NathanKell

m4v: I affirm your lived experience, though it differs from my own. (And a moderator note: You know how it's super annoying when someone talks about how MJ is cheating, and You Should Only Play One Way? Don't do that here. We can and should talk about what more realism here and there adds to the game, or how it fixes things without diminishing gameplay experience, but telling people they're wrong about what they find fun? Not cool. Goes both ways of course, and that also means the "realism is unfun, objectively" stuff is out of bounds too, but...you get the point.)

There is a sticky thread right here, it says READ FIRST. It will tell you how to get your logs, as well as some basic guidelines. However, honestly it sounds like your screen might just be tool small and things are off the bottom of it. Try playing KSP in a higher resolution, if that's an option.

Please follow the guidelines in the READ FIRST sticky. Thanks!

Reposting what I posted on the release thread, since some people still haven't gotten the memo: There are no links because SCANSat is not currently in compliance with the forum rules. technogeeky et al are working on making it compliant, but are very busy; please be patient. In the meantime, please *don't* post links to other ways to download it, as I will have to remove them.

Unity/KSP use garbage collection; that means that the memory state will not necessarily be the same each time you load that save. But yeah, it's not a certainty it's that...

Indeed yes!

VDNKh: Unity stores normal maps internally as the R,G,B channels = Y (inverted) and alpha = X. Since those textures are loaded directly without conversion, they need to already be in the desired format.

Again, how would it know how to? It's not like the existing metadata says how to download the mod.

FAR doesn't support making fuselages out of wings. :\

m4v: fair enough; apologies for over-snark. Though I think perhaps the actually-intuitive solution would be non-insanely-OP jets (aka jets that work like jets), and realistic masses, such that the only remaining takeoff issue (gear placement) is shared as a problem between FAR and stock.

rar files are archives, like zips. Use an archive extractor (like 7zip, it's free) to extract the files. Then follow the instructions, or follow the generic instructions here.

m4v: Don't worry, I won't try to inflict help upon you. I was merely conjecturing as to why you were getting what you thought to be unintuitive, unrealistic performance.

That seems like a very strange turn, yeah. Only thing I can think of is that PQS runs out of memory trying to create a new quad. OS X, right? I know that has an even lower process limit than Windows 32bit. You can try upping the scale in ATM.... If not, and you're on Linux (or can install Linux!) use Linux x64.

Ok, I think I see what's wrong. Pfui. Stupid oversight.

Man, I loved those sims. Jane's F/A-18 was my favorite, though... Yep, sounds like your KSP-plane might well have one or more of these issues: 1. Over-TWR'd without knowing it (easy to do; KSP engines are powerful even after FAR's nerf, and FAR's nerf is only from the last version) 2. Under-lifted: KSP parts are *heavy* (2-5+ as heavy as that size of thing would be in reality) and if you make a plane that *looks* like a fighter, it will likely have the wing loading of the Space Shuttle, not an F-15. 3. Gear too far from CoM: even if the other conditions are fulfilled, you may not be able to rotate because your main gear are too far back, so you'll have to go way faster than you need to in order to take off, just to get enough control authority to pitch up.

Is scale_redist safe to include? Since assemblies load in alphabetical order, RF will try to load Tweakscale_RF (which depends on scale_redist) before Tweakscale....or I guess we can use the new KSPAssembly stuff?

Nice! Very nice indeed!

Says you, pal.

Can you explain how you plan to have FAR limit what craft a player can construct? Since unless you want there to be some Magic Force (let's call it, hmm, the Kraken?) that comes out of nowhere to slow down planes on the ground, someone can *always* add MOAR BOOSTERS. I realize we ninja'd each other, but I encourage you to read my above post. On what are you basing those numbers? You....understand that not all LVs are the same, right? Heck, ICBMs (which acheive basically-orbital velocity) typically have main burn times in the 3-4 minute range, with a liquid velocity-adjustment stage at the end. Note that some modern LVs (the Minotaur series) are based on decommissioned ICBMs and thus have similar burn times. Uh, nope. It turns out that capsules have a low ballistic coefficent (high Cd for low mass) for a reason. If you're stock KSP and assume everything has the same ballistic coefficient and the same drag coefficient, then obviously reentries will be harder than if you properly model high-drag capsules.

