OhioBob

Should be. From my experience, Realistic Atmosphere is compatible with pretty much everything.

UPDATE Version 1.3.0 Changelog Atmospheres have been completely redone with new pressure and temperature curves. Sun: Custom atmosphere deleted, reverts to stock (was causing a visual artifact when zoomed in on sun). Kerbin: Stylistic change to pressureCurve, atmosphere is effectively unchanged. Eve: Sea level pressure increased to 10 atm, molecular weight reduced, temperatures revised, height now 60 km. Duna: Surface pressure unchanged, temperatures and upper atmosphere revised, height now 75 km. Jool: Lower atmosphere (<10 km) rapidly increases to crushing pressure and high temperature, upper atmosphere revised, height now 550 km. Laythe: Surface pressure unchanged, temperatures and upper atmosphere revised, height now 55 km. Tylo: Atmosphere added, surface pressure 0.2 atm, height 40 km, includes visual changes and scatterer support. timewarpAltitudeLimits and flyingAltitudeThreshold revised where applicable to match new atmosphere heights. Since Realistic Atmospheres was first released, I've improved my techniques for modeling atmospheres, so I figured it was time for an update. The Kerbin model is unchanged, but all other atmospheres have been redone from scratch. Some characteristics of the original atmospheres have been retained (e.g. surface pressure on Duna and Laythe), while other atmospheres have changed completely (Eve). There is even a new atmosphere on a previously airless moon. Below are some of the most significant changes. Eve One of the complaints with earlier versions of Realistic Atmospheres is that Eve was too easy. Eve presents a problem in that it's just not possible to produce a realistic atmosphere having characteristics similar to the stock version (the stock atmosphere is very unrealistic). In order to make Eve a difficult destination from which to launch, while also having an atmosphere that behaves realistically, it was necessary to make some radical changes. Eve now has a sea level atmospheric pressure of 10 atmospheres. The mean molecular weight has also been lowered to help increase the atmosphere height. While still only 60 kilometers in overall height, the total area mass of the new atmosphere is comparable to the stock version. While conditions at ground level are challenging, once aloft the air quickly thins. The pressure drops to 1 atm at an altitude of about 12.1 km, versus 14.6 km in stock. For those who prefer the kinder and gentler Eve of old, I've provided an optional file that returns Eve's sea level pressure to 5 atm. Jool Other than having its height stretched from 400 km to 550 km, Jool's atmosphere is not that much different from the previous version of Realistic Atmospheres. However, I missed seeing a change that Squad had made to Jool's atmosphere way back in KSP 1.2... "Also tweaked Jool's atmosphere so it rapidly goes from 15 atmospheres to 50 in the last few kilometers to achieve crushing pressures." I implemented a similar change in the new atmosphere, as well as increased heating in the lower 10 km of the atmosphere. Tylo I've always felt that a celestial body as large Tylo should have an atmosphere, so I gave it one. The properties of Tylo's atmosphere don't quite match anything else in the game, so that gives it a little uniqueness. I understand fully, however, that many players may want to retain the difficult landing challenge that Tylo provides by being a large airless body. For those who don't want a Tylo atmosphere, I've provided an optional file that reverses the changes and returns Tylo to its stock version.

Yes, that looks like something I should add. The mod does a good job of filling in some gaps in the stock parts.

Gaelans are kerbal just as earthlings are human.

The forum page for Sigma Binary has been discontinued but the mod still exists. Give it a try and see if it works in 1.5.x. https://github.com/Sigma88/Sigma-Binary/releases

I think it's priced just about right. Just looking at the stock engines, the Twin-Boar is underpriced, the Rhino and Vector are overpriced, and the others are about right. If we plot price versus thrust, we can draw a line from the Poodle to the Skipper to the Mainsail to the Mammoth. The Mainsail might be slightly underpriced, but not by much. A price of 14000 would fit the line nearly perfectly.

That seems reasonable. I could live with anything in the 13000-15000 range. But 22k is just ridiculously overprice. There's nothing about it that demands that kind of price tag.

