Coga19000

Oh, I see. I had also thought of that, but now it makes sense!

Pretty much spot on. However, depending on the rest of the rocket (how aerodynamic it already is, how much control authority you have over it, the speed you're going to operate at), you can sometimes get away with the opposite: balancing them, but leaving them exposed. Once again, it depends on your design.

It doesn't matter anyway ; it is not to hard to get a closed orbit and still encounter reentry hearing, so if they actually had this in mind, you should still be unable to perform science.

I think the Science Lab actually requires one Scientist input, but is going to get the job slower. I have tried a lab with Bob and a pilot, and it worked just fine. However, all scientists aboard the station the Lab is... well, stationed, will give a bonus, with no max cap attached AFAIK. So yeah, you can get away with one. But I don't recommend it.

I'm sure I already know the answer, but now that KSP has its own new aerodynamics, what does this mod add?

1) Forget all advice posted more than 3 weeks ago regarding ascent profiles. The "straight up till 10 km, then bank 45 degrees" hype is nothing more than an easy way to get killed since the official release. 2) Despite popular opinion, and especially in Career mode, smaller is really bigger in rocket construction. Most of the time, you will find that overbuilding a rocket "just to be safe " just makes you waste enough money for funding 2 or even 3 smaller rockets that will also complete the task just fine. Heck, that's what rocket science is for -calculating Delta-v, TWR, etc. is a complicated matter, but ask this number -crunching is why our ridiculously large rockets are not ridiculously larger. 2a) When building landers, smaller is bigger, but wider is much bigger. Narrow bases make a lander land not to well, and tripping on most bodies is generally the equivalent of ripping apart your ticket home. Well, on most bodies, at least. If you trip over at Minmus, it's no biggie, as the SAS alone is generally powerful enough to lift you right up. And for Gilly, don't even bother to pack heavy landing gear and waste Delta -v; just touch it down gently to is side and you're golden 3) Do download MechJeb. Early on it's readings and predictions are going to be a humongous help, and by the time you unlock Ascent Guidance(quite late into the game, last time I checked) , orbiting a planet will be a trivial task to perform, and manual launches will only serve to bore you out of the game eventually. 3a) As regards Landing Guidance, try not to abuse it. The first landimgs on each celestial body are going to be much more satisfying if manually done. Once you are off exploration and into body exploitation, though (space tourism, resource mining, colony assembling), yep, let MechJeb take the heavy load. 4)After the first 3 tiers into your Tech tree (which should all be bought), researching the bottom first yields better results early on. As stated in 2), you're not gonna need bigass 2.5m rockets for your early milestones, and the bottom nodes are an assortment of useful gadgets: more parachutes, a more efficient engine, electrical storage and low generation (real useful if your early game is focused on probes -see below), and the most logic investment you could make with your Science: instruments for doing more science! 5) Real life itself has given an almost beautiful tip for satellites: unless you plan for an atmospjeric reentry, or to land all spent stages back on Kerbin (which is generally not beginner material, especially if SSTOs are concerned), try to build your probe into your last stage, and not as a separate stage. Otherwise,any fuel into that last stage is wasted, you have to haul the weight of that extra Decoupler up to orbit, the decoupling force will throw your sat of its orbit (if it's important for the mission or something, which generally is not in Stock KSP worth so much precision), and you have an inert object orbiting Kerbin -possibly dangerously- close to your probe,for no apparent reason. They are not to important reasons, it's just not worth it. 6) Despite everything stated in 2), always pack just some extra fuel, especially on manned missions. Whether manual or MechJeb, not a. Single use of the engines will be perfect (especially during landing and ascent), and a rocket made with Delta-V over logical amounts of redundancy may find itself having a veeeery bad time. 6a) However, if not needed, any extra fuel is still useful. Generally, any fuel remaining in a stage after it has completed its purpose cannot just be ignored; just be thankful that every single engine in KSP is fully throttlable and indefinetely restartable and use up that fuel anywhere it does not hinder safety (you should use fuel in the transfer stage to perform part of a decent deceleration, but obviously not for the whole landing), or on situations where getting rid of space debris is important. And one last tip for Remote Tech users, based off 5) and 6a): if you have to leave a stage in orbit while departing for/ landing on another planet, what the heck, it might as well be a simple Comms Sat. It doesn't even need an actual probe core: all you need is set your dishes to their targets prior to detach (or via Kerbal if need be), deploy your omnis, and provide some energy until you leave its loading range, and voila! Here are my seeds of wisdom for today. I shall depart now, hoping that others will also reap of what I sow.