Heh. :] Right now, KSP doesn't model heat *at all*. It models temperature. So at best that heat pump will...literally "pump out" 50 degrees C from the part it's attached to, at the cost of (it looks like) 0.833 kW. The 2F appears to be a bug in the display; that's supposed to be setting a format. I'll check.

If you're producing more heat than you can emit, then yes. (Not that radiators will be Special, they'll just have higher emissivity and conductance. Woohoo for less special-casing!)

So, there are a quite amaznig number of misconceptions here. (Maybe because KSP teaches you misocnceptions? Nawwww.....) Let's go through some of them. And note that you should not construe this as endorsing rescaling the system for stock KSP since apparently I have to add that disclaimer. I'm just talking about misconceptions with how Real-KSP might play. 1. Levelord: Unless you are going out of your way to replicate a launcher designed fro GTO shots (like Atlas V or Delta IV) an ascent simply does not take that long unless you *literally* burn straight up and then circularize at apogee. You can, in fact, make orbit *easily* in six minutes, you just need to be somewhat inefficient (i.e. have a high-thrust upper stage). If you play it like stock KSP and don't care about G forces, then you could do it faster still. I encourage you to actually try this stuff rather than making assumptons or parroting what (equally unfounded) critics have to say. 2. ferram already answered the point about aerodynamic stress. I encourage you to try taking off in a Learjet at the same speed you do in KSP, and pitching up as fast. Actually I don't, since you'll die. That said, since the consensus even among the die-hard realismers is that stock KSP shouldn't have that level of aero stress, it's kinda a moot point. Although I will say it's kinda funny that often the very people who proclaim how fun, how ~kerbal~ explosions are, somehow don't like it when their planes do. 3. juanml82: Yes! It's very true! An Orbiter's (aka "Space Shuttle"'s) reentry takes 70 minutes. Good thing no one has to make that exact craft, or fly it that exact way. Ballistic reentries can be very fast, and even lifting reentries don't take very long. Note, again, that these are different things, and there are an infinite variety of lifting entries. The Shuttle flew a particular track due to all sorts of reasons (that I'm happy to get into, but is OT for this thread), and there's no reason you couldn't fly a lifting reentry that's not much (if any) slower than a six minute ascent. Once again, this problem would be solved if, y'know, you actually tried it (as you assume all of us have tried the version of KSP *you're* promoting...). And if KSP had a reasonably real reentry model and aerodynamics model (hint: not uber-real, not perfect, just *reasonable*) you would know this distinction, and not think that all real life reentries take 70 minutes. 4. m4v: well, it's very convenient that a game can't teach you something unless it sets out to! Oh wait, the follow points (above) should...pretty much put paid to that idea. KSP teaches you lots of things. Some are good (orbital mechanics), some are bad (wrong aerodynamics, wrong ideas about reentry) and some are indifferent. You don't get to pick what KSP teaches people; you don't get to pick what people learn or don't learn from KSP. What people learn or don't learn from KSP is dependent on (1) them and (2) KSP. ALSO: What tntristan12 said.

And yes, we do model single-part capsule-shield as having separate stats for the shield, and solar luminance is calculated, although right now it's normalized such that Earth-level luminance is assumed to be the luminance at Kerbin's SMA (or Kerbin's parent's SMA if Kerbin's a moon).

Due to a packaging error, Custom Biomes was not included. It is now. Please re-grab 7.3 if you have already grabbed it. The Pink Ranger: here you go! Pretty fast, eh?

How would it know how to? Package managers are *not* easy to make. (Correction: bad ones are easy to make. Good ones take a lot of effort and planning. Really good ones remove the effort of metadata generation as much as possible from the package makers, and thus take even *more* effort and planning.)