NathanKell

the old minimum and maximum drag values in part.cfgs (or in moduleparachute or moduleresourceintake) do literally nothing. Ignore them.

"Massless" do add their mass to their parents, whatever the map view info box says. Try comparing some launches with a crapton of heavy "massless" parts inside a cargo bay, and then without them, and see which gives you a higher apoapsis.

Easily. KSPI has done it for years, so has RealFuels.

Of course you can. Exams first.

It's...the depth of the atmosphere. Since atmospheres don't have altitudes, maxAtmosphereAltitude made much less sense IMO.

You need to come back like the shuttle, belly first, not nose first.

I did indeed mean "dot <= 0" by "away"

Good thinking making them all perpendicular to the sun!

Even then, however, it's not a sure thing. Please, please don't get into the habit of ignoring warnings. Especially since ferram, as I, lock on incompatible KSP versions, so I would be you just about anything that KJR is not doing a dang thing.

And so you shall have one. Updating OP. Thank taniwha though, as always he did the work!

And yet IIRC the changelog mentions that finally physicsless parts _do_ add their mass to their parents in flight, they're not massless in flight. If the map view says otherwise, it's wrong. You can experimentally measure this by adding a physicsless part to a sounding rocket and seeing if your apoapsis changes.

Correct!

Awesome!

When the OP says compatible with 1.0?

Perhaps because 2.25 tons is the same mass as 3 tons and no gimbal is the same as gimbal?

CaptRobau: highly, highly realistic. The aerospike used to be an unrealistic IWIN button for Isp. I'm happy to see it got made realistic. Aerospikes are not magic devices that can break the laws of physics and give you higher Isp at a given pressure than reality allows. Instead, they let you have near optimal for that pressure Isp at most any ambient pressure. A bell nozzle at its optimal pressure will always be more efficient than an altitude-compensating nozzle...but the latter is liable to be more efficient everywhere else. For instance, see what happens to the LV-T45 on Eve, compared to the Aerospike.

Correction: If someone at NASA made a bottom-heavy rocket. Top heavy is good. Think about darts, do you want the weight at the nose of the dart or the tail?

They will be unlockable, i.e. you'll have to pay their entrycost.

Nope, RSS is broken. Haven't had a chance to do anything yet.

Building art wasn't ever locked, to my knowledge. In the same way that kerbal art isn't locked. It's just hard to replace.

I feel my response was 100% adequate, on reflection. Especially given what is now stickied.

That method wasn't even reliable before--it broke on any body that used a pressureCurve. Good riddance sez I.

Have confirmed heat shields are screwy. tater: a mk1 pod + chute, never seen it stabilize in that orientation for me. Heatshields are screwy though.

Oh, I dare say RO is guilty of this too, I'm not only pointing fingers outward. (Sorry if it appeared that way.)

Have you tried flying on Eve? That's not what aerospikes are for. Aerospikes are not "Iwin" engines that break the laws of physics by having the same Isp in vacuum and in atmosphere. Aerospikes are engines that have near optmial Isp no matter the pressure. You can never do better than optimal at a given pressure, but you can do a lot worse; bells are optimized for one pressure, aerospikes are 95% optimal at most all pressures.