NathanKell

Scout X-1 through Scout X-3, I think is what's meant.

Here's a nice tutorial (I believe it's linked in the RO OP...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLnoKRuIdBMT Note that that's from back when pods were always in descent mode (i.e. the CoM was just plain shifted, no plugin toggle), so the zeroeth step for the tutorial, these days, is turning descent mode on.

Northstar1989: you've described a formula for calculating Isp at sea level. However, in KSP, Isp at sea level is given via the atmosphereCurve, so we don't have to calculate it. You're right, however, that throttling should lead to considerable losses in specific impulse in atmosphere (due to decreasing chamber pressure--one throttles by reducing chamber pressure, which doesn't matter that much in vacuum but matters a ton in atmosphere), and I plan at some point to address that issue in RF, decreasing specific impulse as needed due to throttling. I highly recommend you try out Rocket Propulsion Analysis for a better feel for this stuff, the lite version is free. Also, no, the F-1 did not have a deployable nozzle extension. You're confusing "nozzle extension" (which the F-1, along with pretty much all engines, had) with "deployable nozzle extension" (which is very recent and most famously used on the RL10B-2, though the idea of such a thing was current in the 1960s...).

Top 1 list of Places To Not Go: 1. There. Let's stay on target folks.

Hurrah! So very much looking forward to these.

Compare the the PQSCity node in RealSolarSystem.cfg with the KSC PQSCity node in LaunchSites.cfg -- sounds like they differ, so change the reorientFinalAngle in LaunchSites.cfg to match the one in RSS.cfg. You can play with reorientFinalAngle to change how the space center is rotated (on the other sites).

Ok, so I'm hiding the duplicate engines Ven adds that we don't use, and I have the Proc Part issue fixed. Anything else before release?

I have only been able to verify one issue with release 0.22: in this release, Procedural Parts parts are improperly marked as non-RP0. I have not seen any other parts improperly marked. Please post examples of parts you think should not be so marked, or how you can manage to have all parts in the starting node marked as non-RP0. As for SXT, RP-0 supports considerably more than four parts. We support the Sputnik probe core, we use that model for a Vanguard core, we support at least three engines, we support antennas...the list goes on. And many, many SXT parts are easy to add support for (e.g. the structural parts).

Some of the other propellants are so utterly crazy that believe me you are not missing out--or if you are missing out, you're missing out on a quick and toxic kaboom. There's a reason v8.0 was called "Cold War Nightmare Edition." Florine not toxic enough on its own? Combine it with chlorine!

Pics of the rocket?

Sorry, the Addon Rules prevent the posting of links to downloads which violate licenses. A number of those mods cannot be bundled, and even those whose licenses do allow redistribution, well, their authors don't look kindly on modpacks. I'd suggest you do a bit of reading about modders' views towards modpacks before stepping into such shark-infested waters. :] That said, pretty craft! They sure take me back...

praise the suuuun: whatever DYJ says in the end, in the meantime you need to remove it. You can't preemptively violate licenses on the presumption of forgiveness, sorry.

Fizwalker: the divergence is quite far back (during the US Civil War, in fact). Japan has developed somewhat differently (and in particular relevance to China the Sino-Japanese War is different and less one-sided) but Japan remains the obvious proxy for Britain to ally with against Russia and thus the Anglo-Japanese alliance still occurs. Indeed, it is the promise of Japanese aid in securing India against Russia which makes Britain feel sufficiently secure to not come to an entente with Russia (or, therefore, France).* Most of your questions, I think, presuppose a 1930s situation [i[far closer to real history (or, said differently, a divergence much later) than is the case with RftS. *I am very much persuaded by the argument that the reason Britain decided to join the Franco-Russian entente was its fear of the indefensibility of India (without which Britain felt it would no longer be a Great Power) in the face of Russian invasion--or at least indefensibility without compromising sufficiently with the tenets of British rule (i.e. giving in to Indian demands for self-government) so as to form a large enough Indian Army to do the task itself. An additional factor in the (differing) development of Japan is that its model, Prussia/Germany, is a far different creature in RftS. Lacking nearly twenty years of Wilhelm I and Bismarck, instead developing for that same period under Friedrich III, Germany has begun to resemble much more the England of the latter's wife. With the political power of the army broken after an attempted coup, with the conservative elements in the Reichstag finally deciding that far from implicit support of the Kaiser (a tolerable policy even under the odiously liberal Friedrich) they must actively limit the authority of his firebrand son, and with said son due to his early escapades making overtures to the left-liberals and even the hated SPD...well, if the Meiji Constitution is based on the German one as it was in real history, it too will be a different creature. I do still think the genro will look to Germany as a model, though somewhat less than in OTL (i.e. real history). Russia, of course, cannot be a model, nor can strife-ridden, reactionary Austria. France may be a dictatorship in all but name, but for all its conservatism it is a populist dictatorship, run by the son of a lawyer, and no fit model for Japan. Germany is a stable constitutional monarchy, one where the Kaiser has far more power than Britain. Therefore the constitutional settlement in Japan--designed by genro who have seen the dangers of the military in politics in their model power, Germany, as well as the danger of the people in politics (as they feared OTL) will be different, different enough that the (equivalent of the) Taisho period does not come to an end.

