sephirotic

My Xbox one controller is starting to fail its buttons so I decided to buy a dualsense to play on the PC for a change for the added features and start using steam input for the first time to have some more advanced controls (Mainly using the trackpad and gyro). However steam input is bugged with KSP, the axis assignment won't stick and rudder is treated as different axis if I play with cable and emulated DS4 controller. This mod saved me and the ability to use modifier is a godsend. First time I can actually use camera controls with the joypad. It is a shame however that EVA axis are missing, I had to remap the controls for hardcoded keyboard keys instead. Any plans on adding the missing axis and buttons? Thanks a lot.

Flying for 2 minutes at mach 3: Your cabin explodes by overheating: Reenter with a SSTO on a 60% AoA on an eccentric 400x10km orbit: Nothing happens. Yeah, Heating needs serious rebalance.

I was in doubt if I should get this this or OPM, this mod has some particular things that I liked a lot, but the lack of a Titan analogue is a real bummer for me! If only that was added, I'd get this instead of OPM.

Yeah right, easy for all you guys to find the game "FUN!" Because planes are flying fast when you have 1.8 tons jet engines generating 1000kn of thrust to fight against the soupy atmosphere. Now fly with a realistic 100kn of total thrust for those planes for you to see how really wrong everything is.

Yeah, I already figured that the problem goes deeper than just tweaking some parameters.

Yeah, because doing a 145g turn on stock model is not reallistic but is FUN! Come on. While I do think the g-limit of FAR is a little bit conservative for desintegrating vessels, it Never was really a problem for me with FAR, Get a joystick. Otherwise you'll have to play on "easy" mode. Ow, wait, FAR doesn´t have that, so It would be better to get good instead. Sorry, couldn´t resist it. Haven´t tried FAR on 1.0.2, just saw that it was updated. FAR is not perfect either, it's independent control for surfaces is not very good IMHO, and rudders/yaw stability don´t see to work properly, stock 1.0 model rudders felt more natural to me. I will install it and do some more tests to see if there is any difference.

Same F-104 replica test on 0.25 with FAR. 400m/s with a 60kn engine. Putting a 120kn rocket engine wasn´t enough to push to 450m/s which was our target, I got only about 420m/s at sea level. But yeah, FAR is still much better than the stock aero model, I just hope Ferram keeps updating it. Whoever says that the 1.0.2 drag is fine, is either an inexperienced player witch never used FAR, or is too blind to see their own contradiction bias in favor of squad's questionable decision. Ideally we would have Squad to make up with Ferram and consult with him.

I for myself don´t understand were have you been for the last 3 years of game development as pretty much every more experienced played talked about how they just completely abandoned the stock aero model for being too soupy and switched to FAR and how this 1.0.2 is a retrogress towards what we have mostly hated for so many years about KSP after a brief nice experience with the aero of 1.0.0.

It's not about realism, is about good balance compromisses. You missed my point.

KSP is not ultra-realistic, for that we have RSS. A large part of the community HATED the old soupy atmosphere, IT WAS A BAD BALANCE COMPROMISSE. They have to come with some OTHER way. 1.0.0 drag is STILL MUCH HIGH than real life, but was a more balanced compromisse that felt more natural than the stats at 1.0.2. How about a planet with the density of a frigging black whole like Kerbin? I think is ridiculous but you, me and a lot of people have come to accept it as a realism compromise (this is why most of us, me including like playing RSS a lot) What lots of people DIDN`T ACCEPT, was the soupy atmosphere. Myself included. This is why FAR was so poppular, alhoug it had it's problems too and was ALSO a little bit too "draggy". But was the best we got, and now that squad got right at 1.0.0 with the aero, they made a step backward by instead of fixing overpowered jet engiens, they returned the hated soupy atmosphere. I don´t understand why it is so hard to understand, all the arguments in favor of squad decision don´t make sense to me. I wonder why.

