DA299

Damn that's actually reasonable performance. Means my 1650 laptop will probably run this at at least 30 fps, which is playable.

Yes, I've installed B9partswitch and I'm playing on KSP 1.12

I installed this mod, and none of the parts except curvy tail 18-06 show up.

Hey does NeistAir support FAR?

Its much better than last time, but it still looks somewhat off. Is it because the clouds have no shadows(yet?)

Yes, the latest release(KSRSS reborn) is 2.7X

Hey so I have another issue, I got no snow near Earth's poles, just water. Is this an issue with my install, or just how its supposed to be?

The native is 2.7X stock scale, I believe there's a patch for 1/9th scale. There's no dV map that I know of for 1/9th scale, but you can use the 1/4th scale(2.7X stock) dV map and multiply all values by roughly (4/9)^2 = 0.64 to get a reasonably accurate number for the dV.

Anyone?

What FAR does is more realistic. Planes IRL don't have as much drag as in KSP, but they also don't produce the same amount of lift. Any normal looking airplane loses speed extremely fast in stock aero, which is not the case in FAR(and IRL).

Yeah, I'll be daydreaming about a rig that could run all of that. Probably need a 4090 LOL.

Does Kerbal Konstructs work with KSRSS reborn?

I don't understand why so many people here consider FAR to be so hard? I've been playing with it since I was 16, and I've never had an issue making anything fly. In fact, in some aspects its much easier than stock KSP. Making airplanes fly and go fast with low TWR is way, way easier in FAR than in stock. If you're proficient, you can even make very high performing spaceplanes. There's a learning curve to FAR just like there's a learning curve to everything in stock KSP. But just like in stock, you can make a plane 'look' like a plane, and balance the COM ahead of the COL, and it will always fly. No need to look at the stability derivatives, the AOA curves, etc etc. I didn't know those for almost 2 years and I built perfectly functional airplanes and even spaceplanes in FAR. And if I was able to do it, then anyone advocating for the notion that FAR is 'too hard' for new players has never played with it for more than an hour or two. If you find the GUI confusing, just don't bring it up(I know I didn't). Just design something that looks like a plane, balance COM, COL; and you will generally be good to go. Granted, one thing about FAR that makes it a bit more difficult is that it doesn't model ground effect, which makes airplane landing/ takeoff speeds a bit high(10-20 m/s higher than IRL.) If someone were to make an effective ground effect model in FAR, then you'll have so many more benefits over stock KSP: Easy landings/takeoffs, along with low drag, and better L/D than stock at high speeds. That's a win-win for me, and generally for gameplay as well(both spaceplanes and rockets experience less dV loss due to drag). If KSP 2 were to implement a realistic aero model, then it would also open the door for so many more interesting gameplay options, like aerogravity assists. I'm personally all for it.

What are the hardware requirements to run this mod? I have a laptop with a 1650, will it be able to run this at ~30 fps?

@G'th do the 8k textures have better performance than the 16k native textures of KSRSS-reborn? I'm asking because I can't really run those textures, they tank my framerate; however I was able to run old KSRSS at 8k textures.

Is there any way to have FAR's aerodynamics with stock KSP's water physics?

64K textures I presume?

@G'th a question for you: Does the 'truesight' pack mirror what is visible from actual Earth orbit? Because it does look realistic.

@tony48 any update on the 8k textures?

You can disagree, but accurate aero is not really hard to simulate. Nobody is asking for a full-fledged CFD simulation. You can play with FAR if you want to know what I'm talking about. It has no performance penalty whatsoever that I can notice, and actually even runs better for large part count crafts, due to its voxel based calculations. And it is actually a reasonably accurate model of real life aero(~85%) and most importantly, is not hacky. I have no issue with KSP aero not being realistic, but it should not be hacky. Rest, you can agree to disagree.

Yes, but you need to download the latest version from the Gitlab repository.

Since anyone else hasn't made any real effort to do so, I'm gonna help you out on this. The reason why it's so easy to break the sound barrier(in KSP) is that both the planes and the aerodynamics are incredibly unrealistic. 1) Parts are unrealistically dense, which increases their ballistic coefficient(A crunched up ball of paper flies further and faster than a sheet.) 2) The Jet Engine mechanics... where do I even start. They have incredibly unrealistic thrust curves, and almost every engine can survive Mach 2 speeds. In real life, You need to build an engine specifically for supersonic flight. A high-bypass turbine such as the Goliath will flame out(compressor stall) at anything over Mach 0.9; and will probably not even survive in supersonic flight(as just dead weight) 3) There is no consideration whatsoever on wing sweep/ geometries. A biplane will break the sound barrier just as easily as a highly swept delta wing, and this is simply not the case IRL. Similarly, phenomenon like Area Ruling, and Wave drag is not considered whatsoever in KSP. 4) Air intakes. Yes, even intakes need to be fine tuned for breaking the sound barriers. If not, they will cause supersonic air to enter the compressor, and cause the engine to die. 5) Shockwaves are actually incredibly violent, if your plane is flimsy it will for sure get destroyed in IRL. KSP takes no account of this issue. There are several more issues with KSP's aero model, but these are the more major ones. If you want to learn more, play with FAR and AJE to actually learn how hard breaking the sound barrier is. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ As for the question in the OP, I have two man problems with KSP as it stands 1) The aerodynamics are incredibly hacky. Like you can design the most sleek looking plane in existence, and then someone will come along, using cheats or hacks, and have a 10X better L/D ratio and 10X better performance. I can deal with all of the inadequacies listed above, but this is where I draw the line. I believe in the quote, "For a plane to fly well, it must be beautiful." and KSP just doesn't care. Why? Because KSP doesn't actually see the plane, it just sees a list of parts. If you are going to have a simplified aero model, then at least make sure its complete, and doesn't allow for hacking away the game's mechanics. KSP's aero just feels incomplete. I play with FAR almost exclusively now for this very reason. 2) The Wheels. I. Hate. The. Wheels. They literally do nothing that real wheels are supposed to do. IMO, they are by far the worst part of KSP. KSP 2 needs to have better wheel mechanics.

Hey man, really love your work. I have an engine suggestion for you: the XLR-99 used in the X-15 rocket plane. But I completely understand if you're busy in something else.

Yeah currently I'm not at home, and this is the only laptop I have rn. But it runs EVE, Scaterrer pretty well(I get ~25-30 fps) with 8k textures. Anyway Thanks, will check out KS3p.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m-fLHE4I58-tCpkXRBYsZwgNjdHKjljt/view?usp=sharing BTW Thanks for the help.