Supermarine (Rolls Royce) Hawk (Aug 1934): The Hawk exhibited perhaps the most growth potential of any piston-engine hunter. Designed in 1933 by Rolls Royce’s Supermarine subsidiary and built for the former’s new V engine, and entering squadron service in late 1934, it remained in frontline service well into the first years of the war. Over the course of its life, its dry weight grew from well under five thousand pounds to nearly nine thousand, loaded from six thousand to over thirteen, its engine from 1000 to 2400hp, and its speed from 360mph to 470mph at altitude. It possessed light controls, excellent maneuverability, and perhaps the prettiest lines of any piston-engine hunter. At home it served with both the Royal Air Force and the Royal Naval Air Service, and with the various Dominions’ air services. It was also exported abroad to states friendly to the British Empire, and it saw service in the French Civil War where it proved more than a match for actioniste domestic and Italian aircraft and fought the Russian Sikorskis and Severskis on even terms. Weight and performance varies. Hawk Mk Ic of No. 40 Squadron, RAF Northolt, December 1934.

You're running KSP 0.25? Make sure none of your plugins are for .90.

ThorBeorn, thanks! Fox62: I made a reference to a certain RAF hunter called the Hawk in the entry for the Vanguard. Stay tuned. (The Vanguard is roughly based on the Hurricane, so...yeah. Although in terms of looks its wings are based on the He 100.)

Yes. However, rescaleFactor is only safe if you do not use a MODEL node on the part.

KSP names are because Squad uses a planet's name as its identifier (baaad) and then hardcodes checking them disturbingly often, i.e. you literally cannot recover a craft unless body.name == "Kerbin" (woooorse).

jonassm: I don't know. It didn't do it to me. I'll check when I get home. chrisl: if you install KCT, make sure you grab the latest RP-0 release and take the KCT folder in it and overwrite yours; RP-0 ships with custom configs for KCT...sounds like you did though! Note that KCT starts you off with a bunch of upgrade points. I suggest putting them all in your VAB build rate, should take you from 0.05 to 0.85 build rate, and down to just a week or two to build that thing. Note that that *does* mean your first node will take six years to unlock (because you spent no upgrades on node-unlocking rate), but guess what? Six years from 1951 is 1957. DoctorJon, see answer to jonassm.

If it doesn't have RSSROConfig = true added to it, that maxTemp will get nuked. Citizen247, KSP makes all resource gain/losses of type ALL_VESSEL fail if the amount is < 1e-5 per physics tick. That means 0.02 * stated charge rate * panel_exposure must be > 1e-5. Sounds like it's not. As for the runway thing--dang, I knew about the issue with the terrain far away from KSC, but now the runway has that problem too? Yikes. Can anyone else confirm? I haven't seen that one myself.

Vickers Vanguard (Feb 1934): A low-wing monoplane with distinctive high-dihedral outer wings, the Vanguard also had its origin in a racing plane, a joint Anglo-German private racer for the air races of the late 20s and early 30s. Lighter than the American H-25, with greater wing area, it was quite maneuverable, though nowhere near as fast in service. It was, however, easy to fly, a stable gun platform, and, despite its liquid-cooled engine, quite rugged; for these reasons it was well-liked by both pilots and crew. In addition, it sported the first example of the “Mukerjee hoodâ€Â, a bulging in the top of the canopy to improve visibility versus the “razorback†canopies then in use. Introduced in early 1934 and a chronological contemporary of the Hawk, in design it had more in common with the I-12 and thus found itself quickly eclipsed by its competitors. Exported to the Dominions, in their service it soldiered on as a stopgap until finally being withdrawn from frontline service in 1940. It saw its most notable service as an export model with the républicains, providing a backbone for the forces aeriennes de la Republique, lacking as they did up-to-date domestic models at the start of the Civil War. Vanguard Mk I: 4500lb dry, 5952lb loaded, 1100HP, 325mph. 6x 0.303cal MG. Vanguard Mk I, No. 72 Sqn, RAF Hornchurch, June 1934. Personal mount of Squadron Leader P. J. Mukerjee DSO.

Thanks! That is certainly my aim, you know. And just a side note--all these craft *do* perform as specced (with extra drag added to account for FAR's assumptions re: drag that old planes violate), though most date from my highly-hacked KSP 0.24 install so the craft files aren't too useful now.

Ven, could you add a note to the OP that using the pruner *will* break mods like SXT that depend on Squad textures? I just had someone who took your wording in the OP to mean that with the new version of this mod, they could use SXT just fine pruner or not.

You...really should have looked at the [RO] tag before posting that. This is not stock KSP we're talking about here, and you can bet your bottom dollar that drag in FAR is based on surface area * Cd. And that's just the start of what doesn't apply in RO land.

EFFECTS needs to be at the same level as MODULE, i.e. EFFECTS {} MODULE {} You have it inside the MODULE which means KSP won't see it. Also, you want @MODULE[Foo] @ tells MM to modify a node where its name = whatever's in [] But if the part doesn't already have a MODULE { name = ModuleRCSFX } node then it won't do anything. Did you maybe mean this? @MODULE[ModuleRCS] { @name = ModuleRCSFX // and then the effect names } That will change a ModuleRCS to a ModuleRCSFX.