NathanKell

|Velocity|: We certainly could! But as above, so far I've felt that there's enough other things that make it harder to reach orbit than in real life that the bit extra delta V worked out ok. I think we might reasses after KSP 1.0 comes out, though, and it's a good time for more savebreaking changes. Congratulations on your orbit, and glad it's fun for you! Ah, apologies for assuming LOLSOKERBAL when it wasn't there. Good work. sashan: It's technically possible, but no one's had time to sit down and write the plugin. O Nerd: drag losses are on the order of 100m/s. Gravity losses are on the order of 1800m/s. Even if you triple drag losses from a high-speed ascent, if it cuts gravity losses by 17% you're ahead. And since gravity losses are dependent on time to orbit and time spent with little horizontal velocity, you can see how a high TWR takeoff can massively decrease them. Dawnstar: First, welcome to the forums! (And to RO.) Glad it's fun for you! Second, you might want to edit one of your posts to consolidate, and delete the other; looks like when the first post didn't appear you reposted, and a moderator approved both? (Every user's first few posts are moderated, after which they're able to post immediately unless re-queued due to infractions). 1. Sounds like you missed the big installation instructions bit in the RSS Opening Post about needing a texture pack. (We recommend using CKAN for this reason amongst others; it makes installation far easier.) My suggestion is to nuke both the RealSolarSystem and RSSTextures folders and install both RSS and a texture pack fresh from the Real Solar System OP. 2. Recall that the 45 ton Apollo spacecraft stack (CSM+LM) was controlled using four .45kN quads on the Service Module (and a few even smaller ones on the LM). The standard size RCS block is that size, so you certainly shouldn't need more than 4 of them for vessels < 30 tons. One thing RO teaches you is patience (you burn RCS a bit to start turning, then wait until you get close to done turning and kill rotation). 3. If you're intent on playing career, then without RP-0 it's not going to work. It's that simple. I recommend ditching RO and using the RF Stockalike configs if you want to play a KSP-style career. 4. Uh...use smaller probe cores? You have a lot you can use, and you can use proc fairings to hide them anyway if their small size would look weird. The large stackmount probe cores are modeled on, well, the large (and heavy) avionics rings used early on; once avionics started getting light, it also got small.

Kitspace: Structural is one of the tank types, like Default or Cryogenic. Keep switching type until you get it. The utilization slider simply affects how much volume RF thinks the part holds. Regarding TWR increase, can you actually show some pictures (with MJ's stats window open on 'all stats') of your craft? I don't encounter the issue often and I'm not aware of a workaround. I will try to get the next version out soon, but no promises (RL has been very busy).

Also, did you install a release of this, rather than just downloading the repository?

I realize you're doing this to make your RO life easier (for certain values of "easier") but please don't expect support or even acknowledgement ever again.

fallout2077: actually, there's two things at play here. First is the goal TWR at any given tech level. That you can get from the spreadsheet (or RealSettings.cfg, which is the export). Second is what happens when you upgrade an engine. Here is the source. Here's the tl;dr though: if there is no massMultiplier assigned (and there pretty much always isn't), then the mass will be multiplied by either (a) oldTWR / newTWR [for constant thrust engines like SRBs] or ( oldIspVac / newIspVac *and* thrust will be increased by newTWR / oldTWR * oldIspVac / newIspVac. The reason for the complexity in case ( is so that when tech level increases, there is *both* an increase in thrust *and* a decrease in mass. Kitspace: You have come across a rather fundamental issue. RealFuels has to try to replicate the dry masses and volume utilization of *all* real launch vehicles. That means replicating very early, low-tech high-dry-mass vehicles like the R-7, but also modern lightweight things like Falcon or old even-lighter-weight things like Titan I or II. Consider that Titan I's first stage massed 76.2t wet and only 4t dry, including almost a ton of engine and also the interstage parts. That's 2 tons of tank mass for 72.2 tons of propellant (ratio 2/74.2 = 0.027)--pretty incredible! Oh, and cryogenic is the type of highly-insulate tank that debuted in the late 1970s for hydrolox; for kerolox, use Default. If you want something closer to R-7's dry mass fraction, try using Structural. Or do like we usually have to do with replicas: add some LeadBallast. As for too much fuel--decrease the Utilization slider. That's what it's there for. Volume utilization will depend on stage design, tank design, and other factors; rather than try to calculate that, preventing replicas from being built, we just let you set it as needed.

