cantab

Since I'll have to guess something different, helium?

I think it's about right. Bear in mind launching to orbit is core gameplay stuff, anyone who's been playing for a while probably will find it easy. With less draggy aerodynamics it's too easy though. Then the balance benefits from either need a system resize or an Isp nerf. I'm partial to a .85x Isp nerf myself, it drops the engines into the general range of what hypergolic fuels can do.

It seems a little bit pointless, since we expect the barn will return once it's been given a polish up. I'm very much in the camp that says nice idea, bad execution, of the barn preview. Conversely the level 1 and level2 we got are decent execution - a few rough edges, but decent overall - but bland idea. That the tier 1 building is a barn seems a reasonable choice. It needs to be quite a tall building because the interior interface is for vertical assembly - the Kerbals need a VAB a lot earlier than NASA did because of this. It should be a repurposed building because the space program is only just starting out. A barn's a suitable and reasonably characterful building. I wouldn't mind seeing a few less caravans in the final version mind. Only one bit, probably the Astronaut Complex, should be caravans I feel. Maybe R&D can be some garages, that seems a fitting place for amateur engineering.

Taranis answered this in Twitch chat: They are not meant to be 100% efficient. The water can appear to be because the loss in the water purifier is made up for by the Kerbals producing wasterwater from their food intake as well as their water intake, the food being considered as not all dehydrated.Time to send that urgent resupply mission. It also makes me wonder how many Kerbal-days you need to be supplying for the recyclers to even be more mass-efficient than just sending more raw supplies.

Re-entry heating I'm hopeful we'll see just because it leads to the chance for awesome destruction. Something big deorbiting can be quite the sight. Life support I want to see simply because it makes the player think about mission duration, and then facilitates other game aspects linked to time. However I'm less hopeful the stock game will actually include it.

The explanation?

Obvious thing to check: Are you using the same graphics settings in .90 as you were in .25?

This is a potential problem with any thin parts now. Because the editor no longer checks for part intersection it can be frustrating to get the right node connected. Meanwhile the offset tool allows the player to work around this and create a ship that looks right and in stock would fly right, but in FAR behaves unexpectedly. It's not only a DRE issue, it just affects DRE users more thanks to the combination of the heat shields being extra thin and the pre-chute terminal velocity mattering.By way of example, here are two simple ships that look identical but in FAR have very different aerodynamics Test A, built how it looks: https://flic.kr/p/qxZjbc Test B, with the battery connected by its lower node then offset down: https://flic.kr/p/qxVyNJ I know it's easy for me to say and not so easy for you to code, but I feel you should aim to have FAR give correct behaviour in situations like this.

Realism Overhaul, a group of mods and configurations designed to do just that for KSP. Deadly Reentry, the specific mod that adds destructive re-entry heating and g-force fatalities. Orbiter, a freeware spaceflight simulator that predates KSP and is considerably more realistic, but lacks the rocket-building aspect.

For clarity, with the %AoA function on control surfaces, what AoA is used? Just the one for that control surface? Some sort of average for all the wings? The angle between the heading and the prograde marker?

When you come on a forum with an abrasive username and make your only post to trash the subject of the forum and spout nonsense accusations of criminality, then new or not you come across simply as a troll. *plonk*

Yeah, the big thing is getting higher specific impulse. Viable approaches I think: Nuclear thermal engines. The NERVA was ground-tested and twice as efficient as chemical engines, and more advanced designs could be even better, and have higher TWR as well. However, though an all-nuclear launcher could be light it would probably be bulky, since liquid hydrogen is the propellent of choice. Jet engines. The SABRE is one of the most promising technologies here, but there are lots of ideas for hypersonic jets. SABRE depends on liquid hydrogen, so again a light but bulky ship, but other engines might use kerosene for a much more compact spaceplane. Or, indeed, a vertically-launched jet rocket, there's no real reason that can't work. Beamed thermal engines. A less mature technology but one that could potentially work very well. High TWR would be natural, but like with a nuclear thermal engine you get the issue that the highest specific impulse requires liquid hydrogen, so light but bulky. Of course whatever the engine technology, another aspect is the room for weight savings all round. Lightweight composites, miniaturised electronics, and so on.

Put it in the Space Shuttle. Job done. (Or the X-37 or the Buran. Wait, the Buran used chutes, so not the Buran.)

Indeed. It's probably right that the launchpad considers the nominal masses of physicless parts, since it blunts their abusability somewhat, but I guess it might confuse KER users.

Agreed. I'd venture that "costs" and "penalties" should be completely separated, to allow a hard mode that's punishing of failure without being excessively grindy.But really, I think it's more that hard mode with .90 seems to have caught people out, because suddenly it is a challenge even for an experienced players, in a way it wasn't in .25. People have been doing low-tech missions for ages, people have been doing ultra-light missions for ages, but suddenly the 18/30 limit challenges you to do both, and that's something else.

Planed into space for the first time I can plane into space by cantab314, on Flickr And got down safely, despite an uncontrolled re-entry in DRE because I forgot power generation. I can plane back from space by cantab314, on Flickr

I believe that makes the control surface automatically respond to the angle of attack. So as you pitch up you can have it automatically deflect up or down. I'm not sure what you'd use it for. Maybe some sort of automatic stabiliser?

Was the g fatality behaviour changed recently-ish? Since the other day I was pulling 20g loops in a plane and getting the warning but completed the loop with no deaths, but on the other hand a few DRE and KSP versions ago I tried Roverdude's warp drive and it caused a brief g spike which DRE made kill the kerbal.

On the one hand Eve landers will have to worry about aerodynamics, on the other hand they won't have as much drag to deal with any more. I think it'll balance out. Considering I've seen Jool ascenders, and an RSS Venus return lander, I think Eve return will remain perfectly possible.

This one, at least, is supply and demand The 4-way blocks are made in large numbers, the linears are a specialised part.

The O-10 engine definitely shouldn't be physicsless IMHO. It allows funny stuff, but an engine with a TWR of Very Large is just silly really. It's not some piddly little thruster, it's a 20 kN engine, and is meant to be comparable to the 24-77.

You could have a look at the Principia mod, which aims to add n-body gravity to KSP. I've not tried it myself but it seem to show that it's computationally feasible at least, despite the demands. I think KSP uses patched conics for simplicity. Simplicity to program, since Keplerian orbits and patched conics are basic geometry really, whereas n-body gravity requires more advanced mathematics. And simplicity to play, since you have perfectly stable orbits and clear SOI transitions.

I think Squad should have an expert work on this, someone who's done aerodynamic simulations before. They'll get better results, and quicker coding, that way than if they have the usual team trying to do something. I also think given the kind of things KSP lets the player do they'll get better results with a custom model than if they attempt to use an off-the-shelf library. (And yes we all know one candidate, but he's not the only person who could do a good job.)

Egg and sperm?

They've been used for sounding rockets at least, the combination being known as a "rockoon". One problem with simple balloon-based launchers is controlling the launch bearing, which means they need a wide clear area on the ground. With a more sophisticated airship this wouldn't be such an issue.