@Zosma Procyon, there are a lot of variables that go into it. I don't like using delta-v maps for it. Delta-v maps are probably OK for ascent, but I think they underestimate descent. On ascent you just hit the throttle and go, but on descent you have to approach the surface more slowly and with caution. This means fuel is burned effectively hovering. It can be minimized with a suicide burn, but some people prefer a stop-and-drop method. I generally do what is sort of a hybrid. I'll do a burn to lower my periapsis to maybe 5-10 km over the landing site (low as I can while assuring I don't impact any mountains). At periapsis I do a big burn to kill most of my velocity. Then when I have descended to about 1 km altitude, I kill most of my remaining velocity and slowly drop to the surface. This isn't the most efficient, but it's not the worst either. Several years ago I plugged a bunch of numbers into a spreadsheet to compute how much delta-v this method used for each of KSP's airless bodies. I was somewhat conservative in my numbers, and included an extra 30 seconds of hover time to play it safe. Even still, there are many things that can change the results, like height of initial orbit and TWR. Nonetheless, the numbers form a basis for budgeting delta-v. Moho - 1300 m/s Gilly - 45 m/s Mun - 885 m/s Minmus - 275 m/s Ike - 595 m/s Dres - 615 m/s Vall - 1260 m/s Tylo - 3360 m/s Bop - 320 m/s Pol - 210 m/s Eeloo - 915 m/s Landing should definitely be doable using these numbers. But even this might not be enough if you are really inefficient.

The main issue I have with the Mastodon is its cost. It's slightly smaller than the Mainsail but costs 22000 vs. 13000 for the Mainsail. There is nothing special about the Mastodon that sets it apart from other engines to justify its high cost. If it cost the same as, or maybe a little less than, the Mainsail, it would be a fine engine as far as I'm concerned. Its vacuum ISP stinks, but it's not that much worse than many other engines. And it has the best sea level thrust-to-weight ratio in the game. Where I find the Mastodon most useful is when I need to cluster together many large engines, because of its optional 1.25 m connection node. I would probably prefer to use the Mainsail because of its lower cost, but the Mainsail has only a 2.5 m connection node. Clustering a group of Mainsails together on a large engine plate looks horrible. (Squad really needs to add some variants to the old engines in a future update.)

I've revised the Wiki, both the main body and the table giving pressure versus altitude. Unfortunately it won't let me upload a revised graph. I use this... http://www.braeunig.us/KSP/AtmoTutorial/FloatCurve.xlsx Particularly nice is the second sheet. We can enter in the curve data and it convert it to polynomial equations. Using the equations we can calculate the values at any point along the curve.

Yes. I've been unable to land a craft on occasions, but I never debugged the problem enough to make the connection that it was only a renamed home planet. But now that you say it, that sounds right. I'm pretty sure I've only had the problem on the home world, and I was probably playing with either GPP or GEP installed. I have found no solution to the problem.

Settings for Sigma Dimensions can be global or planet specific. So what you are seeing are planet specific settings that apply only to GPP. For everything else, the global settings are used. The global settings are the stuff at the beginning of the config inside the @SigmaDimensions{} node. All the GPP stuff doesn't do anything unless GPP is installed. And when GPP is installed, the planet specific settings take precedence over the global settings.

Well son of a gun, they changed Eve's atmosphere. The pressure curve has been completely redone. I have no idea when that happened. Here's the new one from the Kittopia dumps: And here's the old one for reference: It looks like one of the main things they changed was to make the pressure in the lower part of the atmosphere decrease more slowly with increasing height. The pressure at 7000 m is now about 2.53 atm, rather than 1.6 atm as previously stated. I now compute the Mastodon's ISP at that height as 239 s, which agrees with your number. And you're right, the pressure drops to 1 atm at an altitude of 14,579 meters. It also looks like they decreased the air pressure in the upper atmosphere (above about 46 km). The graph I posted is over 2.5 years old and is based on the old atmosphere.

Just increase the radius incrementally until the problem goes away. Then tell us what the answer is. I know bodies with radii as small as 6-7 km have been done.