Oh boy, did we need better aerodynamics. The whole update made things make much more sense, actually; before the update, taking a probe core with a single fuel tank and the smallest Rockax engine to orbit was absurd emough, let alone landing it to the KSC on engine power afterwards. ...Damn it, now I feel the need to try that on 1.0

When Jebadiah hijacks your suborbital tourist ferry and is like "Wanna get the time of your life, guys? It ain't gonna cost you extra " and then he gets the lucky (?) tourists a flyby of Eve.

Huh, that's odd. The Enterelysium video showed nothing like that.

I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion, but it could also be the reason. The whole jet engine setup is also more complex, and generally heavier -especially if the Engine Precooler is required for hypertensive hypersonic flight.

For one, the new aerodynamics model greatly reduces drag losses, and I think it increased sea level ISP all around, so I guess it was an attempt to balance things around. My experience with FAR tells me that the new model shaves off 1km of Delta-v on Kerbin launches, which have to be compensated for. Secondly, 1.0 adds a Kethane-like resource system for fuel harvesting, which when properly used can also make decreased ISP more of a hindrance than an actual problem. There might actually be more reasons, but those are the ones I could document by the current previews. EDIT: Partially ninja'd.

Really? But Kerbal Stuff specifically mentions that the latest version is know to NOT work with 0.90.

Judging from the fact that they are a requirement for COmponent Space Shutle, I take it that they have realistic enough stats to use for RSS?

Lol, don't worry about the stalking warning. He most probably meant that your behaviour was ofensive for some other reason, which is also completely wrong. Well yeah, just checked for the Soviet Engines pack, and all the engines in there are more or less commisioned (and all of them fly like a dream!), Now, AJ36 is an engine I would really like, so I'll check it out too. And the RS-25s from Component Space Shuttle... you sir, are a genius after all. And yeah, Soviet technology has made wonders in modern extraerrestrial propulsion. Howeer, I was mostly looking for the modern iterations of them, not the originals. Anyways. Yeah, but the KW Rocketry engines are not eplicitly based on certain models of RL engines, which is why they don't sere my purpose fully (see below) Ohh yeah, hadn't thought of that. Well, I wanted the modern engines mostly because I want to test whether certain missions would be realistically possible IRL, and this will most likely need the most efficient and advanced engines avalaible. Well, the thrust is a good point, so yeah, the "modern-only" thing is scrapped for now. And I actually tried to snatch the F-1 standalone engine mod, but the links to the download are broken. Well, I still got FASA. Thank you all!

I think he means that replying to this thread by telling me you've already replied to it elsewhere could be potentially considered offensive. Don't worry though, I find it completely legitimate, and no offense was taken.

Yeaaaaah, but the whole point is that I would prefer not to use THEM. And if they're still used, then I'll for sure use 'em.

Oh, hello again. Well, maybe you are interested in reading my reply at RO.

Yeahh, I knew I should have clarified a bit more. My bad. See, I have seen the Reccomended Mods list. However, I would actually want real-life engines, with eal Isp and thrust -and I'm not sure how this works out with KW Rocketry, though I love it. No, the Soviet ENgines Pack looks nice, but the engines are, well, Soviet. Unless the included engines are still used, I would prefer a bit more modern technology.

I recently downloaded Realism Overhaul for my KSP. THough I quite like mos tof it, I find its engine kinda, well, lazily-made. Therefore, I would like some good real-life engine mods, with realistic stats that can work with RSS and RealFuels. I would really appreciate if they either contain modern engines, or historic engines that are still used today. Thanks in advance.

I like the mod itself a lot, but the engines are kinda lazily-made. Any realistic engines mods you advice?

All my procedural parts cannot load their textures in! How do I fix that?

For some weird reaosn, a lot of my mods are unable to load thir textures unless I have ATM installed... Is this supposed to happen, or only my computer does it for some reason?

After I download this mod, can I delete most of my fuel tanks to reduce memory usage? And if yes, how many/which ones do I have to leave?

Seems like a pretty good idea, but having to manually set the wind setings makes the gust effect pretty predictable. Is it possible to have the wind change unpredictably?

SO this is basically MechJeb, except for the act that you have to tediously program the thing yourself, and the commands you give it are precise and exact, with no flexibility? ... I like it. I REALLY like it.