NWM

Dear Ferram! Yes, it is true: those heavy engines ruin the balllast. I had straggled two weeks with stabilizing my reuseable 400/100tons tanker-SSTO (and now she - powered by those heavy engines - bings over 250tons of fuel to low orbit - realistic?). I had been forced to use those ASAS units to bring back the dry CoM forward, and keep the plane stable! While flying in the atmospere your conception of weighst is absolutely right. But on the other hand, if we are in space, those changes undermines the ballance of the Kerbal world dV, because those changes drastically improves the full mass/ empty mass ratio. Your changes of weights mean superefficient spacesips over the athmospherically stable rockets and aircrafts! The main problem - earth-like athmospheric conditions meet the miniature cosmos of the world of kerbal. There is no perfect "realistic" solution, just good trade-off. Your conception - no doubt - improves the conditions in the athmosphere, but there is no compensation for the orbital conditions!

Are there enough place for each fictional place in Kerbal world? And why fictional, if there are real anomalies, like Nazca-Lines? PS: read the "already suggested" and the "do not suggest" topik!

Ferram4 - [*]Engines are too heavy. This puts the CoM of KSP rockets a lot lower than it should be; I personally would drop the engine masses either to 1/2 or 1/3 of what they are and then increase the dry masses of fuel tanks to compensate. That or increase the dry mass of decouplers or something like that. Either option ends up shifting the CoM further up the rocket, making rockets more stable. I agree most of your opinion, except of this. At first the fuel tanks are also overweighted - but are there any so durable rocket-fuel tank in earth like the kerbal ones? Do not forget it is a game, and it have to be coherent to its world. The terran "realistic" weights makes the travel irrealisticaly easy in the kerbal world! Let be the game be the optimal compostite of realism and fun! PS: I LOVE your FAR mod!

Adding some idea: - Repairing and refueling(in case there is possibility reusing the crafts) of vessel takes time, or possible in manually. - Hangars and warehouses for storaging of reuseable vessels and modules. - Recuiting and managing scientists, mechanics (the first improves the research, the second the assembly and repair time)

I think there is no need of this, exception: if it is radioactive(pl. NERVA) - and espsecially if it impacts to Kerbin!

Some other dwarf planet on the orbit of Dres - like there is some on the orbit of Ceres (Juno,Vesta...16 Psyche). A 16 Psyche like remained iron core could be interesting.

and another advice, if you have a proper crat Break the sound speed only at high atitude(over 12 000m)! Due to less drag your craft will accelerate better, and you chance to reach the stable Mach1.5 before stalling descends your craft to the dense athmosphere!

Interesting. For me only one thing: Why has FL-R10 RCS Fuel Tank capacity of 50 units of monopropellant, when 1.25m the same heigth FL-R25 RCS Fuel Tank 100, or the same sized Oscar-B less then 20 unit of rocket fuel? 25 would be more correct amout, wouldn't it? And why have Mk2 and Mk2 fuselages low fuel capacity.

What do you do with produced fule on Duna, even if it can't be filt in rockets-airplanes even in Kerbin. And Kerbal lives years floating in the space in a simple EVA-suit. 1. Kethan is a kind of cheat overall - gas station everyvhere. 2. The illustrated graph is a sham! Even the crude oil needs great refinement before use! And there is no crude oil - as there was no organic life to be fossilated in fifeless planets! for example: water+ energy -> hidrogen(<gas>fuel! for LH+O2 rockets) + oxygen(<gas>fuel, life support) carbonic dioxide+ energy -> carbon + oxygen carbon+oxygen+ energy -> liquid fuel! and so on.... as you see all of them need energy and even more energy! you can build a fuel factory, or a continous self-supporting base but it must need great effort and investment - and not something "gas station everywhere"

At first - by the capacity/size of batteries and energy consumption of wheels and ligths: one unit of energy ~ 10kJ! By this both Solar panels and RTG-s are too effective. RTG-s would had 1/10 eneregy production, and the Solar panels would produced so much energy around the Moho, and decreased their productivity by the sqare of the distance from trhe Sun(Kerbol), and also decreased by the athmospere(exponential) On the other hand, it is true, if you not have ion drivers, you dont need the OX-4L, but the recharge is not working, if the device is not active. The vessels cannot be let to have sunbath. Yes, solving it would made me more pleased, than most of the stupid ideas in this forum

Hey! This 2,5km long runway is more then adequate for my 400+tons refueling SSTO! If something cannot take of from this, then even the ski jump ramp won't help! It will only endanger the landing gears!

