etheoma

Erm well I know it was one or the other but in both cases it's not that the engine would break it's that the thrust becomes non existent due to either the heat being so high that the burning of the hydrogen become a small amount of the heat that is in the engine so therefore the thrust become non existent or that the air is traveling through the engine too fast, I can't remember which one it is but either way it's not because the engine will break. I may have got the reason why they didn't use kerosene mixed up with the reason the craft could only go so fast on air breathing mode. But as said I am sure either way that the engine would not become inoperable under it's own power, because the thrust would be so low at that point that it wouldn't matter.

@blowfish Also I would like to point out to a point you made a while ago to the a question I asked a while ago, the Skylon engines wouldn't actually explode or melt with a speed gained under there own power because before then the incoming air becomes faster than the hydrogen can burn inside the small area of the SABRE engine. This is why proposed Scramjets that can reach orbit there hole bodies are used to burn the hydrogen because you need a long engine for the fuel to burn at like mark 20~ or you need to slow it down which the reduces the efficiency of the engine, Skylon does do this but there is a limit to how much you can compress the air before you have net 0 or negative thrust... ok not negative thrust but negative acceleration. If you were to say for example open the intakes and start the engine while de-orbiting maybe you would destroy the engine but it wouldn't blow up... that's just probably a limitation of the game that you can't just render parts inoperable but likely as long as you pre-chilled the engine with the hydrogen fuel you probably wouldn't even damage the engine as it has to be more heat resistant than the craft because as you might be aware hydrogen has a maximum burning temp of 2800C which the engine must be able to survive that at least and there for is more heat resistant than most heat resistant parts as long as your chilling it. So yeah the reason they can't go faster than Mark 5.5 isn't heat it's that the thrust provided is not enough to speed you up any longer because the air is traveling into the engine too fast to allow the hydrogine to burn or you lose net thrust by having to slow down the air too much. This is why they used hydrogen rather than kerosene both reasons for using it is because it burns faster, so it give your higher specific impulse and can produce more thrust at higher speeds. It's a change I would suggest making because I'm sick of my engines blowing up because I'm not paying attention to the speed of the craft because I'm already trying to balance a car on a needle for the sake of "realism" when it's not realistic.

@blowfish Yeah as you can see I posted on RO as you replied to me there. I hope someone does make the change because the engines are completely unbalanced with RO. With that changed I managed to get the craft almost exactly right, it's 7,000 kg over but that's probably just inefficiencies in my launch profile, plus to balance the craft I needed I needed to add 2,100 kg of lead ballast at the tip which the LH2 to carry that extra weight would easily account for the extra 4,900 kg. If I could get rid of it I would probably be lighter than the actual craft.

Err know this was a long time ago but if anything the rocket ISP is too low on the wiki for the Skylon it says the Saber engines have a specific impulse of 460 the KSP Saber is 340... if anything the specific impulse for the air breathing mode is too high the specific impulse on the page for the air breathing engines is 4100, but I must admit the engines do not seem to really ever exceed 4100 Specific impulse in real usage at maximum throttle.so it's probably about right for the air breathing part. I wondered my craft was having to weight 108 tons more than the actual skylon when I was cheating and increased the heat tolerance of procedural tanks and used cyro balloons so my craft should be lighter than the proposed Skylon not heavier. Like super seriously I'm having to carry 273 Tonns of liquid Oxygen if I only have to cut that by 1/3 that means I can cut back of the hydrogen as well and also the containers which effect my final weight which then give me much more bang for the bunk. That difference in ISP is MASSIVE!!! I could probably get the hole craft down to 200 - 250 Tons after that point I would go to using the proper heat shielded procedural parts which would bring me back upto 325 tons~ which is still as lot better than 433 Tons And who should I speak to about this inconsistency so I can at least get if fixed on my install if not just plain old just getting it fixed.

Sorry to ask but there isn't any chance you could integrate this for RO because I'm making a Skylon alike in RO and the Super Draco engine RCS would be perfect for an engine that I could use to both translate forwards and backwards with and provide an engine with no re-ignition limits. Also just so they don't show up in the Non RO parts. Yeah I know it's a lot longer than the real thing but its also quite a bit thinner, also I know I should have canards at the fount and I shouldn't have pitch tail fins at the back but it just makes it too unstable. The problem is you can't change the fuel type the engine uses. otherwise your part's are perfectly comparable with RO. I understand if you want to wait until RO is 1.2 but given the style of your parts it's just a crying shame not to have RO integration. Tbh when RO 1.2 comes around I might just change the damn engine my self and integrate it into RO if you don't want to, if that is the case would you mind if I uploaded that for other people to use, obviously with credits.

How does this work with Realism Overhaul, because I really want to use this but I also like realism overhaul, because this seems like it would be a bit too overpowered with the kerbin system, really all I want to use this for is for building stuff in space from parts brought up by a Skylon alike, So that I'm not limited by the cargo bay as to what I can build in space, without the pain in the ass of docking things togther and then having the weight and flexing that docking ports introduce.

Erm is there a place I can download the 1.1.3 version?

