NathanKell

Jets are not rockets. Jets work by compressing and burning the incoming air. If you have more incoming air (i.e. you're going faster) then you will get more thrust out of the jet. Note that what should also be true (but is not in KSP) is that thrust will decrease as the air gets thinner (what matters isn't the volume of air taken into the jet but the *mass*), so thrust (should be) a function of airspeed and altitude, but as it stands, KSP only simulates half of that.

Galane: one of your mods is using an old, broken KSPAPIExtensions. Believe the compatibility warnings that I assume you're getting?

party214: you're most welcome! Romuless: Sorry, totally missed your post. As the amount of stock assets increased in .25, it's very possible you were much further under the limit in .24, but are now very close so it's easy to spike above the limit. ATM is indeed working agani, though you should download the latest version. That said, logs are really, really not hard to find and to upload; the sticky tells you exactly where to find it. If you can't upload the log, just start reading from the bottom up, and see if you come across anything regarding memory (if it's an out-of-memory crash, you will).

We definitely need more details; the sticky will show you a sample issue report that shows the details we need.

At least on the RealFuels side (and across RO), costs are going to be in 1965 US dollars all around (or reverse-inflation-adjusted for modern components, I think). As for Procedural Parts, I will try to use the same costing Squad does for the non-NASA parts.

Ah, RealFuels! Those have resource prices based on the 1965 US dollar cost of the resource, so don't expect any balance with KSP.

Yes, you should be able to just multiply deformities by ten, and frequencies by 0.1; that should scale it up 10x. (Frequency is a multiplier to worldspace coordinate, so with a vertex's coordinates being 10x farther away from the origin, you want 1/10th the frequency to preserve the look. It *will* look bland and flat up close though, since you'll have 1/10th the surface detail.) You can get the original PQSMod parameters here

1. Solid fuel is weirdly high, yes. Not sure quite what I was thinking, it should be about $12-15 per kg (based on series production of UA1205s, assuming about half the cost is the fuel, half the casing, which IIRC is about right.) 2. RealFuels considers 1EC to be 1 kJ. It's that simple. That said, I have very limited information on how much (space) batteries cost in 1965. But I agree that $50/kJ is probably too much. Does $1800 per kWhr sound about right? Northstar1989: Yes, thank you for that explanation. The problem is that if I simply declare boiloff to be the 4/9th power, it will mean that to get realistic boiloff for large tanks, it will be impossible to create fuel cells that don't boil everything off very quickly. In real life, insulation mass is going to be increased for the small tanks to prevent that, and I'm really unsure I want to go so far into the details as for RF to model insulation mass, *especially* given that it cannot know surface area except by the roughest approximation. As to the capsules: Yes, I'm aware, I saw when you mentioned it the first time, and thanks! (And if you check git, you'll see regex has added most missing stuff; I have to do a final pass to check everything and we're good to go). Please don't pester, though, all it makes modders want to do is delay the updates... >.>

No, that's supposedly the temperature reduction from ablation. Radiation is handled by KSP (heatDissipation). And if you ablate 1kg of ablative from a shield of a given size, it should always result in the same reduction of temperature. As it is now, you get less reduction when the shield isn't hot.

The 0.3 0.3 is actually probably better, though the final and starting points should have 0 0 each (so it's ease in and out for them). Maybe something more sharply sloped than 0.3 0.3? Assuming Starwaster wants to keep that way of modeling the shield. Thanks for the work on this Felbourn, btw! It's because IIRC FlowerChild (or maybe Taverius?) reported the lack of tangents as causing exactly the weirdness you showed in the first (tangentless) curve that it does have tangents now.

1500m/s is Mach 5. I certainly wouldn't want to pull more than a couple Gs at Mach 5. As long as you build your planes to look like planes, and fly them like you'd fly real planes, they should behave fine in FAR. With the one caveat that most modern fighters are designed to be statically unstable for increased maneuverability (i.e. CoP [what KSP calls CoL] in front of CoM) which, since we don't have fly-by-wire in KSP, is a bad idea. But planes that look like real planes tend to fly fine. If you've got lots of antennae/dishes, then yes you will need to fair them. I suggest placing them on the bottom of your service module, and using a smaller engine than the tank size (i.e. x16 tank with LV-909) and ringing the solar panels and antennas around it. Then you can use a procedural interstage to fair them all. If you're launching a probe or a rover, though, presumably you'll be fairing it all anyway, so no problem. Though, do note that PF shielding bug right now... You can literally launch *anything* in FAR, if you give it enough delta V and control authority. If necessary, limit acceleration to 1.5G max and burn lotsa fuel. That's the thing about the stock-sized planets--you really don't need to do much to get to orbit. (Note that you shouldn't be having a launch TWR much above 1.5 anyway...) How did the fine-tuning go?