I totally second this post, as a matter of fact, as I've stated before: EVEN ON 1.0 THE DRAG IS STILL TOO HIGH FOR SPACEPLANES AT LOW ALLTITUDES. This becomes obvious if you think that Kerbal's atmosphere has only 60% of the equivalent height of earth's, so the pods have much less time to decelerate. You are not getting the bigger picture: 250m/s IS REASANOBLE to depley a drogue chute, curiosity's droge was deployed at Freaking mach 1.7. You can´t expect a deceleration identical to real life by having a atmosphere that tops out at 70km. Progress that just deorbited by drag yesterday, decayed because IT SUFFERED DRAG AT 170km above sea level! So you can´t have two words: Perfectly reallistic chutes, perfectly reallistic drag levels, perfectly reallistic drag for airplanes at low alltitude. THERE HAVE TO BE COMPROMISES> The question is: Do we want to think that the first 10km of alltitude, are just like earth so planes fly simmilarly to real life, or do we want to have pods reaching the exact same terminal velocity at 2km alttitude? We can´t have both without some tweakings and compromisses, The onle way we can do the latter without messing with other things is by having a very condensed unrealistic soupy atmosphere. The community ALREADY SAID THEY DON`T WANT THAT IN THE PAST. We want a better balance: Planes that fly reallistically with low drag bellow 10~15km alltitude, and pods that reaches subsonic speed at 2km. How is squad going to do that? I don´t know, but the 1.0.2 solution IS CLEARLY BAD. Maybe they can Increase the drag of pods and non cylindrical parts, but don´t mess with excessive drag, Is it so hard to do that? And is ist so hard for people defending the 1.0.2 aero understand that?

I'm quite aware of that, that is why if you take a closer look at my SS, you'll see my actual thrust at 100kn, I've actually checked the specs of the J39 engine and I doubt it can actually reach that.

Some people indeed complained about this back in the day, I never really tought about that, i figured just showing the fuel gauges being drained was enough, there were some older cheaty videos on YT of older attempts hiding the fuel gauge that clearly were cheatty, I forgot to turn the resources on in the beginning and I only noticed it on the video after I had already overwritten the save file. I tought about making a second video of another ascent with the same vessel just to prove it was possible but then again, anyone who had experience leaving Eve would see my design had more than enough D/V for that. Now that 0.21 is totally obsolete I'll share the craft file anyway. The nice thing about this video is that is the first video ever on youtube or foruns to be released showing an Eve ascent from a low altittude with the nerfed aerospikes! Unfortunately it has become completely obsolete now, but the pioneer merit still comes to me I got pretty angry when they boosted the already overpowered the 48s to 30kn in a following update, I could have saved over 20 tons by having a larger final stage and less aerospike boosters with that extra thrust! Well, it is nerfed again down to 18kn so I'm less pissed. Thanks, I don´t really like the overengineering "Lolsokerbal" approach some users have, I prefer more intelligent and efficient designs. Gyros are less weight efficient than a proper optimized monoprop vessel with conservative fuel-use, it ends up being heavier! Thanks for the feedback, sorry for the delayed answer! Thank you very much! There was no career mode back on 0.21!!! But I'd sure have brought it back if I could! I'm a old KSP player, been playing since 0.16!! God, we have come a long way! Mechjeb wastes LOTS of fuel and monoprop when docking, is just not efficient enough, I like docking a lot, having a Xbox controller makes it a piece of cake, sure got a LOT of experience back in 0.17 when we didn´t had dock nor maneuver nodes, it was so damn hard that the pratic I got from it making doing it with Maneuver nodes a piece of cake! But playing a long mission manually without MJ and WITHOUT Quickload is just damn impossible! I had to quickload a dozen of times to find a flat landing spot for my Eve vessel whereas MJ can easily calculate the aerobraking for you Ow, good job identifying the last composer as a modern Russian, you came close but it's not Stravinsky, that is actually Shostakovich! I'm a classical lover too! The piano play was a piece called "Celestial Letters" from a Modern Brazillian composer called Almeida Prado, a beautifull piece with a very fitting theme to the video! I'll be adding the rep to you guys, thanks a lot! By the way, to anyone who might be interested: I SUCESSFULLY DEVELOPED A 110 ton 1-man Eve ascent Vessel compatible with 1.0.2 that reaches orbit from as low as 2km! I solved the problem of the TWR by using a single mainsall! It has 8.8kms of d/v I'll make another video of it after the next update when I hope Squad will re-balance the drag once again! Too bad the challenge is over but I'll post here nevertheless and find a new place to report the mission! Cheers to everyone.