Well I have solved every problem but the landing gear for the launcher rocket... and also getting back on another launch sites but being able to lands without landing on my engines which while the engines are solid enough ingame to take the weight that isn't exactly true to form. See lack of landing gear unfortunately I didn't have auto recording enabled to show you how lucky I was that the craft didn't tip over. Is there a mod for stronger and larger landing gear, I'm using 1.1.3 with RO. Simply scaling up the landing gear is not enough. Also the **** ton of engines is making my game super slow... I'm usually running at like 60 - 120 fps and I'm getting 8 FPS... and it's not just when the engines are on there is some kind of bug which makes engines take up a ridiculous amount of CPU resources I have had 1000 part craft be less performance intensive... And this stage only has like 100 parts if that. Here is the hole craft if anyone was interested.

Sorry realized you needed to use the unshielded procedural part to get the cryro balloons

Oh sorry I see someone already suggest making an offset feature not but 2 posts ago my bad, Totally agree that would be a great thing to add. personally I'm trying to make a Skylon alike with RO and RSS but the length of the craft requires an offset tail so it doesn't hit the ground but I can't find a parts pack with a long enough tail in the right shape. I'm currently using Procedural Parts but as said the tail hit's the ground more often than not and the speed required for take off is about 280 - 300 m/s because I can only pitch the craft to about 4 degrees on the runway. If I could only get a degree or 2 more I would be able to take off at 220m/s - 250m/s which is much more reasonable. Also it's the same design as the proposed skylon so it would be more realistic as well as more functional.

Would probably help a great deal just not to have to use up so much area for pure hydrogen which would leave more space for Oxygen. And yeah I know precoolers have there limits I was simply confused that there was no difference between having them and not having them, I just ended up taking the plunge and installing Realism overhall hopefully now I can get the results I was looking for and if not well at least I have some parts that are more suited to the job of building a Skylon-alike. I think just increasing the size of the spaceplane will help elevate most of the problem I am seeing.

Also are the pre-coolers not supposed to do anything, Because I'm getting to around 1.7kms with or without the pre-coolers should I assume they have been rolled into the Sabre and Rapier? If not this explains why I'm not getting anywhere near orbital speeds even though I have a metric butt ton of fuel like seriously every part of the craft is carrying fuel and I'm still 4.5 km/ps short it's not something you can really work around I was just going to edit the parts to make them bigger and carry more fuel.

How do I get real fuels to change the engines to Saber to Liquid Ox + Liquid Hydrogen I tired to get the configs from the Real Fuels page but it leads to a thread which had been taken down? It's still using Liquid Fuel + Oxidiser, trying to make a Skylon-alike but not having light weight fuel with efficient engines makes it kind of... Impossible... I know I also need another rocket to do all the final burn and I will need to go hunting for that if all else fails I'll just mod an existing engine with any kind of values I can find with the proposed ISP / TWR values of the maneuvering rocket. But just modding an existing air breathing engine is a little more tricky so I would like to avoid having to do it by my self if possible. Oh this is with Real scale solar system as why I can't just slap something together quickly from stock parts.

Where are these new landing gear because I have carefully looked through all the Utilities section. Edit; I also tried adding the folder for the landing gear back in and there also not showing up in game. There are also no files saying anything like landing gear in the parts file or Zip and I'm not talking about landing legs. Oh did you mean outside the B9 there is decent landing gear, ah ok, but I do like profer the orignal landing gear and I can't get them to show just by adding the folder back.

I'm sorry if this sounds impertinent but why was the B9 landing gear removed from the main install, I know it's in the legacy zip but it was I would ague the best landing gear period I know you have the multiwheels stuff but those are ridiculous and never break there made out of adamantium or something, but the B9 landing gear was the best and even if I wasn't going to use the hole mod I would still use the landing gear. Tbh the landing gear was still a little OP but for a game it was just right.

Well then a way you could differentiate Fission and Fusion reactors would basically make Fission reactors better at powering large spaceships, space stations and for beamed power generators in space or on the ground due to there large mass they would not be good at powering launchers, space planes or landers due to the said mass. Where as fusion reactors would be good at powering space planes, landers, launchers and small / medium sized spaceships due to there efficiency and relatively small mass, also if your power requirements are not that high also be good for extra long missions which will not have re-supply runs. As I see it if you were to go that route though when you get to 3.75m - 5m~ fusion reactors should gain mass disproportionately to there smaller counterparts and become competitive or even beat fission reactors for power produced because as I said the more space fission had to take place the more energy you can produce. Just a recommendation, but also when I come to think of it compared to current Fission reactors fusion reactors would be much more powerful due to the low efficiency of fission reactors today I think the efficiency of fission reactors is in the single digits there are proposals to make that near 14% where as fusion reactors are way up in the double digits for proposed fusion reactors for fuel efficiency and 1.5x~ for the amount of energy put in to the energy they produce to the amount of energy they put out and there are some super out there once which think they can get out even more but that wont be first gen, first generation fusion reactors will be 1.2 - 1.5x~ we are talking about. So while yes the raw power put out of fission reactors is higher the actual energy you will get out at the end of the day will be higher for fission, I think its the required neutron flux needed for a critical fission reaction which wastes a load of energy.

