OhioBob

Yes it will. The SD config I gave will work with or without RealisticAtmospheres. The source of the atmosphere doesn't matter, SD will extend it either way.

@Araym, I wouldn't recommend multiplying the heights. I think a better solution would be to extrapolate the curve by adding more keys, while leaving the existing ones alone. Probably the easiest way to do it is by using Sigma Dimensions. Just install Sigma Dimensions and drop the following config into GameData. @Kopernicus:BEFORE[SigDim2]:NEEDS[SigDim] { @Body:HAS[#name[Kerbin]] { @SigmaDimensions { @atmoTopLayer = 1.42857143 } } }

UPDATE Version 1.1.1 Changelog Disable custom texture for BACC Mk2 "Ram" SRB. See opening post for download link and instructions. This update is a quick fix for KSP v1.9.0. The custom paint job given the BACC Mk2 "Ram" in previous versions does not work on the new part model, so it was necessary to disable it. Consequently, the BACC Mk2 now has an identical appearance to the BACC "Thumper". It is my hope that a new custom paint job will be provided in a future release.

Why do you need a contract pack to play career?

Yep, I see now that I misspelled it. It's spelled correctly in the OP, thankfully. I probably should fix that with the next update. Functionally it doesn't make any difference.

It actually is suppose the be Abel. It's named after the biblical son of Eve. If I named it Able anywhere, that's what I need to change.

UPDATE Version 2.0.4 Changelog Updated to KSP 1.9.0, uses new engine models. See opening post for download link and instructions.

I just print it out on a 8.5"x11" piece of paper.

All the KSPedia work that we did for GPP ended up being a major pain in the neck. So we decided for JNSQ that we weren't going to bother. Sorry.

You can't. But you can create a biome confined to an ocean. An ocean is going to cover all terrain below an elevation of 0, regardless of what biome it is in.

I haven't observed this. Can you post a screenshot?

Yes, the heating will be back in 1.8.1. And the new heat module allows us to vary the heat in a much more sophisticated way. Some areas will be more hazardous then others. You'll have to pick your landing site carefully, but there are areas where you should have no problem planting flags.

@Cavscout74, I just got a Mk 1 pod to orbit with a total launch mass of 13.85 t. It was close, though. I just barely got the periapsis above the atmosphere (85 x 95 km) and had only 8 m/s left for deorbit. That was enough to lower the periapsis to 72 km and make it down in a single pass. So despite the close call, it was a mission success. Here's a tip to save mass... Using normal heat difficulty settings, it's typically not necessary to include ablator for low orbit flights in JNSQ. You'll have to include a heat shield to get the 3300 K temperature resistance, but you can use the slider to take the ablator all the way down to zero. This likely isn't true, however, if you're using harder than normal heat settings. It's also not true for Mun return missions.

You should be able to make orbit, but bumping up against the 18-ton limit is an issue at this scale. From my experience, the mass limit of the launch pad becomes a problem far sooner than the part limit of the VAB.

It should work fine. There's a couple things that will break due to syntax changes in the new Kopernicus, but nothing major that will stop you from playing. (For instance, HazardousBody has changed, so the excess heat effects on Thalia and Icarus won't work.)

In the words of Jimmy Dugan... "It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great."

JNSQ is NOT about balancing engines. JNSQ (i.e. the scale of JNSQ) is about increasing delta-v requirements. The goal is to force players to produce designs that generate greater delta-v with lower payload fraction. That's all. The rest is up to the player. 25 hours, ah, so you're quite the noob at this. Many people have been playing JNSQ for over 8 months now, and many more have been playing 2.5x and 3.2x scale systems for years. And most of those have done so quite successfully and without complaint. I'm sorry that you can't seem to hack it.

My vision is to have rockets that lean more closely toward real life designs than what is typically required in stock KSP. JNSQ achieves that. A typical real life two-stage rocket burns through about 80% of its total fuel load in the first stage. That's just the way it is, first stages are really big in real life. So having a large first stage in JNSQ is realistic, not unbalanced. (edit) FYI, at stock scale I generally design my rockets with about 67% of the fuel in the first stage and 33% in the second. In JNSQ it's typically closer to 75/25%. The rocket I built and showed earlier was 76/24%. In real life it's usually more like 80/20%. So JNSQ falls between stock and real life, as one would expect based on the scale.

I don't know how to use MechJeb, I've never tried it. I don't know what KoS is, never heard of it.

Nailed it on the second try. Just needed a smidgen more fuel in the second stage.

I took a few minutes to cobble together a rocket. On my first attempt it came up just shy of completing @fragtzack's contract. I needed another 14 m/s to raise to get the periapsis to the 7.44 Mm requirement. Not bad though for so little effort. BTW, the xenon gas is just ballast to get the payload weight right. All the rocket parts are early 1.25-m tech.

@fragtzack, the parts in JNSQ are not unbalanced. They are just parts. And it is up to the player to figure how to put them together to achieve their objectives. If 1.25-m parts can't lift your payload, then your payload is too big for 1.25-m parts. That's all there is to it. Payload fractions in JNSQ are much smaller than they are in stock, so what you are accustom to doing in stock won't work here. That's the whole point, JNSQ is made to be harder. If it's too hard for you then don't play it. I and others have no problem playing at this scale and doing so quite successfully. We're not going to start modifying parts just because one person is having difficulty adjusting to the larger scale.

The mission you described I would complete using 3 stages. Two stages to get to low orbit, and a transfer stage to get to the final orbit. We'll need about 5000 m/s to get to orbit, and about 2000 m/s for the upper stage. Ideally I'd have about 2000-2500 m/s in the first stage, and 2500-3000 m/s in the second stage. By the time we add a transfer stage to the 0.71t payload, we're probably up around a mass of 3t that we have to get to orbit. That's pushing the limits of what can be done using 1.25-m parts at 1/4 real scale. So the problem isn't that the parts are out of balance. It's that you've staked the deck and selected a very specific set of requirements that falls between what can be normally achieved using 1.25-m parts versus having to jump up to 1.875-m or 2.5-m parts. If you can't accomplish the mission using 1.25-m parts, then you have to use bigger parts. That's what playing at larger scales like JNSQ is all about. You have to forget about what you use to be able to do at stock scale and figure out what it takes to play at the larger scale. If you can't accomplish the mission you want with the parts you have, you have to wait until you have the bigger parts. I'm sure you would find the same problem at any scale you play. There's always going to be some payload size that will to fall in the gaps between the available parts. I can remember often trying to design a launcher in which it seemed the right size engine was nowhere to be found. It has always been like that.

You're just looking at the clouds. You need to see what's below the clouds.

I'm afraid I just don't have that problem. All my rockets designs look very similar to real life designs. I never have to resort to huge lower stages or asparagus. Ideally I like my first stage to have about 3 times the propellant and about 4 times the thrust of my second stage.* Those ratios usually give me a pretty well balanced rocket, and they're not far off from real life. * Is that is what you consider a huge/expensive lower stage? Because if so, then your problem is flawed expectations. The ratios I give are not huge, they're normal. ** Those ratios are also for 1/4 real scale (JNSQ). At stock scale I want my first stage to have 2x the propellant and about 3x the thrust of the second stage.