"All planets and moons apart from Jool will have biomes, well and the Sun of course ;)" - Even Gilly-like asteroids?

+1, and +1 for debris-like inactivity!

I think rather 1.25m landing pod's instrument panel needs redesineing. In the 2.5m pod there is only 3 instruments, but the necessary by the window in order. The panel of 1.25m landing pod is a insane mess. It is impossible to land using IVA, becasuse the needed instruments cannot bee seen in one screen!

Nice set, a bit similar to mine, but I use tangential reuseable boosters/drop tanks, and with exception of the main tug, I lift them the 2 staged reuseable system, and refuel them by SSTO aircrafts...

Dear Ferram! I think there is a little but ugly bug in the control system of your mod! If the reference command pod is built in reverse(for examle docking lander) or the aircraft or rocket flies backward, the aerodynamic control elements start to work to the opposite direction. Using ASAS the wing tails instead of killing the rotatinon spin up the rocket! The gyroscopic stabilizators works properly in this situation, but the wing tails controlled by your mod overforce them! The Squad "aero"(LOL) also work properly this situation. I hope you can solve this problem soon! Sincerelly, NWM!

Not! It is the superority of the open systems: much easier to repair something, if you can see, how it is really works. Garoad: I suggest you try rather Linux Mint. By my personal experience it faster, +15% in framerates. (there is even faster distros, but mostly not for Linux virgins)

A stupid notice: - I understand, it is imposible to load these ships, but I can't see the reason why I cannot delete them in the game...(I can erase them only using the OS file manager) ...it is functionally strange...

I agrre, but I think there should be a career history file of the "firm" (KSP) also. But in this case there should be an autocounting system avoiding the dozens of "untitled" crafts. I mean, the even the new ships on the launcpad starts as untitled-1, untitled-2...

Even if not think of the reusability, the current autorecovery system is nonsense! Now due to the current science system, we have to bring back vast amount of scientific gadgets from each of the biomes (4-6 SC9001s, etc), but those gadgets cannot be paradropped or even disessembled on reentry to decrease the mass to lower the descending speed - because of that f********* atmospheric automatic "recovery". I agree, there must be some kind of exceptions of this unloading. For example - the part has a pod - means it is not a kind of debris. But there is also needence of refuelling facility, hangars and such things for the SSTO-aircafts. I have a two staged 30 tons tons to orbit 100% reuseable system, but if I want to save the first stage I have to see its paradrop descending hoping the KOS handles the first stage properly and the package reaches the orbit. I have fuel tap, refuelng car, crane, all would be nice and cost efficient but that damned unloading...

Definitely YES! By the current phisical engine the drag only only depends on the mass. Can I not build an aerodinamic aeroplane without trace of aerodinamics? Using aeroplanes without FAR is like a date without a girl - alone. Can be done, but not funny, not challenging, and mainly there is no reason at all!

I think RAPIER would be pleasent device if it was in his correct location

And the other hand, if you count the destiny of fuel it is obvious 1U liquidfuel ~ 5L ~ 5kg - it is not H2! The main problem of the H2-O2 propulsions the low density - the huge tanks kills the advantage of the higher Isp. Apart from this I would pleased if there were H2-O2 engines with water->H2-O2 generators. It would be an ideal local propulsions on distant world with water. And at the other hands - SCABRE is not a turbojet-rocket hybrid - but a ramjet-rocket one - and its efficiency-graff should show that. In breathing mode should need high speed and low air density...

You are arguing aout SABRE and RAPIER forgeting one important paramether: SABRE uses hydrogen as fuel. The correct peak specific impulse of the RAPIER would be ~1000s due to hydrogen has over 3x more MJ/kg than liquid fuels!

I've tested under Linux Mint 13 for an hour. Works Perfectly! Great Thanx!