes such things as Dang It!]. It's easier to handle an engine-out situation with multiple nozzles and still make it to orbit. Just look at the shuttle launches for [youtube shuttle launch engine failures] a perfect example).

Looking really nice. I really love how well these go with Yarborough08s 2 Kerbal Command Pod.

Basically it's "realism" from a stock part scale standpoint as most stock parts are 50%-64% their real size scale. This makes for correct payload mass fractions from a physics standpoint (7%-10% to low orbit).

@magico13 is there any way to change the velocity from 2,000 m/s? I use 6.4x Kerbin for which orbital velocity is 5.8 kM/s @ 92.something kM altitude. Makes any sort of automated drop above the atmosphere impossible.

The Jebediahs? If it's about the kerbal I use texture replacer w/ KSPRC so all my kerbals are changed anyway.

Wow. That sounds like a hell of an update. Congratulations in advance if I leave work prior to the release.

This is fast becoming my "go-to" command pod for missions. It looks and functions very well as it stands Yarborough

Mother of god. Well on the bright side at least more was pulled than added? Congrats on the release though; I use the hell out of these plugins <3

That definitely would explain the heat soaking and overheating then. KW Engines always ran a bit hot (toeing the line of maximum heat tolerance for steel when full throttle but wasn't reflected in the config [maxtemp 1700]). The lowered temperatures would definitely explain them overheating then. All the Spaceplane parts (both stock and B9) have MM patches from 64k (the continuation of 6.4x Kerbin) to add reflective heat shields to them to account for the Mach 18 re-entry (about half the actual earth). Shame about folks not doing their research regarding AJE and mod interactions. Thanks a ton for all you've done by the way.

If that's the case with AJE then that'd handily explain the problem with those jets. Still doesn't answer the inline jet from either Karbonite or Retrofuture (Not sure which; it's nli2work's model; can't remember which pack it came from; but it is kerosene fueled) or the KW lower atmosphere lifters overheating as quickly as they are. I did test last night a bit (911 dispatcher with a rather busy day; couldn't do much testing when I got home). I was only able to test the Inline jet (too tired to test further after this one) from either Karbonite / Retrofuture; military power; 10kM altitude to ~26 kM altitude. Mach 0.76 to Mach 4.71 (Got bored after a couple minutes of stable flight and caused a flat-spin / structural failure because ha-ha and !!SCIENCE!! [testing ejection module at low altitudes]). Stable Version: Temperature at 10kM / mach 0.76 (Running @ military power 66% throttle) 626 degrees C @ engine; 284 degrees C @ B9 short bi-coupler. Stock Ram-Air intakes x2; stock radial engine body (has the KSP Interstellar precooler module). @ Mach 4.71 (full throttle) @ ~23 kM altitude (6.4x Kerbin again) Engines are close to overheat at 22-23 kM altitude @ a surface speed of 1500-ish m/s. Producing 123-125 kN thrust each. Dramatic thrust loss occurs at greater altitudes than this (23 kN @ 26 kM altitude per engine; heating drops sharply also due to airflow losses). EDIT: Just read your corrected quote of the other poster Starwaster. That's....hilariously appropriate. I can get you log files with another round of testing along with a full mod list at some point here. I don't remember when I come back in (Part mods mainly; my previous post had relevant plugin mods apart from the late remembrance of KSP:Interstellar) but it may or may not be after Thanksgiving. I'll try to do the same thing I did above with more data points and a couple more engines. It's difficult though as really my only options are KSP:Interstellar's nuclear jets, Karbonite/Retrofuture inline jet, and the rest of everything is converted to AJE (all the B9 jets, squad's jets and TVPP jets) Test vehicle was identical between tests. Beta Version: Temperature at 10kM / mach 0.71 (2 ticks below 66% throttle setting) 600 C @ engine 1150 C @ bicoupler. Any more throttle and the bicoupler explodes. I didn't have enough time to test at greater altitudes (it would have taken forever with the 0.74 TWR that that throttle setting had me at and I was seriously overtired. This isn't a job that's friendly to unpreparedness).