Yep, the Vector and the Dart are really the only engines that work halfway decent on Eve. And, of course, the Mammoth is just four vectors, so it too is good if you need something that large. Below is a comparison of ISP vs. altitude for some engines on Eve. The Able, Viper and Cobra are from Eve Optimized Engines, but the Vector and Dart (Aerospike) are on there too.

@FinalFan, Zhetaan's numbers are in the ballpark, but I checked it more accurately. At Eve sea level the Mastodon's ISP is 152.5 s. At 7000 m the atmospheric pressure is 1.6 atm, and the Mastodon's ISP is 265.4 s.

@vardicd, I just took a look at the SRB configs for reDIRECT. It's already using thrust curves and realistic Isp. I see no need to change anything, it looks fine as is.

The last line on atmosphereCurve is where the thrust goes to zero. Specific impulse is a straight line function that goes through the points (0, 265), (1, 240) and (10.6, 0). The 3rd and 4th numbers in each key of the thrustCurve are the slopes of the curve. They are the slope in and the slope out at that particular point. The first key (which is really the end of the burn) is where the thrust is rapidly decaying, so the curve has a steep slope at that point. You can see this if you look at the curve in the OP.

A thrust curve is not necessary but it's a nice feature. What it does is generate a thrust multiplier as a function of fuel fraction remaining. That is, Thrust = maxThrust * thrustCurve. Without a thrust curve, an SRBs will generate constant thrust throughout its burn (not counting, of course, changes in thrust due to changing ambient air pressure). I use the same thrust curve for all SRBs: thrustCurve { key = 0 0.1 0 33 key = 0.04 0.76 0.79 0.79 key = 0.54 1.155 0.79 0.79 key = 0.65 1.1785 -0.51 -0.51 key = 1 1 -0.51 -0.51 } The first number in each key in the fuel fraction, and the second number is the thrust multiplier. So in the curve above you can see that when the SRBs has a full fuel load (1), the thrust multiplier is 1. Therefore the thrust at ignition equals maxThurst. When 65% of the fuel remains (0.65), the thrust has increased to 1.1785 times maxThurst. And so on. I'm sure you can use the same curve for what you want to do, I see no reason to modify it. atmosphereCurve gives the specific impulse as a function of atmospheric pressure. The first number is the air pressure in atmospheres, and the second number is the Isp. For instance, atmosphereCurve { key = 0 265 key = 1 240 key = 10.6 0.001 } When the pressure is 0, the Isp is 265 s; and when the pressure is 1 atm, the Isp is 240 s.

It should be easy to write your own cfg. I can probably help if you run into a roadblock. By the way, BetterSRBs adds gimballing to the Thumper and Kickback. The added SRBs also have gimballing.

You should ask that question in the Spectra thread. Chances are it's a problem with Spectra, not Kopernicus. If the Spectra dev rules out his mod as the culprit and determines it's a Kopernicus issue, then let him report the problem to Kopernicus. The Kopernicus thread is not the place to report problems that you're having with another mod.

That looks like something that I shouldn't mess with. All those parts are designed to work together in a specific configuration. Changing the specs would throw the balance out of whack to where it no longer performs as intended. Generally speaking, if a part pack looks like the author intends the parts to be assembled in a specific way, I'm assuming those parts have been balanced to achieve a certain level of performance was so assembled. Therefore, I have no plans to include these part packs in BetterSRBs because doing so would upset the internal balance of the part pack. On the other hand, if a part pack simply provides an assemblage of SRBs of various sizes for the player to do with as he so pleases with no clear intention of how those parts are to be put together, then that part pack is a candidate to be included in BetterSRBs.

Not yet. Maybe the next release.

Can you provide a screenshot of your GameDate folder. Also, what versions do you have installed (KSP, OPM and Kopernicus).

I haven't, but people have reported traveling to Grannus. Though I don't know if any of the missions were crewed. I think it's feasible to do it in as little as 20 years with conventional rockets. My only excursion through the Grannus system was playing GEP_Primary. It varies but at the start of a new game it's 1.286 billion kilometers. That's more than double Leto's distance.