Then you were doing something wrong, probably were using drogues or trying to chute very large vessels, because even a single Mk-16 can stop the Mk1-2 pod with the OLD 1.0 aero but with the REDUCED drag of the chutes from 1.0.2, Take a look: Of course 18.0 m/s is not exactly a smooth splashdown but the Mk1 pod can survive that, with the XL chute it touches down at a gracefull 5m/s

Just some random information for the discussion: Current sea-level speed record on a manned controlled airplane was set in 1976 on an F104: Lockheed test pilot Darryl Greenamyer built a F-104 out of parts he had collected. The aircraft, N104RB, first flew in 1976. On 2 October 1976, trying to set a new low-altitude 3-km speed record, Greenamyer averaged 1,010 miles per hour (1,630 km/h) at Mud Lake near Tonopah, Nevada. A tracking camera malfunction eliminated the necessary proof for the official record. On 24 October 1977 Greenamyer flew a 3 km official FAI record flight of 988.26 miles per hour (1,590.45 km/h).[73] The F104 is a very streamlined single-engine interceptor built in the 50s, it weights around 9 tons and it's engine has a maximum thrust of ONLY 79KN. A quick dirty replica in KSP weighting 8 tons and with throttle limiting the engine thrust to just under 100kn got the Following absolute max speeds: 1.0.2 aero: 265m/s 1.0 aero: 316m/s Half the 1.0 aero (0.3, 0.030 1.000) 356m/s 1600km/h, which is the speed we were aiming here is 450m/s However, at the half 1.0 aero, a pod reentry from a 200km orbit was stil at mach 2 from only 2km to the ground. Well, I hope they could balance this better.

Are you saying that is impossible to make a drag curve and drag characteristic for pods in the current model that satisfies both planes and rockets and that pods gets the priority?

Exactly, the drag is too high, and the lift is also too high. 108km/h to be precise enough for a glide landing with a supposely massive space plane is ridiculous low, I could land a massive Spaceplane wet of fuel gliding on duna which was supposed to have a thin atmosphere. It's just insane. How could they have approve such tweaks from 1.0 baffles me.

Which is why it's obvious that the Soapsphere is back. You can test that yourself: A real life F-15 can fly at mach speed at Sea level with 1.12 TWR and around 200kn of Maximum thrust, probably lower due to overheat issues. The Stock Ravenspeark Mk1 With the new 1.0.2 drag model, two Turbojet engines gets over 900KN of thrust, 5.52TWR and yet it now tops around the same speed of the F15. The drag increase is clearly exagerated. Not to mention I can now land heavy planes as low as 30m/s (that's less than 120km/h) by just planing without stalling. The problem of the Aero back on 1.0 wasn´t the aero, but was, and still is, the overpowered JET engines.

That is why different fuel types have been throughly proposed in the last decades of theoretical researches for Nuclear thermal rocket. Particularly Anmonia, Methane and Even Salt Water. More interesting, is the LANTR mode too.

Actually the original NERVA that was tested back in the 60's weighted much more than the F1 at a massively 34 tons. But It also had a very high thrust. No, I see Kerbal's NTR as more in line with the Soviet variant Stat-wise, (even tough it is visually more similar to the original NERVA), the RD0410, a smaller, much lighter, with a better TWR and higher efficiency engine more suitable for High stage and interplanetary burns, It only weighted 2.0 tons while having 36KN of thrust and 910 of VISP. So the kerbal LV-N is not much more nerfed compared to the real life counterpart, you sacrifice a little of ISP (910 vs 800) for a little more thrust: (18 vs 26 TWR with the old LV-N stats). But JET, ION engines and even RCS pods are buffed and have BETTER TWR ratio than real life counterparts. The point of nerfing the TWR (and ISP) of engines in KSP is to compensate for the much smaller orbital velocity needed to escape Kerbin's surface, but once you are free in space, the orbital and interplanetary engines should be actually buffed in relation to real life engines as not to make the burns ridiculously long, that is why the ION engine doesn´t have an abismal 50 newtons of thrust (not KILOnewtons). I don´t see a point in making the LV-N excessive heavy and sacrificing engine fraction for interplanetary stages. I don´t see why it's bad, we are not talking about higher specific impulse here wich would make then trully cheaty, just about energy production (I don´t believe we don´t have a proper reactor apart from fuel cells now that we have such power hungry parts like the scientific LAB and the INSITU converter), and the extra thrust don´t make the designs of rockets smaller or easier to make, just make the burns smaller. It's about reducing GRINDING not about making the game easier. If the point was to nerf the original LV-N TWR, than I'd rather had it's thrust lowered instead of the weight increased, again, I really wanted a MITEE equivalent in KSP, it's all about engine fraction!

