linuxgurugamer

So at least put a link in here to help anyone else who sees the post

Only way to know would be to try it, you necro'd an old post which means this thread has been idle for a long time

Yeah, the CRP is very helpful here: Tank def: Solid Not in the CRP, this is described in a comment in the tank defs as "Legacy" Tank Def: HTPB in the CRP describes it as HTPB, described in a comment in the tank defs as "Standard stuff" Tank Def: PBAN in the CRP it's described as PBAN, comment in the tank defs say "Shuttle SRB etc" Same for HNIW, NGNC, and PSPC HNIW comment in the tank defs says: "Speculative lower-smoke propellant (not in full production yet)" NGNC comment in the tank defs says "SPRINT missile, etc" PSPC comment in the tank defs says "Early propellant, pre-Aluminum. Think 'Tiny Tim'" At least in the tank definitions there is a one line comment for each fuel type, but it's really not helpful at all. In my research on this, I found the following: Double-base (DB) propellants: DB propellants are composed of two monopropellant fuel components where one typically acts as a high-energy (yet unstable) monopropellant and the other acts as a lower-energy stabilizing (and gelling) monopropellant. Composite propellants: A powdered oxidizer and powdered metal fuel are intimately mixed and immobilized with a rubbery binder (that also acts as a fuel). High-energy composite (HEC) propellants: Typical HEC propellants start with a standard composite propellant mixture (such as APCP) and add a high-energy explosive to the mix (not used that much) Composite modified double base propellants: Composite modified double base propellants start with a nitrocellulose/nitroglycerin double base propellant as a binder and add solids (typically ammonium perchlorate (AP) and powdered aluminium) normally used in composite propellants Minimum-signature (smokeless) propellants: One of the most active areas of solid propellant research is the development of high-energy, minimum-signature propellant using C6H6N6(NO2)6 CL-20 nitroamine (China Lake compound #20), which has 14% higher energy per mass and 20% higher energy density than HMX and the most interesting one for me: Electric solid propellants: Electric solid propellants (ESPs) are a family of high performance plastisol solid propellants that can be ignited and throttled by the application of electric current.

It probably has Physics off, so the mass is added to the parent

Ok, thank you

I was referring to the thrust values, not the nozzle angling

I had based my question from the above line in post 3, where it was said that all fuel types were described.

Ok, I must have missed them. Where would they be described?

The change is quite simple. No coding changes, just some config file changes. Look at BetterSRBs to see what needs to be changed.

It's going to be interesting to see if the new SRBs are set up similarly to the old ones, or if they are more realistic in regards to thrust in relation to the length of the SRB

O/ @PulsarPixie nice to have you around

Ummm, they stated in front of all of us that there will be nodding support, in fact, they said that there were certain areas that they didn't want to get in to and would leave that to modders. Part failures comes to mind. Also have stated that the game would be available from multiple venues

I think it's a race between Squad coming out with the new SRBs and my new mod Modular Segmented SRBs

Any chance that RF can get new solid fuel resources added? This would give a choice of solid fuel, giving different performance charactistics

Just an FYI, it could still be NavHud, because you can disable all the other stuff in NavHud to make it look the same.

New release, 0.4.6.4 Deleted all bak files Thanks to Github user AmpCat for these: Updated buoyancy values so all the pods float. Also fixed a few localization tags and added search tags (such as REKT and OTAV where appropriate).

Besides The Kaptain's Log, there is the following: Flight Plan

I tried getting in touch with them, but can't find them (the authors). Any ideas?

You remember KSPWeekly, by any chance? Because that's exactly what I am referring to. They also replied to posts under the weeklies on a regular basis. Also, there were Devnote Thursdays, which featured more extensive devnotes, and also had devs participating in the discussion. Of course, this wasn't quite the same as Star Theory did, but I never claimed it was. Remember that I have been here for a while, I do know what I'm talking about I know you've been here for a while. I've also been around for a while. That's what I was referring to, you seemed to imply that I had no knowledge of those old forum posts . I know you've been around for more than 2 years before I started, in fact. But you seem to assume that no one else has any knowledge that you don't. At least, that's the overall impression that's given

Stars! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stars! They had 9 slots. No more. And you have no idea if they were asked and declined. And what they got was a LOT of input. What makes you think they aren't? I know of at least two who are here, but are keeping it quiet because they have work to do and don't want to be sidelined. You really don't know what you are talking about, if you think that.

If I remember correctly, they didn't really say that. They said something along the lines of free updates forever, and people jumped on that to mean DLC as well; so they acknowledged that it was poorly stated and decided to honor the broader meaning as most people read it

I've solved the major issues with the mod (yay), no thanks to the stock fuel flow modes. Just coding around it is a real PITA

Well, first off, at least 1/3 were NOT YouTubers (Snark, Galileo and myself). I stream, but have a very low follower count, and was told I was invited because of the modding that I do. So, if you were a company looking for input on a new product, who would you invite? No names, or people who have established through their actions that they have an interest in, and influence on, the product being developed? I don't understand what you mean. How many people would it take in your opinion to NOT be a publicity stunt? The complete list invitee was: BadNewsBaron Billy Winn Jr. Das Valdez EJ_SA Galileo (modder) LinuxGuruGamer (modder) Scott Manley Shadowzone Snark (modder, forum moderator) I think it's significant that they invited the modders in along with the streamers. I disagree. It can also mean "people who have a significant impact on the community, in one form or another". Big streamers such as Das & EJ do a lot of teaching. Modders develop new content. So let me ask you a question: In your opinion, if there weren't any mods for KSP, would it have survived as long as it has? If not, then that implies that modders have a significant impact by virtue of providing new content, etc.

Could you open a ticket on Github for this?

OK, sounds like a directory got changed. I'll look into it