@Starwaster Off the top of my head (I'm at work and can't check right now) AJE's F-15 / F-16 analogue combined with either B9's Mk2 short bicoupler or Mk1 5 meter fuselage. Those do reach max temp of 1250 on the runway with any throttle setting over 58-ish% (2 ticks below military power). Same with nli2work's in-line turbojet engine at some throttle below 66% (below military power) (I believe it's from the retrofuture planes pack). This is at any altitude and below mach 1 to just into transonic region mach 1.11-ish as that's as far as I can get before things go kerflooey or become stoichiometric with regards to throttle position to speed without getting stupid with altitude (again 6.4x Kerbol system so climbing to 15-30 kilometers using AJE can take a while using a nominal climb profile). It's weird though as using the current stable version there is VERY little heat transfer to other parts. Same plane setup between beta and stable results in the following: 1) Stable results in engine heating to 1800-1900 degrees celcius while its connected part maintains temperatures of 300-600 degrees celcius. 2) Beta results in the engine heating to 800-900 degrees while the connected part explodes. Anecdotal I know; but it's somewhat difficult to explain as truly there is much more heat transfer going on with the beta compared to stable. Not sure if an operator is reversed somewhere or what. I'd happily dig into the code to look for it if I had a clue what to look for and/or had any ability to read C## code. On the other hand the heat clamping mechanic is working wonderfully. In stable the heat shields can kick up to 800-1200 degrees celcius while barely ablating in the upper atmosphere (50-60k). With the beta the heat is clamping to 300-350 degrees celcius and ablating much more material more quickly as well as shedding speed at higher altitudes. Testing with the Maverick V (KW's standard 2.5 meter lifter) with the beta cannot reach full throttle before overheating and exploding at around 1000 degrees celcius (using mechjeb to prevent overheats results in anywhere from 85%-75% throttle versus normal. (This does coincide with a max temperature reduction as nominally it runs at around 1400-1500 degrees C; just odd that it's clamping to under 1000 degrees C). Also to an extent I can understand some of the overheat effects for the jet engines as they do seem to run really hot as stated in my first post. Example being the F-15 / F-16 analogue in AJE running at over 2000 degrees celcius at military thrust without afterburner at 10 kilometers altitude. Hmm. Just thought of something. I won't be able to test until 7:30-ish PM my time (it's 3:30 PM now) and won't be able to report results until tomorrow around 7AM my time. It might be Interstellar's Sabre Heating module causing undue heating as I just remembered all my tested designs did not include intake precoolers. What's odd though is that in a situation where I'd expect a compressor overheat situation (CR2 Ramjet from TVPP @ 180 kN built on the most simple design I can think of that has no precooler attached to the shock cone intake. Thing runs at mach 4.5 at sea level without overheating in the stable build). Far as altitudes and speeds are concerned. These are all at sea level. Leaving the launch pad with the Maverick V causes an overheat before 1kM of altitude and 150 m/s. Temperatures of jet engines are on the runway at 30-80 m/s.

@Starwaster having tested the beta thoroughly I went back to the stable version due to the heat transfer mechanic in place along with the lowered max temperatures for everything. The maximum temps I can understand to a point (melting point of aluminum @ 660C being the primary structural component of hull bodies) however the heat transfer is really really off. I was getting fuselages and couplers overheating and exploding long before the engine began to overheat. Nothing showing in output_log error-wise. As well any and all AJE engines from 1.6.6 (Haven't tested 1.6.7 with 6.3.1 beta) generate far too much heat at any throttle setting causing near instant connected part failures due to overheating at any altitude. I can understand some of the aggressive heat transfer however without having that heat propagate to other parts there will always be a weak link at the connection point at the engine itself. As well having rocket engines overheat at 1000 celcius makes no sense (tested with multiple KW Rocketry engines primarily the 2.5 through 5 meter lifters; lower and upper stage). Other relevant mods are FAR, RealFuels, Stockalike config and 6.4x Kerbin w/ RSS class heatshields and NathanKell's MM patch specific to 6.4x Kerbin for the heatshields. My only issues are: 1) Rocket motors transferring heat to other parts as quickly as they are (as my interpretation of the heat generation was always that the heat was at the bell not at the thrust plate) 2) Having AJE engines not being able to run at military thrust let alone afterburner at any altitude 3) Not having heat propagate to other parts apart from the connection between the engine and whatever it first connects . If the last issue can be resolved the first two will fix themselves as heat will transfer properly instead of soaking in one part and causing catastrophic failures on every launch.

Can always keep the sound effects for that rocket and the rocket itself around I'm in the same boat with my love affair with KW Rocketry

Thanks for the release Raptor!

@BahamutoD Sounds like the landing gear from nli2work's RetroFuture pack. Gear itself would be facing 90 degrees from point of origin. I.E. Belly-mounted gear like on the P-51. Photo of Landing Gear

I can only imagine silver. Best of luck to you. Will be watching this thread intently. Will be an amazing addition the likes of the n-body integrators will be when they're finished.

Yea suborbital contracts are HARD with this. By hard I just mean really really really funky to get the game to recognize my trajectory as suborbital. Ended up needing to cheat in infinite fuel for one as the rocket the probe was attached to only had enough propellant to get a suborbital trajectory. Mind you this is stock contracts.

Thank you cvod. Really liked the layout of this tree.

I can confirm the same issue with most of my rocket builds using RF. No logs as it's never been a big issue (easily fixed by attaching a launch tower). From what I've payed attention to during my builds it feels like the rocket is set on the pad while its being built and all the volatile fuels are boiling off at sea level pressure / temps. With smaller (sounding) rockets it's not a huge issue due to build times being only a few hours to a couple days. Once the larger rockets start going however and build times start inching toward the week+ times the boiloff is rather noticeable.

With regards to x64; having 0 issues using DX11 & OpenGL rendering. However when using the same DLLs in a 32 bit environment w/ OpenGL getting some weird NREs with FAR that spam the debug log and cause spaceplanes to fail horrifically and hilariously. Basically FAR loses its lunch with any aerodynamic surface I've used (stock, stock's implementation of Porkjet's SPP, and procedural wings along with a combination of structures from stock (mk 2 cockpit) to B9 (mk 2) to nliwork's retrofuture parts (all of which have proper FAR implementation) and the plane takes a nosedive / structurally fails since it instantaneously loses any lift from lifting surfaces. Obviously out of scope since the DLLs have been compiled against a x64 environment, however, those are my observations. EDIT: @Duodex Was that trolling really necessary? Please if you have nothing constructive to say then don't.