Friedrich Nietzsche: Thanks! Yeah, alas RVE is the answer. Also selectively using the 8192s (if you only visit Earth and Moon, use 2048s for everything else but 8192s for them). Finally, the PQSMods do stand in need of further tweaking to enhance terrain... |Velocity|: I don't know of anyone having done that yet, but yes, Texture Replacer can do it.

Please don't post asking for support when using RO in non-RO threads. Please post in the RO thread. Partmakers kindly let us tweak their parts, on the condition that they don't get bugged for support.

1. MB-x (or MB-x-y for submodels) is the designation of the "propulsion system", an LR-79 and two LR-101 verniers. The same is true for Atlas, where MA-x is the designation of the propulsion system (2x LR-89, LR-105, 2x LR-101). 2. All Thors (and Deltas) ground-light the main engine. The only funky bit is that late Deltas (II 79xx) don't ground-light all their SRBs. 3. Alas no. I thought about it, and would love to, but doing that requires changing the tankage as well, and there's no easy way to say "swap to a different volume".

The way to do it is: 1. Make a normal purplish normal map, and then do the usual flip-horizontal and offset. 2. Invert the X channel (because you flipped horizontal) 3. Export as DXT5nm. If you're not using DDS, then you have to manually do the channel swapping (per the RSS wiki).

LR-89-NA-6 is probably closest. 831 rather than 866 though. The LR-79s in the Thors (and later Deltas) were basically LR-89s, just tweaked slightly (and vice versa). Rather than have a spate of near-identical CONFIGs we standardized on LR-89s.

What texture pack are you using? Or just the default 10x Kerbol zip?

EDIT: Answered in 10x thread.

We probably haven't placed it yet

You're most welcome! Regarding high burnout TWRs--in real life, there's the issue called "propellant residuals". Basically, the turbopump can't suck the tanks dry; the engine will flame out before the tanks are 100% pressurant and 0% propellant, and what's left is called the residuals. First stages often have residuals on the order of 0.5%, which means that your burnout mass in real life will be higher than just the dry mass, it'll be (wet mass - dry mass) * 0.5% + dry mass. For upper stages, the residuals are often higher, like on the order of 1%, and the residuals will (AFAIK) also be higher for pressure-fed stages, where there isn't a pump to 'suck', only the pressurant to 'push'. Consider the Titan II upper stage, used for Gemini. The upper stage is 29t wet, 2.4t dry, and Gemini (payload) is 3.8t. Thrust is 45.4 tonnes force (444.82kN). Naively we'd assume (and this is how it performs in KSP) that burnout TWR is 45.4 / (2.4+3.8) = 7.323 Gs. However, with the 1% residuals (guess), burnout TWR is actually, in real life, only 45.4 / (2.4 + 3.8 + (29-2.4)*1%) = 45.4 / (6.2 + 0.266) = 7G. That also means that delta V in real life will be less than KSP: In KSP, the simple rocket equation gives you 316s [isp] * 9.80665 [g0] * ln((29+3.8) / (2.4+3.8)) = 316 * 9.80665 * 1.666 = 5162m/s. Counting the residuals, however, the natural log yields 1.624, so delta V drops to 5032m/s. On a large first stage / small upper stage rocket like Thor-Delta, however, that could mean the difference between a 9G burnout and an 11G burnout for the first stage, though... Modeling residuals is not something we've attempted yet, both because there would be no easy way to tell MJ or KER about it, and because there's enough other unrealities that make life harder than real in KSP-RO that we think it's safe to leave one unreality in that makes things easier. :] If your burnout TWRs are too high, rather than MOAR BOOSTERS, try MOAR STAGES. Going to a three-stage vehicle might let you have peak TWRs of only 4G each, whereas a two-stage version might peak at 8 in both cases. Also, finally, and this is just a guess, but--what do you consider reasonable TWR? Often people coming from KSP think you should launch at 2Gs, and your upper stages should be just as high thrust. Try a lower stage that gives you 1.2 on the pad (sea level TWR, not Vac TWR) and an upper stage that starts at no more than 1.0 in vacuum (if you have delta V to spare, so you can loft high, or you're going high anyway like to >2000km orbit, your upper stage can start with a much lower TWR). Consider that the EELVs (Atlas V, Delta IV) have upper stages that start around 0.2 TWR! Now, that's optimized for geostationary launches, but even going to LEO a starting TWR of 0.6 or 0.7 is totally fine if you loft a bit high and circularize after apogee (Saturn IB is an example of this approach: a long-burning high-energy upper stage with a low TWR).

