NathanKell

ModuleRCSFX has a setting for always firing RCS at full thrust. So that one is fixed at least. (It defaults to off, but...)

This is precisely what Modular Fuel Tanks was designed to do, and it's been doing it since, like, 0.19 or so. We had hoped .23 would obsolete it (as LethalDose says) but we were sadly wrong.

If you play KSP in fullscreen mode, and alt-tab out of it, you get those messages, one for every frame it was not the foreground app. If you plan to alt-tab out, consider running KSP in a borderless window: set the resolution in KSP to your desktop resolution, turn Fullscreen mode off, and launch KSP with the argument -popupwindow

Yeah, I think KSP should default to 100m/s to orbit. If you design a larger rocket, as real life tells you you need, that's enough; why should the game force you to do so!? I don't need the game to spoonfeed me reasons to make large rockets. Yeah, all engines can develop the same thrust, and we can use bigger engines just for aesthetics. We don't need to be spoonfed reasons to use Mainsails. ...but of course that's ludicrous: the game does all sorts of things to make you design craft of a certain type, using certain parts. I mean, engines have different roles (even with different sizes, they could all share the same Isp and TWR...but they don't), why shouldn't wings?

I have an idea on how to make that easier. Basically, I will (assuming Ven's OK with it) change the MM patch to only apply to parts that do not have VenSkip=true in them. So you can write an MM patch that runs on :FIRST that adds VenSkip = true to any parts you want skipped.

Frankly, I found 6.4x with stock parts very fun myself (I played a stock career in it, it's part of what got me to start working on RP-0). FAR, obviously, and I used a slightly edited version of Stock ReBalance tailored for 6.4x. Also KIDS (but for thrust correction, not Isp scaling).

I am a mod, and that sounds right to me.

Or consider a 'quad engine' part where the engines all angle 'outwards' slightly.

If both you and another mod change the same thing at the same time, that could lead to problems. For example, consider the Procedural Parts SRB and KIDS. *The SRB changes the maxThrust based on what size it is *KIDS changes maxThrust based on ambient air pressure. Those situations are few and far between, however, generally one doesn't have to worry about it. One thing that you *should* do, however, is any time you use some setting or hardcoded value, instead of doing that, load it from a cfg file. That way other mods can modify it with Module Manager. Like if the cost of something should be (default) 5 * mass, you have MYMODSETTINGS { costMult = 5 } and then get that node from GameDatabase during play and read the cost that way, rather than just doing `part.mass * 5` in your code.

This is now a mod for use if you want to *change* the biome maps. If you're happy with the stock biome maps, you don't need this.

The problem is that cost and price are different things. Especially in the case of the Shuttle. I'm perfectly happy for Raptor831 and anyone else who uses RF in a non-RO context to suggest appropriate pricing. RF by default has our best guess at 1965 fuel prices (where 1 fund = $1000USD), but the cost of tanks is...hard. RO will then go ahead and assign real prices, but if you don't have RO (say, playing stock career with RF Stockalike on 6.4x) you can have nonreal ~~~balance~~~ prices.

NonWonderDog: MM reports the number of times *applying* the patch errors out, not how many errors are in the patch. That means it failed for 77 attempts (and there's what, 9 patches in the file? So something like 8 parts it failed on?) Also, be careful: MFT will change the mass of parts it's applied to unless you tell it not to, so parts that should keep their dry mass (like service modules, pods, etc) need special handling.

Then no, they are not. Biomes are based (GAHH) off a 2048x1024 image. Kerbin is 600km in radius, 6.4x is 3840km in radius. That means a circumference of 24,127km, so a resolution of about 11.8km to the pixel.

Some price changes have been made in RP-0. If you're not using that in career, then things will be very strange. If you are, then please post logs etc because you should not be getting those prices.

And Chad (C7) asked for permission to fix it many a time, so let's not blame him. You're confusing the design altitude of a nozzle with the optimal altitude of a nozzle. A rocket engine will *always* have its highest Isp in vacuum, because the reason for Isp ever being lower than that is because the air "pushes back" against the exhaust; when there's no pushback, it's most efficient. For any given atmospheric altitude, and rocket engines identical except for nozzle bell, the one which is nearest its design altitude will be most efficient, but all will be more efficient in vacuum than they are at that altitude.

rkman: KSP fuel tanks are a bit more than 4x as heavy (in terms of dry mass for given tonnage of fuel) as real life tanks. Engines are anywhere from the correct mass (NTR, SRBs) to 3-6x as heavy as real life equivalents (most liquid engines), to OMGLOLWUTOP like the ions (like, say, 100x the TWR, 10000x the efficiency regarding electricity).

Consider the case of 2 transforms, one going left and one right. If you "average it out" you get a thrust vector of 0,0,0, which is nonsense; in fact what happens is each one fires at half thrust, leading to net 0 acceleration but not a zero-vector single thrust direction...

Sorry, not sure what you mean about DRE. As for the atmosphere, if you're using legacyAtmosphere (which you are unless you told RSS to disable it and gave RSS a pressureCurve) then the maximum height is where the unmodified pressure hits <1e-6, i.e. roughly 13.8 * scaleHeight.

Biotronic: Hurrah! Congrats!

Steambirds: see also https://github.com/NathanKell/RealSolarSystem/wiki/Equatorial-Orbits-from-Non-Equatorial-Launch-Sites

Pretty sure you can get that with *no* mods.

nightingale: It's confusing because one does *not* have to do @PART[*],* (sarbian? insight?)

Just a note, bit tired of the 'lifting body' canard. Regular fuselages are lifting bodies too, we generally use the term lifting body to mean a craft that doesn't get lift from anything *except* its fuselage, not that it's somehow something totally different. Yes, the fuselage has a bit of a funky shape, but that just makes it somewhat more efficient, not "it produces lift where a regular fuselage does not."

@PARAMETER[*],* The first to say 'match any' and the ,* to say 'match all nodes that meet this filter.'

Frizzank, woo! That'll be grand. If you're considering alt-Apollos, though, I'd ask you to take a look at the prettiness that was the Convair, Martin, and GE submissions for the contract. Very cool looking, and nearly as close to 'would have happened' as Apollo Direct. Especially since for the first two they would be lifting bodies, and that's a craft type we really don't have much of in KSP.