WarriorSabe

I think your TWR expectations are pretty high. In stock parts, an average Nerv ship would be 0.1 to 0.15 TWR and an ion ship around 0.02-0.05, so considering that, rather than the crazy high 0.5 TWR that you seem to prefer, they're really pretty fine thrust-wise. You've just got to learn the way of the low TWR; even 0.01 is perfectly functional Just my two cents

I wasn't aware that was a thing at the time You were already getting reports of it, and I had a lot of other mods installed that wouldn't make my career a clean test environment. It was easier for me just to switch to realplume until it was fixed; I have my own development work I'm doing when not in my career.

Ooh, maybe I can use this again. I had to uninstall it because the white dots were so bad that it looked like I had mach cones all over my rocket, even sticking out the sides of fairings in the one case of the surface base segment I was shipping.

I mean, that's basically the only thing that actually distinguishes them - a rocket is just a jet engine that carries its own reaction mass.

So it's effectively an antimatter thermal rocket?

It lets you use that very powerful radiator to cool other things as well, and also lets you use different radiators on that engine if you really wanted for some reason. I could also just see a similarly powerful radiator being added to HeatControl though.

Try uploading to imgur; that usually works

I agree, flexibility in radiator options is good.

So basically a big linac to put on your ships?

Why not? I'm just talking about simple fuel tanks, not engines or antimatter storage.

What if you add a B9 switch for scale, that literally just makes it bigger or smaller, reusing the same models you already made?

Yeah, FFREs are really just super OP if you make them usable in ksp without additional mods like Persistent Thrust or straying far from the actual concept. Since the irl ones are fission engines with 7-digit Isp, but a thrust low enough that it still ends up doing the interstellar brachistochrone, making a DS4G look like an F-1.

Or perhaps too much thrust. When talking real physics, FFREs are extremely efficient, beating out most fusion engines, but have a thrust so low it ends up being the limiting factor even on interstellar journeys.

Will there be the the option to turn off all the shiny?

is that one on top a highly-enriched NSWR / LSWR? And is that a VISTA behind it?

Wait, I'm confused now. I only remember seeing an explanation for why you wouldn't integrate SystemHeat? Just having CT check the temperature of the part doesn't need it to use SystemHeat, or anything else thermal management related for that matter.

While I haven't tried FFT itself yet personally, I definitely recognize that as being from Waterfall - some (re)stock engines had their exhaust meshes highlight along with the engine mesh.

I mean, technically what I said would be entirely on the side of CryoTanks and doesn't actually have anything to do with SystemHeat itself; I just mentioned it because CT was being discussed, and that reminded me that that was a thing that I had wanted for when I'm visiting particularly cold or hot places. Like, your methane tanks shouldn't boil off when you're sitting in Kraken Mare.

What about if there was just a simple check for very cold/very hot temperatures? Say, core temperature above something like 800K, it needs a bunch of extra power/boiloff can't be entirely prevented. Core temperature below 30K, no power needed to prevent boiloff. For methane no cooling'd be needed below 135K

I'm currently testing long-term stability of my system in Principia after preliminary success in US2, and I'm getting spammed with "apocalypse occured" errors, all on the exact same body, which hasn't deviated from its orbit at all in at least 1700 years. The first error occurs only a couple months in, and there seems to be a little over one a year. What exactly does this mean? Is it just a side effect of running at a very high timestep with a GPU and CPU that aren't really all that great?

The SL pressure doesn't increase the rate at which pressure builds underwater, only the value it starts from. The rate of pressure buildup is driven by the 70% higher gravity and 50% denser oceans, which account for the majority of the crush depth reduction.

I don't think you'd even need to use the surface normal; if you can get the parts' projected area via raycast that'll do the job for you. And, yeah, while assuming the particles are in a circular orbit may not be the most accurate, it should be accurate enough. As for direction though, I vote that we fudge that and pretend it's coming from prograde (but still use the relative speed given the correct velocity vectors) so that you can use an SAS lock to align yourself with it. Edit: another thing that just came to me, the dps would actually be proportional to the cube of relative velocity - not only is each particle imparting more kinetic energy by the square of velocity, you're running into more of them as you plow through faster

Yeah, Kerbalism does a raycast for solar storm shadow shielding, which is basically the same thing but with a different direction vector and effect, so it should be doable

For debris, I wouldn't use random vectors - it's generally directional. Damage would scale with the vector difference between current velocity (orbital frame) and circular orbit velocity. The raycast should come from this vector as well, but for simplicity it should come from the prograde direction I think - that way an SAS hold can be used. During railwarp it'd just remember the orientation from when it entered, the way Kerbalism does for solar panels. I also wouldn't treat them like impacts at all - it'd be thousands of micro-impacts, too many to treat as individual ones. It'd just be a general abrasion, like by a sandblaster

Yeah, I just need to figure out what actually goes inside one since the post you linked still doesn't explain that part (I know literally nothing about licensing)