It's because those GUIs are...just GUIs. They're drawn on top of the space center, they're not their own scenes. So your GPU has to render the whole space center scene plus the GUI on top.

|Velocity|, I realize KSP has taught you many things, right down to teaching you what "feels" appropriate and real. Problem is, it's not. Engines and tanks really are that lightweight, very few engines throttle, and the aerodynamics in real life work pretty much like that. I highly recommend checking this wiki page, "False KSP Lessons" to help you adjust to how things work in RO (and in real life). As for flying ascents, as mentioned there are some other great guides on the wiki for you. But do let us know if you continue to have trouble!

I am, wonder of wonders! So's DuoDex, I think.

Sure. 10char. Starwaster: awesome.

Realism Overhaul should already support this, since 99% of it isn't new parts. The few new parts are about half-done, RO-support-wise, AFAIK.

To talk about DCA, first we need to talk about Q (dynamic pressure). All lift and drag is scaled by Q, and Q = 0.5 * density [in kg/m^3] * velocity^2 [srf velocity, in m/s] Control surfaces work by applying lift and drag. So the faster you go, and the denser the air is around you, the stronger the control effect you will get. Sometimes that's too strong, especially because if all you have to fly with is the keyboard, you can't just nudge the stick a bit, it's either no deflection or full deflection. DCA helps deal with this: you set a reference speed and altitude (and thus a reference Q) and your control deflection is scaled such that, say, holding down W always results in the same control force, not the same control deflection. Since over-controlling can lead to departing from controlled flight or even things breaking off, DCA can be a big help.

Fiat C.37 Folgore (Oct 1937): The Folgore (Thunderbolt) was the third and last in a line of hunters from Fiat using their liquid-cooled V engines, becoming operational in late 1937. Described as having “no aeronautical vices whatsoever†the Folgore was incredibly maneuverable and very streamlined, able to dive better and turn quicker than most républicain and International hunters. However, it did not prove as fast in level flight at altitude as some other hunters due to its comparatively poorer supercharger, and it sacrificed some pilot visibility in the quest for smooth lines and speed. In addition, unlike the Rapiers and Falkes coming off the assembly lines in the United States and Germany, to reach its exceptional performance it was almost hand-built, and fitting a more powerful engine proved nearly impossible. Those few Folgores fielded during the latter days of the French Civil War and the Intervention developed a reputation as dangerous foes, but there were never enough of them. Folgore: 5622lb dry, 7628lb loaded, 1650HP, 420mph, 3x 20mm cannon. Folgore of 52 Gruppo, prior to the Intervention, 1937.

Ashflare: Can you post a daytime shot?

Starwaster: thanks so much for providing so much support while I was offline--megakudos! LostOblivion, I think you'd do better to ask that question in the FAR thread; that's full of people who use FAR on stock-size Kerbin. We, kinda by definition, don't. :] celem: the launch sites are in need of an update, but even so the problem is they can only be optimized for one combination of heightmap and terrain detail setting at a time. However, if you're in a giant hole that just screems "issue with the site!!!" to me. You can actually try to fix it yourself, on the wiki there's an explanation of the parameters used. On the later points, awesome! Guamokolatokint: looks like you forgot to install a texture pack. Nyia: I think there's a weird issue with the scaled space camera. If memory serves pete reported it a while back but I don't think I ever fixed it. pvnkb1tch: Atmospheres are cut off where a spacecraft returning on an interplanetary trajectory would suffer 1 Pa of dynamic pressure. Below that there isn't much point in realtime modeling of atmospheres. The thing to remember about Venus is that it has a short but thick atmosphere; it's incredibly thick near the surface but thins out quickly. Mars is the reverse; not much pressure anywhere, but it drops off slowly. Carlo: well, at some point you do hit Jupiter's "surface" which is actually not a surface, but we couldn't model it as a gas giant, we had to model it as a planet with an atmosphere (as KSP does). So at some point you do hit a wall... Starwaster: I really need to release with your pull. Life's just been super crappy lately, sorry. Suppose you can get the other one you just found in? When I get back (this weekend) I'll try to fix the scaledspace clipping not being loaded, update DDSLoader, and go for launch. srbgaming: that's super-awesome!

Use B9 Procedural Wings (it's in the Addon Dev forum).

Kitspace: I've been offline for over a week, apologies for delay. I believe that is a bug that taniwha's rewrite fixes; I hope to soon switch to his rewrite as the base for RF and thus fix it. EDIT: As to the second case, can you show some examples, or at least more details? Recall that a PP and engine alone won't make up the full dry mass of a stage, real rocket stages have interstages, retros, avionics, possibly RCS and guidance, etc.