NathanKell

hoojiwanna: I'll remove this is you like... Three things stock gets wrong: 1. Engine thrust is directly dependent on backpressure, so engines will always be much more efficient in vacuum than in atmosphere, and further bell nozzles are designed for a specific altitude (i.e. pressure), below or above which they will be less than optimally-efficient-at-that-pressure. Altitude-compensating nozzles (aerospikes) avoid this second type of loss, but not the first (and are never as efficient as an optimal bell at its design altitude). See this wiki link. 2. Isp is a measure of "thrust per weight unit of fuel per second." 400s Isp means 1lb of fuel will provide 400lbf of thrust. In real life, turbopumps don't magically run twice as fast at sea level (pumping more fuel to maintain thrust constant); instead, fuel flow is constant, and thrust varies with Isp. 3. Real rocket engines don't throttle (with *very* few exceptions) and usually can't be restarted either. There's also of course the problem that stock engines generally have the efficiency of methane/LOX engines but can be throttled and restarted infinitely and fuel and oxidizer has the densitiy of storables (which usually top out at 300s for open cycle and 320 or so for staged combustion)....and doesn't boil off, either. EDIT: I added #3 in mid flow. Oops.

It's in the OP, right next to do the main download

Well, you know what my *first* answer will be Actually, I take that back: a good first answer is actually to try out the 6.4x scaleup. If you're using FAR and RF, then likely it will "feel" about as easy to get into orbit as stock KSP does with stock aero and parts. If you want to say Kerbol-sized, then you're going to have to pitch over very quickly, do reasonably flat ascents, and use very-high-thrust upper stages (so you can leave a lot of the burn for circularization).

Binary search for mod problems doesn't work for KSP Win x64 because the problem is not caused by specific mods. It's caused, as ferram said, by memory usage. So once you remove enough mods, no matter which, x64 will magically become stable. And then you'll go complain in the threads of the mods' makers that "their mods crash x64!" because that's how things work. >.> No, the solution is: 1. Get Squad to fix the bugs in KSP Win x64 and then 2. Use 32bit for now, or install linux and use KSP linux x64 (which *is* stable).

It did. The OP requested a change. Speaking of which: DECQ (née Desolator) and raidernick are now working together, so I'm closing this thread. Stay tuned for more Soviet/Russian awesomeness!

So it's merely a matter of time until you move to RSS then right?

Vanamonde: difference being that that is being used as an argument against increasing scale, an argument against the *advantages* of increasing scale. So if it does make zero difference, why not go with the approach that doesn't make kids think "lol the moon is so close i can build a plane to get there"--at least for the edu release, which is notionally about teaching kids about real spaceflight.

Things are getting a mite heated. Let's all cool down a bit, shall we? It really isn't that hard to respect the *spirit* of a license as well as the letter, and it's basic human decency. And as long as the community is respectful of the wishes of addon makers, no matter the letter of the license, open licenses will continue. There are basically two differences between an "open + ask first" model and a "closed, but ask" model (because even "all rights reserved" mods, if you ask nicely, often you can derive from them): 1. It leads to a more open-*feeling* community even if the end result (in terms of derivatives) is similar 2. If the originator disappears, her/his work can still be continued.

However, for legacy support, all patches with *no* pass defined are run in the :FIRST pass. So to be sure you need to put the patch in some folder beginning 0000 in gamedata....

Not in RF it's not

Nope, but that would be super easy to write. All you'd need would be CBName { ORBIT { inclination = 30 } } for each body...

It also doesn't help that the LV-T series has the efficiency of real aerospikes >.> At most an aerospike will save you about 15% efficiency at non-optimized altitudes. Bell is always going to be better at its optimum altitude though.

Which farclipplane? For the reflection camera or a stock camera?

Or make the rest of the game photoreal

Make sure if you have 3 or more RESOURCES in part, there is at least one MODULE. That's the only partlist bug and fix I know about.

mololabo: Again not taking a stance on whether modpacks are good/evil/chaotic neutral, I do at least want to thank you for *clearly* putting much time and effort into considering the ramifications.

Adding ground stations for RT2 is super easy--you can directly copy the longitude and latitude from the LaunchSites when you make a new groundstation. Just remember to give it a new name and unique GUID.

IIRC World Space has much better assets than that. chicknblender: that's super helpful! I will try to replicate today, and keep you posted.

To download a file in a github repo, you need to click on it to open the repo's page for it. Then right-click "Raw" and choose save-as. Otherwise you're downloading a webpage. Here's a link to the one for .23.5. It might well work. https://github.com/MachXXV/EditorExtensions/raw/4010e1b4ab291ca9a358d114e1824e06c298955c/Releases/EditorExtensions_v1.0b.zip

Orionkermin: I wonder if you might be willing to make "tankbuttless" versions of your engines? Here's an example of the LV-T45 (and a larger-area-ratio-nozzle LV-T45) from Lack: The advantage is they will work on any size stage and can be clustered much more easily. Seems especially useful given they already aren't one of the stock diameters.

If they were the same size, they would have more or less the same core area, and thus by and large the same thrust. Which would be pretty unhelpful. Honestly, I think you might be better served with the BJE (SJE?) that camlost is working on now: it's a drop in replacement for existing jets that doesn't change part sizes for realism, doesn't use weird (real) fuels, etc. However, I will (as I said) push a non-RF-requiring version of AJE since evidently my patch isn't working quite right.

Read the prior posts: that is a *generic* message that has nothing to do with the actual crash. It's like saying "My computer BSODs. I hope that'll get fixed." However, let's hope the Win x64 flakiness *does* get fixed in .25

Yep, that would be trivially easy to add.

This...looks very useful! Neat! One note, however: per the new addon rules, the license *does* have to be in the OP as well.

Yes, indeed it would. Note that the thread title says 0.24.