NathanKell

TWR != thrust. TWR = thrust-to-weight ratio, and is usually rendered as thrust-to-mass*g0-ratio for a constant metric of comparison.

dreadicon: 1. What set of engine configs are you using? 2. What size engine are you testing with? And payload? If you're using a 3.75 medium-height tank (which is what, 40 tons or so wet?), then you probably want about 300-400kN of engine to go with it (call it 0.5t dry mass) at ~450s Isp, and maybe 4t of payload. Assuming ~5% for tank mass, that means a mass ratio of 7.55 and a total delta V of just shy of 9km/sec. Even if you quadruple the payload (to 16 tons) you still get over 5km/sec of delta V. If you're testing with more engine or more payload, it's not going to work well; hydrolox stages are best for orbital applications where burn length matters less so dry mass can be minimized (in this case it's a burn time of 7+ minutes). *All* tanks are pressure vessels, which means tank dry mass does scale with volume (although insulation does scale with surface area so it's more like vol^.95 or something). Even pump-fed engines need a fair amount of pressure in the tank. Obviously highly-pressurized tanks will have a higher structural fraction, as you point out--look at the mass ratio of the Able/Delta upper stage if you want to weep (22% or so, vs. ~5-6% for a pump-fed stage; now, some of that's RCS and avionics, of course, which are absent or a lower relative amount for a larger lower stage). The ServiceModule tank type is for that type of stage; Default is for storables or mildly-cryogenic liquids (or very early cryogenic tanks); Cryogenic is for 1970s+ cryogenic tanks. Balloon and BalloonCryo are as they say, balloon tanks like Atlas or Centaur. Nope, there's no way to set default tech level right now. It's actually non-trivial to be based on what's available (I'd have to catch when tech nodes are updated and then update everything in the editor parts list). And certainly I don't want to prevent changing tech level; there are many reasons you might want a lower TL engine in career (especially cost-related ones if you're using the sane costs MCE creates).

Awesome! Thanks.

Also, the tools that *do* tell you what your TWR is (like MechJeb and KER) *are* aware of thrust correction, so there's no guessing involved at all. (At least with RealFuels; not 100% sure about KIDS). Finally, as I said above and as Dragon01 said, there are no gradations in accuracy between "fuel flow is governed by Isp, thrust is constant" and "thrust is governed by Isp, fuel flow is constant." The former is 100% inaccurate. The latter is 100% accurate. Besides, do you think the turbopump Pump! Faster! at sea level or something? And for the ion engine, does the engine get fed a thousand times more xenon?

Cool! I'll make my usual request: can you make it without the tankbutt?

MM supports wildcards. It's a wildcard.

v3.0 is finally out, thanks to a catch from Padishar! v3.0 \/ *Allow toggling in editor and in flight *Allow hiding of the toggle button *Better logic internally

Virindi: There's two ways to go about disabling drag on a part: 1. Make FAR ignore it, *and* set its stock drag to 0. 2. Add a custom FAR module to its cfg with surface area nearly 0, which will leave it subject to FAR but make it not really create any drag.

dreadicon: Yup, as I've said a couple times (on the previous page of the thread at the most recent) the next version will support B9 v5. Turns out Raptor831 was already working on that too. Sounds like you're using tanks that are far too small. Make sure you use *enough* tanks. Check the FAQ in the third post for a longer explanation; it's written in re NTRs, but applies equally well to chemical hydrolox engines. MONxx are Mixed Oxides of Nitrogen (with an N2O concentration in the NTO of [given number]). They're slightly-worse-performing but more-stable storable oxidizers (compared to pure dinitrogen tetroxide). And--thanks so much!

Nice start! Definitely needs some more smoothing (more sides to the cylinders) and detail work, though.

You have each solid motor as its own part, right? Otherwise it's really not going to work... Very enthused!

Here's some configs for the Proton, from another thread, by MaxP, if that helps. Kitspace: please follow the instructions in this sticky. MaxP: Can you tell us a bit more, like what the incorrect symbol is?

wat. RSS *requires* FAR.

What do you mean by "how accurate"? Either Isp determines thrust (as in reality, i.e. accurate) or it determines fuel flow (as in KSP, not accurate). There aren't degrees of accuracy here.

Actually that's expected and harmless. Basically, TweakScale ships with "extra mod support" dlls that reference both tweakscale and another mod (like Modular Fuel Tanks). If MFT is present and of the correct version, the dll will load and be a go-between for TweakScale and the mod. If MFT is not present, or is an incompatible version, the dll will fail to load (via that exception). It's like Module Manager's :NEEDS[modname], but for DLLs, and that's the message you get when the requirements aren't met.

Please follow the directions in the READ FIRST sticky.

Ok, then you should be able to narrow down your mod issues as previously suggested.

Please follow the guide in the READ FIRST sticky. Sounds like an error with fFirespitter.

I really, really wish I had time to help on that; sorry. :\ As for compatibility, I meant between your last released RVE and RSS 7.2, not EVE itself and RSS.

Well, bingo. That's the issue right there. Unity's native normal map format is a weird one--4 channels, and inverted. All of R, G, and B should be the old G channel (inverted), and Alpha the old R channel. If you export a texture as a normal map from the Unity editor, the editor will take care of all that. If you do it yourself, you...have to do it yourself. Open some Squad normal maps (i.e. convert mbm to png) to see what I mean.

No. Why would you think that!? (You might have to accept that his priorities in life right now are not "Do what BLUESHADOW125 wants him to", but...that doesn't make him dead, y'know?)

Why ever would you need it? Unless you have a liftoff TWR of 4 or so and you make a very shallow ascent, it's not relevant.

DaMichel: With a J58 you'll be switching at circa Mach 4 (~1200m/s) and ~18km (? --- I don't know what altitude on Kerbin corresponds with 25km on Earth) so you only need another km/sec or so from rockets. Seems reasonable to me. RadarManFromTheMoon: FAR doesn't change air pressure, so you can use the stock methods.

Oh? I'm sitting down to do them today, but I don't want to duplicate effort...

Technically they were *both* forked from Modular Fuel Systems. That's still the name of the shared repo RF and MFT use.