blowfish

There are plenty of mods with stable (1.0+) release versions. SSTU still has placeholder prices on many parts. Not exactly what you want for career.

It's dangerous to use an in-development mod in career. Better to avoid it if possible.

@01010101lzy RO configs are maintained by RO, not individual mods. This should probably go in the RO thread.

Sure. I meant to write up a wiki page, but that'll have to wait. In the mean time, here's a brief overview of the parameters Area: area of the compressor/fan intake, in m2. Note that this doesn't include the bypass. Thrust basically scales by this. Will be set automatically if dryThrust is set. BPR: Ratio of bypass (fan) area to core area. Zero for turbojets, generally 0.3-0.6 for low bypass turbofans, and about 3-12 for high bypass fans. When this is specified it's really a ratio of mass flows, but AJE equates the two for now. CPR: Pressure ratio of compressor (including fan) at design conditions FPR: Pressure ratio of fan at design conditions. Irrelevant for turbojets. Mdes: Design mach number (i.e. where CPR and FPR are measured) Tdes: Design temperature (kelvins) (i.e. where CPR and FPR are measured) eta_c: Adiabatic efficiency of compressor. Generally left at default. eta_t: Adiabatic efficiency of turbine. Generally left at default. eta_n: Adiabatic efficiency of nozzle FHV: How much energy is extracted when fuel is burnt, in joules/kg. Set automatically if drySFC is set. TIT: Turbine inlet temperature, the maximum temperature that the turbine can take (kelvins). TAB: Max temperature that the afterburner can take. Set to 0 for no afterburner. Automatically set if wetThrust is set. exhaustMixer: whether the cure and bypass flows are mixed before the afterburner/nozzle. adjustableNozzle: Whether the nozzle is adjustable and can therefore produce supersonic exhaust. Note - even if this is false, the nozzle is still sort of counted as adjustable, just that the exit mach is capped at 1. defaultTPR: Default intake TPR to use for static thrust calculations. Generally 0.95 for subsonic intakes, 0.9 for DSI, and 0.85 for supersonic intakes. maxT3: Maximum temperature that the compressor can take at its outlet. The engine overheats and explodes when it exceeds this. drySFC: Specific fuel consumption at static conditions with full throttle and no afterburner (kg/kgf-h I think). This is used to set FHV. dryThrust: Thrust at static conditions with full throttle and no afterburner (kN). This is used to set Area. wetThrust: Thrust at static conditions with full throttle and afterburner (kN). This is used to set TAB. Hope that helps, let me know if you have any questions.

So if neither of those are installed, the best thing to do now would be to provide your output log and module manager config cache and we can see what's going on there.

IntakeAir not found in resource database. Propellant Setup has failed. Bizarre. But if removing the config cache solves it, it's probably just a one-time thing. Has it happened more than once after deleting the cache?

Hmm. As far as intakes go, as long as you have a reasonable amount of area you should get positive thrust (at least at full power, at lower throttle there is a bug that produces negative thrust for some engines which is fixed but hasn't been released yet). You can check by opening the engines GUI (turbine-like icon in the toolbar) and checking the intake area - if it's anything less than 100%, you will get some thrust loss. As for the effects, do you have RealPlume or HotRockets installed? The way AJE interacts with effects was changed recently and I'm not sure that either has been updated to reflect this (HotRockets hasn't been updated in a very long time regardless).

Make sure you're using the most recent version of both Ven's (1.9.1) and AJE (2.5.4). But TBH none of these issues should have to do with Ven's: to my knowledge, it doesn't change any of the jet effects. If reinstalling AJE doesn't fix anything, post your output log (if you're not sure how to do that, follow the first link in my signature).

I think Thomas P. posted it a few pages back. I'm not going to bother digging it up, but it's there.

Well, I can't seem to replicate, so could you try this: Reinstall AJE and SolverEngines If the problem persists, post your output log (if you're not sure how to do that, follow the first link in my signature)

Proof of concept: single axis vectoring works And yes, it affects both actual thrust and effects Maybe I'll write up a tutorial at some point EDIT: It seems to cause weird wobbling along the non-vectored axis when both axes are triggered (though it stabilizes to the correct position), so maybe not.

You might be able to get single-axis gimbaling in stock with clever use of look at constraints, but it's not trivial to set up.

Shouldn't be. Which jets, and could you post an output log?

Do you want to verify this? It's a relatively recent change but they were definitely not retractable the last time I checked.

Okay, now that I have time to investigate, do you still have the "status locked" issue? Unrelated development news: Jets now use a more accurate method of determining airflow (they assume that the turbine inlet vanes are choked rather than a constant mach number at the compressor intake). The biggest noticeable result is that supersonic thrust growth is much less now - this means that supersonic flight is harder, but you also don't get the ridiculous runaway thrust growth like you used to. I was still able to take my crappy SR-71 replica up to Mach 3.3, and it could have gone higher, but now it requires most of its afterburner to maintain that speed, and can't maintain supercruise there like it used to. This change isn't released yet, and I'm not quite sure when it will be. It also appears that the animation modules aren't working, I'll try to investigate some time in the next week.

The non-shielded solar panels are not retractable in stock either.

DRE has been known to have issues with this. I'm not sure if it's just DRE or an interaction with RealHeat, but the problem most likely needs to be fixed on DRE's end.

It's not useful to make a comparison like that, because decreasing fuel mass decreases delta-V even if you keep the mixture ratio constant. It's more useful to think about keeping the propellant mass constant, but varying proportion LH2 vs LOX. The only reason you might want to consider adjusting the overall mass is that running fuel rich reduces thrust somewhat. For hydrolox engines, yes, we are sure. The mixture ratio is way below stoichiometric, and on some engines, the mixture ratio is actually varied to adjust thrust vs Isp (example, the J-2 on the Saturn V's second stage adjusted its mixture ratio to increase Isp once its full thrust output was no longer needed. Whether there is another reason why engines with heavier fuels run slightly fuel-rich, I don't know.

Do you also have DRE installed?

Well, it could sorta work with just one, but then you'd get a pitch moment too, which you generally don't want.

For the same fuel mass, higher Isp does lead to higher delta-V. For hydrolox, there is a definite performance benefit to running fuel-rich. Obviously this only works up to a point, since the fuel needs to be heated - as you say, just venting LH2 won't create much thrust, but most real engines run at a lower mass ratio than stoichiometric (I've seen 4.5-6, as opposed to stoichiometric which is 8), because it increases Isp.

@ToonuYou need split rudders at the ends of the wings to maintain yaw control. I think FAR supports this now (but I forget what the option on control surfaces is called) . Even then, you'll have to fly carefully - stock SAS really wasn't designed for this sort of stabilization.

The second being the recommended one.

It must exist in a .cfg file somewhere in GameData, and you need the modified build.

I think there is a bit of confusion in this thread. There is a distinction between fuel/oxidizer rich staged combustion cycles and fuel rich exhaust (you don't really ever have oxidizer-rich exhaust). The two combustion cycle types refer to the gases running through the turbine, and not to the gas exiting the nozzle, which is almost always fuel rich. The main reason to use oxidizer rich staged combustion as opposed to fuel rich staged combustion is that the fuel doesn't vaporize easily, as is the case with kerosene. If your fuel is hydrogen, which does vaporize easily, you usually use fuel-rich staged combustion (though there are a few examples of ORSC engines burning hydrolox).