NathanKell

You need RealFuels, not MFT. Note the top of the MFT post, where it says MFS has been split. You want the RealFuels version.

HoneyFox, first: was showing KSP to a friend and just had an engine fail to ignite due to ullage issues. SO COOL. I really should just make my sheet output proper configs. Got lazy. Sorry. I'll do that in the next couple days, automate it, etc. Re: the engine packs. I haven't touched the stockalike pack in a loooong time; Chestburster was maintaining it but RL has been not so good lately. And, honestly, I have very little motivation because I never use it. :] But I recognize that some people do, so...it'll get updated. FYI the RealEngines pack from SFJackBauer (just the pack alone, not Realism Overhaul), here, you can just delete everything except RealEngines_stats and not have any rescaling.

Yup, that's correct. You can *try* using scale = s, s, s in the MODEL node and then scale = s outside it, but SOME parts don't play nice with that. If they don't, you have to use scale = s, s, s in the MODEL node and then scale = 1.0, and manually change all the node etc. coordinates.

So....it looks like EVERYONE thus far who's having the bug is using the MFS3.3 engine configs. Is that right? For now, remove that config and try a different set of engine configs. See if the problem recurs.

Shad0wCatcher: which engine configs? MFS stockalike?

Ferram: Ah, right. Yeah, I've been using solids or decent-TWR uppers for that (like, Titan II-class upper stage, TWR 1->8 or so). When you do it real-life style, i.e. a weak upper stage designed for a payload lighter than your GTO payload, it's tough. (Delta/DCSS/Centaur, I'm looking at you). That said, if you're willing to incur the gravity losses, launch at a higher angle?

Donziboy: what other mods?

rottielover: The "stockalike" configs haven't been updated since MFS3.3. Chestburster had been handling them but has been rather busy of late. Hopefully we'll have an update soon. Meanwhile, you can use this sheet https://www.dropbox.com/s/dseuvm4f6m8v4no/Calcs.xls to generate configs. Just follow the docs on the Docs worksheet. AdmiralTigerclaw: is this easily reproducible? (i.e. does it happen every time?) What engine?

Sure it can. Launch into a GTO with an apogee of 35786km, and a perigee above the atmosphere of Earth. Then keep orbiting until your apogee is directly over KSC, and circularize then.

DREC does not care about part size when calculating temperature. So a small shield will gain just as much heat as a large shield (true for any part) when reentering. That is, it tracks temperature, not total heat energy. In real life, larger shields obviously need more shielding. To simulate this in DREC, large shields (with more shielding) are less effective per unit of shielding since what's tracked is not loss of energy but loss in part temperature. Thus they have higher loss rates and (since loss in temperature = shield_loss * dissipation) lower dissipation rates. So Starwaster, your tweak will make larger shields essentially invulnerable. NOTE: All this will change when I rewrite DREC per posts upthread...

everything's in the RealSolarSystem.cfg file. Captain_Party: Depends if you've rescaled RT2's settings, and if you're using Realism Overhaul. Expect only about 300W (0.3EC/sec) from those three panels. That may well be less than you need.

Most of the disadvantages are outside the scope of KSP (fragile, expensive, must be monitored 24/7 by groundcrew from manufacture until launch). In KSP, the best I can do is turn down their crash tolerance and disable surface-attaching things to them.

You can't, not unless someone's written a plugin for that. What you can do is allow surface attachment to the part, and make a fuel line from it to your stack.

Code: loss_rate = defined in tank definition (0.0000000002 for LH2 in a cryo tank) delta_temp = part_temp - resource_boiling_point loss_per_second (liters) = tank_maxAmount * loss_rate * delta_temp Balloon (and balloon cryo) tanks are tanks where the outer skin of the tank IS the pressure vessel, c.f. Atlas, Centaur. Only pressurization provides rigidity. This means a lighter, weaker tank. (Normally, what you see in KSP as a tank is really a whole stage, and actually has smaller pressure vessels in it, the outside being structure that holds it all together). The servicemodule tanktype has two main differences: *it is considered pressurized and can work with pressure-fed engines (i.e. type O) [note this isn't checked yet ingame; you're on your honor not to use type O engines with normal tanks]. It also includes some of the structure and electronics needed for upper stage "space taxis" or spacecraft service modules. (abstracted as "heavier"). *it allows the placement of ElectricCharge in it (i.e. you can fill it with batteries as well as fuel). You're most welcome!

jrandom: I wasn't aware that RO had any B9 scaling on its own, but apparently it does. Heh. I'll deal, I think by matching RealEngines. SRFirefox, Dragon01: LCH4 yields a rather higher specific impulse than kerosene, actually. Think 375 vs 350 vac Isp for chemical. (And it's the big winner for NTR, sweet spot between low molecular mass and high density).

That's because Monopropellant is ALL_VESSEL whereas fuels are STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH which means there must be fuel crossfeed between the tank and the thing using the resource. Radial tanks don't automatically flow fuel into the part they're attached to.

jrandom: the ROprev3 in the RF thread has it, but not the rest. ROv3 (which I am currently working on) will have it all. Yes, you can (for now). Speaking of ROv3--do you have an updated copy of your AdditionalConfigs? 404 now, what I have is as of 12/15/2013. (I'm merging much of it in).

ChronicSilence: Ah, that's cause I haven't uploaded latest RO yet, sorry. I should edit the post anyway. You should only use the RO linked from the second post of this thread though, until I update RO (it's listed as [0.22]...) Zander: I have not yet been able to confirm that bug. I can mess around more...do you have a detailed list of steps to reproduce? jrandom: ok, grep your gamedata folder for NERVA and tell me all the cfg files that contain that word. Sounds like a dupe somewhere.

I second that heartily. Also maybe activating and deactivating engines before/after burns? (for engines with minThrust >0)

SRFirefox: thanks for the rescales. Nabbed! Re: Russian engines. They do include thrust structure mass in their mass. Which makes the NK-33 and 43 even more impressive, holy smokes. Note that the original ModularEngineConfigs figures for the engines were pulled from here when I did them up, IIRC.

SFJackBauer's latest RealEngines package does. Sadly RF does not yet fully support SABREs (as you know...)

jrandom: Sounds like you have a duplicate NP2_NTR_modularEngines.cfg sitting around somewhere if it's during that engine. Oh, did you per instructions delete the RO folder before unzipping the new one? Firov: correct, dtobi has been busy adding stuff, and the stockalike configs are, as a bunch of previous posts stated, current only as of MFS 3.3. I haven't heard from Chestburster recently (he's been doing those stocaklike configs) but I'm hoping he can push an update soon. Meanwhile, you should try using one of the realism overhauls but using KIDS to scale down your Isp (make sure KIDS thrust correction is disabled, however) to "KSP to real, raw", i.e. 0.333x each to Vac and SL Isp.

Why hacky? I thought you proposed it a ways back, asking whether we could add tags to resource definitions. You should probably make a static dictionary pairing resourcenames with those strings, filled on first module awake/start/whatever. Look at what I used to do for TLTIsps etc in MFS before v4. Though...best not to ignore the resource requirement. What if you added a resource requirement for just fuel, and it draws 1 second of burn from the engine's PROPELLANTs? I guess at that point it's on the module-adder to ensure the propellants are hypergolic, rather than you. I guess really all this could just be done on my end, by using the appropriate config per CONFIG.

Play with max physics DT in settings.

The first rule of rocket club is don't discuss FOOF. The second rule of rocket club is pack a good pair of running shoes.