NathanKell

Xenro66: are you using NEAR on an unsupported KSP? (i.e. not-25, or 25 Win x64?)

Also, please post *exactly* what it says in the flight log; that will determine whether it is FAR or RemoteTech doing the antenna-destroying. Also, I have just now created a Realism Overhaul Discussion Thread in General Addon Affairs. It's the place for "how do I..." questions rather than "the mod is brokened! Halp?" questions. This way we can leave RedAV8R in peace to keep making awesome stuff.

Realism Overhaul Discussion Thread This thread is for discussing the Realism Overhaul suite of mods. You can get Realism Overhaul, and its list of required mods, from the Realism Overhaul Release Thread Links Realism Overhaul Craft Repository Real Solar System Craft Megathread RealSolarSystem subreddit Support This is not a support thread for mod issues. If you are encountering a bug with one of the mods in the Realism Overhaul mod suite, please post on that particular thread. However, this is the thread for general tips and tricks and discussion. Things you should ask here: How do a I build a launch vehicle that can get to orbit? or How do I take a trip to Mars? or I need to add verniers or ullage motors for control or ullaging my propellants. What should I do? Things you should not ask here: My game crashes, here's a log. Help? or How do I fix parts exploding on launch? or RSS crashes while applying its changes, how do I fix it?

Please actually post player.log, not a few lines. You will have to upload it to dropbox or mediafire or something.

If you want the config for more real planets, you should be using the full Real Solar System. That means that all delta V required will be exactly as in real life, so it will take ~9.3km/sec to reach low orbit around the Earth, 3300m/s to go to the Moon (and ~700 to insert), etc.

Not random, it's whichever has the alphabetically-prior file name AFAIK, but yes, both are loaded.

You do some pretty amazing stuff, but I don't think you can travel back through time. (.25 was a few weeks ago)

Once again: all rights reserved doesn't mean "go away you scum," it just means *ask* first.

OP says they are WIP.

Since it allows redistribution: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hawo62sub1wssqt/F1%20Rocket%20Engine.zip?dl=1

J58, I presume; Its "official" record is M3.5 I believe, but most people think that's not the actual limit.

I find things generally work well if I make a 2-stage LV with starting TWR around 1.4, upper stage starting around 1.0, each with roughly equal delta V, and then turn start at 1km or so (wherever 100m/s is) and turn end height and turn shape 40 (MechJeb). That is, a smooth (actual) gravity turn starting at 100m/s and coming level at about 40km, aligned with prograde the whole way. Make sure your rocket has its CoP (aka ~CoL~ in KSPtalk) below its CoM to start. That's to LKO, by the way. Note that this focus on just *starting* TWR is not sufficient; you have to look also at a stage's maximum TWR, and how long it takes to get there. If you're flying a vegetable where there's like six stages, all 1.8 and ending 2.2, then that's fine; if you're single-staging, start at like 1.2 tops.

It needs code to handle rescaling of wing/control surface parts; rescaling of other parts should be ok.

Cool! If nothing else, please do repack with 8.2.1 if you haven't already. That's the first actually working RSS since 8.0 :\ Final suggestion (for now :S ): the solar panel curve is for RSS. That means solar panels are roughly 3.3x as powerful in Kerbin orbit as their stats say. I suggest making another curve (using the stuff in the Technical Notes folder of the RSS repo) designed such that power = 1.0 at Kerbin's SMA.

Sounds like you need less thrust. zzz: make your craft, in the SPH, exactly in the condition it will be in reentry. Tweak the fuels, etc. Then go to FAR's simulation, and sweep AoA for starting at like 40, and ending at 45, with pitch at 1.0. See if the Cm line crosses the X axis. If it does, then you can maintain that AoA; if not, you'll have to tweak (more control surfaces, move CoM, etc).

Yeah, wI have yet to see a mod manager be of real use in KSP, and often had broken RSS installs based on that program... But anyway: if you post a log, per the guidelines, we can help. If not, there' not much we can say other than "good luck" -- it's highly unlikely to be a mod incompatibility, so changing the list of mods won't fix it.