This doesn´t even make sense, since the most advanced high performance military grade real life jet engines barely hit the 150kn thurst rating WITH AFTERBURNER AT ALLTITUDE. Even in real life it would be damn possible to hit mach 3 at sea level with such a absurdly overpowered jet engine that weights only 2 tons but hits 400kn of thrust. Of course your vessel would desintegrate in a few seconds, so the lack of realism is not the drag levels of the original 1.0 aero, but the absurdly high thrust of the Jet engines with a very forgiving damage model due to aerodynamic and gee-froce stresses.

I really wished that Squad would do A PROPER implementation of tweaks for stock tanks. Making the LV-N burn only liquidfuel without allowing to customize a tank to use ALL OF ITS VOLUME with a specific fuel type is just, stupid IMO. The rebalance of the engine by increasing it's weight to 3 tons is also pointless, the LV-N were already nerfed in the first place in regard to Real Life NTR's wich had a much higher TWR. Proposions to use Nuclear engines in real life always treats then as ferrys and never as lifter engines, engine fraction is very important and having a 3 ton engines for interplanetary travel is just stupid. For the LV-N to be usefull again we really need to have it's weight brought down again for fuel fraction sake, and the fuel tanks to be twekable. I would really also REALLY would want to se the LV-Ns as a trimodal engine with a proper permanent eletrical generator, and a switchable mode for Lox Augmented Thrust burning Oxidizer with some proper thrust. And a 0.625 nuclear engine, a MITEE analogue with about 10kn of thrust for 0.25 tons of weight would also be very interesting for a lower engine fraction interplanetary vessel.s

Old video but here is my submission: This is officially the first 100% stock (only mod used was engineer to show stats on the mission no MJ and manual flight) full ascent vehicle after the nerf of aerospike and Eve's top mountain ever to be released on the forums or youtube. The vehicle on the video can launch at 1200meters altitude, I have a further optimized version of the ascent vehicle that since version 0.23.5 can launch from 500 meters and possibly lower.

You, sir, has made my day! There was a very similar mod to this back in version 0.18~0.19 till it brake down on the update to 0.20. It was called "Throttle Steering". In the last 3 years of updates, the mod I most missed broken and not being fixed was that, and here finally you made a new and much better similar Throttle-balance/controller mod with even more advanced features and fine tuning! Simply astonishing! Thanks a lot for your mod, my Old Evangelion NERV-VTOL can be resurrected! PIC Related: However, as I was trying remake that old design, I encountered a problem: The Mod limits thrusts of ALL engines! Including my main jet engines! In my original design, I configured throttle steering only on the tail stabilizers which was more than enough to stabilize the vessel. Main jet engines I kept vanilla so that I wouldn´t lose thrust and sustain on them. This way this would assure that the main thrust of the jet engines wouldn´t fall bellow 1.0 TWR. Please, please, please add a feature to select witch engines would be controlled by the TCA mod! Or at least a per-engine setting of a Maximum allowed reduction in the limiter, so that thrust wouldn´t fall too much and make a vessel "fall" due to lack of thrust! This is specially troublesome with Jet engines since the regain on thrust is very slow. Just to make clear: I read your FAQ and I agree that JET engines shouldn´t be controlled by the TCA mod, but instead of not designing a VTOL with TCA and jet engines, one should only have the option of disabling TCA controll on the jet engiens but allowing on a select of other engines! This would make your mod the BEST MOD EVER, even better than Ferram's Aerodynamic Fix! Thanks a lot!

Hey there, I've decided to try RSS again now with the 0.90 update and all the mods maturing. I've played it a lot before back on 0.22 and even posted on this thread several times. Most ambitious mission I was able to acomplish (with dozens of years timewarping, tough) was sending a probe to Titan and a return mission to mars. Well, I tried to look up for my questions but the thread is just massive and most info is outdated so I'll just ask again, sorry if these are recurring questions: 1) Does the launch windows planer mod Works and shows the right launch window for RSS? If no, is there any table around here for the best dates to launch for Mars and most important, Jupiter and Saturn? 2) Any way to calculate Gravity Assists? Does the regular maneuver nodes works? Would the Precise Node Mod help? 3) I find the whole solar system inclined real complicated to plan burns and read the inclinations, any way to easily remove all the inclinations? How do you guys play with them? 4) Does DR need extra modded parts to use with this mod for Spaceplanes? Does flying on the right angle is just enough or should I configure plane parts (from B9) to be shielded? I have already tried regular pods with heatshields and those are okays. First try with Spaceplane didn´t work out so well. Thanks a lot.