NathanKell

@Osel yes the file to modify is LaunchSites.cfg -- RSS only has alternate launch sites available if KSCSwitcher is installed (see the OP) and therefore that is the file to modify to fix the other launch sites. The default launch site (Cape Canaveral) is fine.

@Phoenix1583

@Zarbizaure there are indeed Viking configs in RO. The point of the global config system is so that every part that uses a certain engine config pulls from the same place; that means if we need to change that config any, we only have to change one. We don't have to go find all the part patches and change all of them and keep them in sync.

This comes up every week or so. So I edited the OP. Comic Sans pain will be fixed when people fix the sites. @mr_trousers: Yes, it is entirely intentional that the DSN is there, along with the other ground stations. Due to how the range model works (see the RP-0 FAQ), you will need a fair-sized dish depending on how far out you go. If you don't like that, you're free to remove the config or edit it to taste.

@VenomousRequiem re: the RD-191, I think, per the text of the OP, the point is not to do engines that have been done to death. @Zarbizaure the one wrinkle with configging it that way is that then it doesn't use RO's engine config system. Although I'm not sure if there's a global for the Viking yet...

As I said at the start: yes, you can add PQSCity mods to whatever you like. That's all anomalies are.

To prove all the "spaceplanes cannot into RSS" folks wrong, and because why not, I decided to make a spaceplane with X-15 technology (i.e. fuselage/cockpit starts melting at 1600K), which is available from the High Speed Flight node in RP-0. Now, a regular X-15 was a no-go for me (although it might be possible for a better pilot), but I made a much lower wing-loading version based on the last spaceplane I flew in RSS/RO (itself based on Von Braun's 1952 design). Unlike that one, however, this one is using X-15-rated parts. The engine is an AJ10-104D (Ablestar) since I didn't need that much. A single tank's worth of propellant gave around 1400m/s. tl;dr it worked.

@Enceos that has absolutely nothing to do with what you said in the OP. Placing structures per se is very different from changing the way things launch. Although the success of Extraplanetary Launchpads shows that there is no reason you can't "launch" from anywhere.

@Alexoff even apart from the pressure (which will reduce even massive-high-chamber-pressure engines' Isps down to very little), you need to build an engine that can _itself_ survive the temperature and pressure. Combustion chambers aren't rated for having combustion-chamber-level heat and pressure on the outside.

The Win32 branch has not been updated since last summer, so no, it is not safe for use. If you want RVE on Windows, use the Linux branch but scale some stuff down and/or remove.

Hughes H2H Thunderfish (Jan 1939): Considered by many the finest piston-engine dogfighter ever to see service, the Thunderfish had an inauspicious beginning. With the success of the Thunderchief, Hughes decided to try again with the Naval market (their first success, the HH, being a forgettable biplane which saw quick obsolescence and left a bad taste with the Navy). The project was given the comic epithet "Thunderfish," deriving as it did from the Thunderchief (and before that Thunderbird), but as time went on the name stuck. At first it appeared unlikely to garner interest, but as the decade wore on and the Civil War continued, the Navy became increasingly worried about how quickly it could reinforce its carrier groups' Combat Air Patrols were the carrier group to be attacked by a large bomber force. While the Navy focused much research on radar, it also sought a fast-climbing interceptor to augment its projected squadrons of Tomcats, and Hughes offered to redesign the Thunderfish. The Thunderfish, originally a large aircraft of equivalent size to the Thunderchief and Tomcat, was quickly slimmed down. The new design was simple: take the most powerful radial engine available and stick the minimum of aircraft behind it. While the H2H was originally designed for the same 2200HP radial the Thunderchief used, it was later converted to the 2700HP Cyclone, and later still the 3000HP model, yielding the highest HP/pound of any piston-engine hunter, and by far the lowest wing-loading of the final generation of piston-engine hunters. Further, the H2H began its life two thousand pounds lighter than the Tomcat despite having similar wing area and the more powerful engine. The Thunderfish compromised much for its light weight, however: while it shared the armament of the Tomcat it could not carry much in the way of bombs or rockets, lacking wings reinforced to take them, and it was far less armored and far less survivable. Nonetheless it offered stellar performance, a racehorse to the Tomcat's workhorse. Only one squadron (VH-34) of Thunderfish was operational as of the end of the Intervention; while the Sunhawks flew combat missions over Italy neither kills nor losses were recorded. However, the H2H continued in service well into the Second World War, where it defended the fleet well into the Jet Age. H2H-1: 7650lb dry, 9259lb loaded, 2200HP, 448mph, 4x 20mm cannon. H2H-1 Thunderfish "Lorie Lou" of VH-34 Sunhawks, in the hangar of USS Mobile Bay, Mediterranean, 1939.

Awesome! What do you mean by "directly configure" ?

Sadly those OnStart ProcParts exceptions are a known issue with the current release. They only occur during the loading screen and things otherwise work. I've pushed a fix to git but there's been no release.

@m4v do you have blizzy's toolbar installed? Uninstall it. You might well be able to repro it then. I think what's going on is the RCS toolbar plugin fails to load in the absence of blizzy's toolbar, and EVE tries to get a list of loaded assemblies and somehow chokes on that not-really-loaded RCS toolbar plugin. That is, obviously, not your bug to fix, it's @rbray89's, but I did want to finally shed some real light on this. (I say that having finally installed RCS Build Aid in this install, having wondered where my clouds went, and then having remembered this.)

Sorry? Kerbalstuff shut down a while ago.

Yep! You're missing some of the textures SXT needs and the Firespitter plugin (and also probably the Firespitter resources). Make sure you have Firespitter's DLL and its Resources folder.

Then Apollo costs are pretty screwed, since I really, really doubt that it's the case that it should cost less than 10x the per-part cost to unlock all that. So, again, a 10x difference from repeatable to milestone is too low. When entry costs alone are usually 20-40x, let alone all the other stuff we discussed. I agree that the station repeatable's advance cost is probably too low--my launch was ~50k, but I was not optimizing for cost at all.

@TheAurora look into https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/blob/master/ROMini.cfg maybe? or @komodo's ROMiniFork?

Darnit I just got poked! Go bother someone else. @NecroBones maybe?

Good guess. Maybe @sal_vager can follow up.

Here is the thread. It has helpful install instructions in the OP.

Intake area is the area (in square meters) of air intake needed. So a jet with intake area 0.6 needs, say, two intakes of area 0.3 each. Intakes list their area.

Whaaa? If that were true the Mun wouldn't have its arch. PQSCity works anywhere.

@Thomot512 apologies for the very long delay here, but I've been unable to reproduce it...

@chrisl: I'm not arguing that you're unable to afford contracts due to entry costs. I'm arguing that the milestone : repeatable ratio should be quite high. If contract rewards across the board are too high, then we should lower them across the board. Further, milestones don't just pay for entry costs, they also pay for KCT upgrades and building upgrades, and some amount of non-contract' missions. And, yeah, they cover the test launches if you have (as recommended) TF installed. That's because unlike the repeatables, which you're doing only once you've flight-certified your hardware, you have to go from 0 to certified to complete a milestone. Oh, and I'm fairly sure that entry costs for Apollo hardware should probably be higher; I have grave doubts that the CSM, in particular, is as expensive as it should be (in terms of entry cost or part cost).