I think that was a typo--gravity losses and drag losses are what's being described. Just as surface area increases drag losses, low TWR (aka a longer time to ascend) increases gravity losses.

panarchist: Huh! I thought with a lifting reentry they had comparable heat loads, just longer time in atmo...thanks!

FS supports changing meshes along with fuels. That's how B9 makes all its fuselage parts (structural, LF, LFO, Monoprop) one part.

Well, as yet only one modder has threatened to flounce away and not let us have his mods in this thread; I'd call that the ultimate response, not further breaking one's mod in response to someone else breaking one's mod. And even then, I think tempers have cooled, and quite rightly. Because the way this breaks mods is not terribly severe, in the grand scheme of things; it's very bad for the modders involved, but thankfully it does *not* reenable mods which lock themselves when unsupported versions are detected. That will, of course, lead to people wondering why their mods are silently failing to work (and wondering very loudly and rudely in the direction of the mod's author), but at least it won't break games and break saves as disabling the locks will. It does sound, however, like we're at an impasse: no improvements can be made to CC while this tool is in the wild; improvements which, I will point out, modders are *not* opposed to (Majiir himself is working on a way for users to selectively disable the warnings and the locks, as *part of CC*, but with appropriate safeguards). But so long as this exists, no future version of CC will have precedence, and thus there's really no point in trying to improve everyone's (users' *and* modders') experience.

Hurrah!

Looks awesome! One little request: can you save the settings inside a root node, and in a cfg that's not in PluginData--and thus *is* accessible to Module Manager patches?

Older ones are *not* fully covered by FASA. Vanguard Juno II Thor-Burner Thor-Able Thor-Ablestar Thor-Delta Atlas-Able Thor/Atlas-Agena A Thor/Atlas-Agena B Atlas-Centaur Scout (of various mods) Saturn I (S-IV upper)

See HERE for Claw's plugin to fix the decoupler bug.

LethalDose: you're forgetting gravity losses...low TWR means higher gravity losses. The reason for low TWR in real life is not because it's more efficient; it's less efficient. The reason is because engines cost money, and propellant is cheap. It's *far* cheaper to load down a rocket with twenty extra tons of propellant (necessary for, say, 150m/s extra gravity losses) than to increase engine power to avoid those gravity losses. It's also worth noting that, absent Falcon 9, most modern launchers are optimized for GTO missions, which means the upper stage needs very little thrust at all (consider the abysmal TWR of the Single-Engine Centaur). There are three linked, but nonetheless separate, variables here, when talking about taking a payload to a specific orbit (all three change greatly when orbit changes): 1. How much delta V it takes to reach orbit - a function of gravity and drag losses, and the orbit. 2. What the final payload mass fraction is - a function of engine (and other components like structure) efficiency, number of stages, and (1). 3. How much the LV costs. Optimizing for (1) will hurt (3) the most, and may lead to a lower (2). Optimizing for (2) will also hurt (3), and may well lead to a larger (1). Finally, optimizing for (3) will throw (1) and (2) out the window--it's far cheaper to make a 9.5-9.7km/sec ascent with high gravity losses than to have more engine and lower gravity losses. Example: the optimum delta V to orbit can be achieved by a rocket that is perfectly aerodynamic and has infinite (and infinitely variable) thrust. That obviously will not carry much payload, and be very expensive. Now, as for how to play the game: If you're shooting for LEO (and not MEO, let alone GTO/GEO), then you will need a high-thrust upper stage, or accept a shedload of gravity and steering losses from lobbing high and then lowering your apogee once in orbit (to have the time to get into orbit on low thrust). That can be done by something that starts at 1.15 and reaches 9.0 with a small second stage; that can be done by starting at 1.5, ending at 3, then going 1.0 to 3.0 on the second stage; that can be done by many 1.8-2.4 asparagus stages; whatever floats your boat (or lifts your payload). The things you need to watch for are: 1. Is the liftoff TWR, and not just that but the rate at which TWR climbs, sufficiently high that you will get out of the atmosphere, while low enough to ensure controllability and thermal survivability? 2. Is the total burn time short enough to allow you to circularize before falling back into the atmosphere? (Note that you may need to loft your second stage well above your desired apogee and circularize after apogee, then burn to lower apogee to desired level, if your total burn time is too long)