Ok I'm just going to put this out there the weight of Fusion reactors is a little excessive, the power that they produce is also a little excessive so from a game balance point of view you could look at it as balance but its not really, but that's not really my area of expertise. Now why do I say the fusion reactors are excessively heavy; well see fusion needs space to happen, less space the less reaction will happen exponentially so miniaturization must be in the machinery not the space in which the reaction will happen, which space is rather light. So I get the magnetic confinement reactor being heaver for the same size than the inertial confinement reactor, but the fission reactors should be significantly heavier than the fusion reactors, as fission while it does have a decrease energy output for the area it is not as large as fusion would be or, is as you don't need to push as hard to get fissionable materials to go critical as you do for fusion; where you have to overcome the EM force keeping atoms apart and you have to rely on quantum tunnelling to get that done for the most part. that's how strong the electromagnetic force is down on the atomic level. With Fission all you need to do is hit the atom with a neutron which is neither positively or negatively charged so it is not effected by the magnetic field of the atom which is to be fissioned, so you don't need as much area for the reaction to happen and the relation to area almost liner compared to fusion, it's not but in comparison it is. I think FreeThinkers motive behind his alterations were to make it more realistic if its for game play then I think its a little counter productive and decreasing thrust would be a better option but in that area FreeThinker is allowed more artistic freedom as if it's just a game play mechanic then he can make up what ever he likes but if he is trying to move it to be more realistic then he is moving in the wrong direction.

Having a problem with the charged particle electric generator, it will expand back to 2.5m when I quick load or revert flight which the revert flight isn't that bad because I can always revert to SPH or VAB. But the Quick Load is a problem. Edit; looks like it only occurs when the part is the Root part, probably a bug in Tweekscales.

I assume you are also using real fuels right? because after lunching and coming back the the VAB it seems to be happening with stock parts to me also.

Pleas could pleas make a unsupported 1.0.4 version as its been disabled and none of the reactors work and I want to wait to use 1.0.5 until the vast majority of the mods I use have been updated. When I say unsupported I mean that no support will be offered by the Freethinker from this thread.

Sorry bro DX12 is better than OpenGL end of, Vulkan would be a good alternative but OpenGL isn't even really an option. But at the moment Unity 5 doesn't support Vulkan but probably it will when Vulkan is released.

I think people are forgetting the multi threaded nature of DX12, which if for example we were to have gotten multi threaded physics in DX11 even on a 4 core machine we would only likely see a 120 150% increase from the single threaded physics where as with DX12 we could see a 350% ish increase over the single threaded phyic's and on an 8 core machine a 600% increase and so on. Depending on how parallel the phyic's is but considering there porting it to the consoles I believe they will make it very parallel as the consoles have a very very very weak single core performance, that's even if they don't utilize asynchronous compute for the physics. And if they brought that to the PC we are not just talking about a 350% increase in physic's performance for example the 6600k has ~240GLOPS of performance where as a 270X is 2560 GFLOPS, and yes I know GFLOPS don't directly translate to performance but given the right workloads it can-ish. So yeah DX12/Unity 5 has the possibility to increase performance significantly, The asynchronous compute obviously wont be coming in 1.1 but maybe after the console version is finished. Because the only way I can see the console version coming anywhere close to the PC version is if asynchronous compute is used as the CPU in even the Xbone which has the stronger CPU is under half as strong as a midrange CPU of today 4690k 6600k FX8350 etc. So yeah the console version as well as giving us multi threaded physics and stable 64 bit it may also give us a async compute and people were complaining about the console port being bad for the PC version. And yes the only reason squad was able or was willing to update KSP to unity 5 however you want to look at it was because they were porting it to the consoles, I will say this again here, I don't blame Squad for waiting until they were ready to port to the consoles to update to unity 5 as they can't work for free and KSP is basically already at saturation in the PC market so yeah obviously they need to be paid for the extra work. although its no where near certain whether they could port the physics to be able to be done with Async compute as I would assume it would be a double precision task based on X86 which would mean it would almost certainly use a butt ton of instructions a GPU just simply can't process, and if it is consumer grade GPU's don't have much double precision floating point performance at all never mind the instruction set being completely incompatible. It would mean doing the physic's from the ground up again.

Erm I'm having a problem. See that RCS build aid is telling me that my mass is smaller when I'm full of fuel even though there isn't any fuel in it and every other mod is saying that the 5.5t wet and dry, which is correct because there's no fuel in it. The causes RCS build aid to be useless for its intended propose it seems to happen with all of the Mark IV Spaceplane System parts.

Seems incompatible with Real Fuels will change mass to negative masses etc and completely ruins aerodynamic stability.

Don't suppose you could add an option in the rightclick menu for adding heat shielding, especially for the structural fairings, Or would that be a big ask? I can see why as its procedural and telling KSP what the shape is might be difficult. Because I'm having cases where things deep inside the fairing is blowing up which isn't exactly realistic.