NathanKell

So you're asking for more realistic drag values because...you don't like realism? K. Here you go

RF v10 uses CRP for resources, so you need to change the configs of any engines that reference the old NTR resources (U235Rods etc) to the new ones (EnrichedFuel and DepletedFuel IIRC, but check CRP).

Bob Jub: sure they have later versions, the Saturn IU supports up to like 20,000t on about a kilowatt, and later probe cores support up to like 5 tons on only a few watts.

Oh crap I never updated the OP. v3.3 Recompiled for KSP 1.0 (thanks to Padishar and Angel-125) Toggling crossfeed applies to symmetry counterparts (thanks Angel-125)

Need non-dark pics. That said, the old KSP .90-and-below drag stats are utterly ignored in 1.0, so changing them won't do anything.

PRs are always nice.

Thanks folks. I've suggested Cpt. Kipard add it to the stickied links compilation.

Hate to toot my own horn, but getting multiple requests to pin that thread but I think adding it to this would make more sense.

Fields and Events are collections, you can just iterate through them, yeah.

Main menu->settings. Choose "Earth Time". It's stock.

It's also worth noting that rear drag tapers off with mach: while subsonic, the dragginess of the rear of your vessel matters a lot, whereas at high mach it doesn't matter very much at all. By definition, if the rear of your craft is less draggy, your craft is less stable. So the destabilizing effects of boattails are modeled. Recall that stability lies in having the CoM above the aerodynamic center; if you decrease the drag of the tail of the vessel, that moves the aerodynamic center up (because, well, the AC is the center of all aerodynamic forces, and you just decreased the forces at the bottom).

FlowerChild: It's a single character wildcard. Note that it's not MM's fault: KSP truncates all node names at the first space, so @RESOURCE_DEFINTION[EVA Propellant] is already truncated to @RESOURCE_DEFINITION[EVA by the time MM gets to see the nodes; the truncation is done on file load by KSP.

Gfurst that is an excellent idea. futrtrubl: Just because one can't completely solve a problem isn't a reason not to partially solve it.

Since shutting intakes provides no advantage whatsoever, it's not worth the bother.

MODERATOR NOTICE If you want to talk about a bug you've encountered in FAR, but don't provide the logs, please take it elsewhere. Create a thread in Support (Modded installs), say. That's off-topic for this thread.

The former...will come in time, yes. The latter, definitely. Totally rewritten.

For the record, RO will totally be using SLA and PICA and various other resources.

Some notes on RF v10.0 (forthcoming). RealFuels is about to get a lot real-er. To do that I refactored both AJE and RealFuels to depend on the same base class, SolverEngines. It borrows AJE's approach, where there's an engine solver that takes current flight conditions and reports the thrust and fuel flow. In turn ModuleEngines/FX is replaced by ModuleEnginesSolver (or by an engine module that derives from that). As it stands, the solver for rocket engines isn't really doing much, just replicating the existing behavior of engines. In time it will include its own ullage simulation, support for handling different engine cycles, correct calculation of Isp from area ratio, chamber pressure, and propellants, etc. One note: ModuleEnginesSolver derives from ModuleEnginesFX. That means that engines that don't have EFFECTS nodes won't have FX. This isn't an issue for RO because we're replacing all engine FX anyway, but for RF Stockalike you might want a fallback config (or just require Hotrockets). An example fallback config is here although it could be improved to use MM variable support to pull the oldstyle FX name instead of just using two presets.

Krakenfour: I certainly would not suggest playing career mode on that, since for example there's not anything more than Earth and Moon there, and RP-0 isn't out yet and won't be for a while. It's more so people can play with something if they want, since all the work is public anyway. Lilienthal: Mostly the former; it doesn't need testing right now so much as work. Volunteers are always gratefully accepted however. Both for that and for RO, as there's a ton of stuff that needs doing. Raptor831: Yeah, all the fixes/additions I need to make to Kopernicus will end up in the mainline (assuming teknoman doesn't gasp in horror at 'em when he returns ) so they'll be available for all. Thomas is planning to release 7 soon, I think, as soon as we get the space center issue sorted. (Space centers don't work without KSCSwitcher when you change Kerbin...) BTW I keep forgetting to PM you about Real Fuels. It's not out yet because I took the opportunity for a quite severe refactor...

By definition, if you have the same mass ratio, the LV-N will always outperform, 2.3x the delta V of the Poodle. The problem is, as usual with these threads, you have a tiny tank and you compare an engine that masses 1.25 tons with 4 tons of fuel, to an engine that masses 3 tons and has 2 tons of fuel. Of course that comparison is going to be whack. Even-slightly-fair comparison: make sure you have more tonnes of propellant than tonnes of engine, and make sure you have the same tonnes of propellant in both cases (yes, that means using airplane tanks and checking mass, not just draining oxidizer out of the same tank and getting less than half the propellant mass).

It's not in 1.0.

Yes. But that would require CoP actually being calculated, which stock absolutely doesn't do (indeed, the aero stability indicator that was mentioned in dev notes is not in 1.0, presumably because it was too hard for the time allowed).

To be clear, I'm not answering in the spirit of "meh, a mod did it so it shouldn't be stock." I think it should be stock. I'm preemtively responding to anyone who says it's impossible.

Why would you _ever_ expect RO to not use FAR? edit: a random ninja appeared!

undercoveryankee: yeah, but without afterburner, and with about 1.8x the dry thrust. So if you're supersonic you're in supercruise.