Jovus

If this is just a readjustment to normality, I'm in the camp of us all getting over it and moving on with building rockets. Unlearn what we learned in the last week and relearn something else, all that jazz.

So what seems to be the problem? Is drag increased across the board? Is drag significantly increased trans- and super-sonic, but not before, as an attempt to model 'real' Mach effects? Are jets (and possibly other engines) merely following a different power curve that has people up in arms? Methinks some testing is definitely in order.

Should be fairly easy if you don't mind a bit of fiddling. Get your rig out there (somehow). Fill up a fuel tank. Detach the fuel tank and recover. Fly another (empty) fuel tank to the site. (Be sure to pick a site close enough that the refund from the fuel covers the loss from the tank). Rinse and repeat. Double points if you rig up some loading crane so you can put the full tank in a vehicle to bring back to KSC for full recovery value.

And after all, the Roman god of Death isn't a fictional personage...

I'd prefer for the engine not to require separate radiators. Why? Part count. If Squad feels that radiators on the LV-N are the way to go, great! There are a couple of possible solutions I see that don't involve adding radiator parts specifically for it: 1) Remodel the engine. Give it a ModuleRadiatorFX module or whatever, and some cool animation where vanes fold out to radiate into space. Awesome! No new parts. 2) Damp the heat generation. Put a blurb in the description about how it uses fuel as coolant, or how it contains its own radiators, or whatever. Note that I'm not talking about whether stock KSP needs radiators generally, just the LV-N. Specifically, I'd go with this approach even if we get radiators in stock KSP (and I think we should, for various purposes like orbital bases). However, no one sane is going to fly the LV-N without attaching enough radiators to make it usable, so save us all the time in the VAB and the extra part count and the illusion of choice.

Depends on the luminosity function for the star you're most likely to be around. For Kerbol I'd expect the most efficient color to be reddish-yellowish-offwhite, since it's probably cooler than our star. But I might be wrong; maybe it radiates primarily in the microwave or something.

Eh. It's plausible. That is, you increase the mass of the LV-N by [happy-factor] and claim that it has built-in graphene radiators. We avoid cluttering our rockets with extra parts, whether intended as radiators or no. Everybody wins.

I'd try to replicate it. Sounds like you may have discovered a 1.0 Kraken drive. FWIW, when trying to prevent the problem, my first guess would be that you have some part with colliders trying to extend, but running into another part considered a piece of the ship.

So I know with the release of this mod, TAC-LS is no longer the default assumption for MKS/OKS. Does that mean that MKS/OKS no longer supports/works with TAC-LS?

The simple and 80% correct answer would be: "Did you build it in the VAB? Use the rocket controller. Did you build it in the SPH? Use the plane controller. (Are you rolling around on powered wheels? Use the rover controller.)" Also I completely agree with you.

FAR is version-locked, so no previous version of FAR will work on 1.0. Even if it weren't, I doubt it heavily, considering they completely changed aerodynamics.

Usually my wife.

You aren't going to get up there on jet power, but there's nothing saying you can't bring a jet up there on rocket power.

"Rotational spin." Is there some other kind of spin he's differentiating it from? (Serious question. Common usage would say 'no', but he seems to be using it as a technical term?)

Eh. Blame the testers sometimes, but not always. For this particular bug, I'm not terribly surprised it was missed. Setting root parts, launching, then reverting is possibly easy to put in a QA script, but you have to have someone think that it might be a problem, first. It's not guaranteed to come up in normal gameplay or testing.

Indeed. In my previous job as a QA and black-box tester, I would have labeled Valentina exploding and the heat shield CoM offset as Can't Ship Release, and many of the overheating-during-previously-normal-flight issues as Critical. Doesn't make it not a great release. What it does make it is in need of at least one more pass of bug-fixes before it gets shoved out of the shop into the real world.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/54954-0-90-Deadly-Reentry-v6-5-3-Beta-Mar-6-2015?p=1870310&viewfull=1#post1870310

They begin to deplete when you switch to them, not before.

Look guys, tabs should be exactly four spaces long, and anyone who disagree

Speak for yourself!

Well, excepting that you're talking about ramjet (and even scramjet) territory with those speeds, instead of just turbojets, yes. But every plane designed to fly at those speeds uses very special materials in order not to tear itself apart.

My experience was worse, methinks. I wanted to check out how forgiving the new My first rocket had no fins (!... okay, many rockets don't, but they use vectored thrust and very careful trajectories). I heeled over 5 degrees at 100m/s with a TWR ~1.7 and turned off SAS. My rocket stayed on that heading all the way to space. Not on the prograde vector - 5-10 degrees from vertical.

Conversely, I strongly suspect getting into orbit now with FAR will actually take more delta-V than without, since nuFAR correctly models trans-sonic drag and high-altitude skin drag.

My question (2nd post) was a real one. Thanks to those who gave me a real answer, "Yes, this grinding was fun." Perhaps you should use a different word than 'grinding', since it carries negative connotations. I dunno. I get the feeling we have at least two different camps on this issue. Me, I sympathize heavily with the above statement. Toodling around anywhere doing repetitive tasks feels like work to me, not fun. Specifically, in this case, I play this game to play around with getting to and being in space. Having a bunch of other stuff to do beforehand is like doing chores before I get to play my game. However, perhaps this is a matter of variable tolerance. I recognize the impulse toward delayed 'earned' gratification. I do enjoy a slight lead time before getting to space - maybe no more than an hour. There are people here who seem happy with 5 or 6 hours. Now I'm curious: how far does that go? Do people enjoy 10 hours of 'grinding'? 15? 25? etc?

The simple answer is that rolling changes the exact position of the CoM offset, which changes the angle of the pod. The more complicated answer is that roll is your +- theta coordinate, which when you transform back into Cartesian coordinates, contains both an X and a Y term.