We can lock it... Locked per request. (But please don't give up KSP, we'll be glad to help if you run into trouble.)

1. You can toggle between relative and absolute thickness scaling for pwings in the right-click menu for the wing. 2. FAR in .25 will adjust the mass of wings to be correct for how much wing area they are supporting; that will change the mass of your craft (and the CoM) from what it was before. You can, however, tweak wing mass (and strength) in the right-click menu. As to the other issues, please follow the guidelines in the stickied How To Get Support thread; we need logs and mod versions.

Two things: 1, the original curves did not have tangents; I added 0 0 tangents so it should not have plotted as you originally showed, but instead flat at each point, with ease in/outs between points. That said, your final addition of tangents seems closest to what was intended. 2. That curve only controls loss rate, which is dependent on shockwave temperature. Temperature dissipation is based on the other curve, which is dependent on shield temperature. This is wrong, but I didn't get around to changing it from legacy DRE until the rework. Oh, and the docs are all from ialdabaoth I think. Starwaster, if you don't want to mess with it all, you might want to just grab the rework of heat shields from a few commits back (before the "undo" commit) since that has the advantage of being physically correct. You might also just want to switch to a fixed number for dissipation (dissipation.evaluate(dissipation.maxtime) perhaps, for backwards compatibility) rather than using a separate curve.

Ah, my apologies for misconstruing. I wish you the bestest of luck!

Real Fuels already contains all that stuff thanks to regex. No engine configs use it yet, since there are no production engines for RO to model.

It's a rule of thumb that, in Earth's atmosphere, shockwave temperature in Kelvin equals vessel velocity in m/s. That's what DRE uses. However, parts have their temperatures in Celsius, hence the conversion. Safe limit is (part chute temp multiplier) * chutepart.maxTemp, vs (velocity in m/s - 273.15) * density^densityExponent -- unless Starwaster has tweaked it since I wrote it.

If you don't want all the parts in a mod, delete the ones you don't want. However, you should not change what folder something is in; often the path matters. For B9, not sure if that block requires plugins or not; but plugins don't really take up memory or add to the part catalog, so that should be ok.

Well, you've got my support, for all my lack of PHP/MySQL knowledge is worth. :]

Edit: Yeah, quite right. The subtraction based on resource amount is done by KSP, so yeah it should be what you wrote. Thanks!

Thanks muchly!

Welcome! 1. NEAR is FAR without the mach effects and the wing interaction and the GUI. It's not really easier or harder (it's easier to go fast, but that's not always a good thing, like on reentry) and while it doesn't provide lots of info, that means you don't have info to look at as to what needs fixing in your design. If you're using Procedural Fairings, there is currently an issue with larger-than-1.25m fairings and FAR not detecting parts as shielded; you might need to use (non-procedural) KW fairings for now. However, you should not need to fair pods or the like, only very unaerodynamic things like probes with lots of solar panels and wheels for rovers and the like. What are you running where you need comms? RemoteTech? That only kills antennae that are deployed, which you need not do when launching a crewed mission since you don't need a connection to mission control. For probes, you will need to have an antenna, but there is one that does not rip off. If you're finding things rip off if you're not hiding them in fairings, then you're probably ascending too fast. Try lowering your launch TWR to about 1.5, and using a low-thrust second stage for the final 1000 or so m/s to orbit (i.e. starting TWR about 1). 2. For a transfer, you can use the MJ transfer-to-another-planet autopilot, then once in the Sun's sphere of influence use "fine-tune closest approach to target" and set the periapsis as desired. Do another fine-tune when you get in the destination SOI. You will always want the lowest periapsis possible that is not inside your destination's atmosphere for the cheapest circularization, IIRC.

You have the link in the OP, not in the readme, and in neither place do you give credit as to whom it's by or mention its license. That (and no license for your own work in the actual file, not just on Curse) are the issues. You're welcome!

Looks like the SABRE tops out about Mach 4.9; it has a final CPR (prat3) of 3, not 1, which means it will top out in terms of thrust under Mach 5.

Per the Addon Posting Rules, all addons require a license, and that license must be in the downloadable file as well as the listing (and, if the link in the OP is to a listing, rather than to the file itself, while it is not required to put the license in the OP it is best practice). Further, all addons you bundle must themselves be accompanied by a license (or a link to the home of said addon, like a forum thread, which itself contains a license), and all addons you bundle must be bundled in compliance with their licenses (Module Manager is CC-BY-SA, so you must give proper attribution in your OP and in your readme regarding MM's authors). Example for you readme: This addon is licensed under the GPL v3, and includes Module Manager by sarbian, swamp_ig, and ialdabaoth, which is licensed CC-BY-SA, forum link here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55219