NathanKell

Nope, that doesn't seem to be it. :\ What changed in the last few updates, that might be related to this?

Um, you can right-click on the heatshield? Or do you mean something more than that? For entry angle, if you open the landing guidance window in MechJeb and turn on predicted landing, it will show you your estimated max Gs. That'll be correct for stock KSP, but I assume that my users will be using FAR (as they should), in which case...it's really, really hard to calculate. But MJ's value is usually not _that_ far off, I've found. (Check out the answers on the FAR thread whenever someone asks about an aerobraking calculator...which this would be. )

Hey, I just had an idea. What if the clouds are maxing out the depth buffer? Can you add support for separate radii for clouds in PQS mode and in ScaledSpace mode? I'm off to check if that's so, by using tiny radii and checking in spacecenter/flight.

You might want to consider taking advantage of Modular Fuels' tech levels support. It does something rather similar to what you're trying to do, just procedurally (only one part required per engine, the various stages of development can be done ingame). If nothing else, the spreadsheet I wrote for MFS should help lots with making engine configurations for you. Um, you also might want to look at this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55253-WIP-Full-Realistic-Tech-Tree-Overhaul Where we're basically trying to do something similar, but for all parts, not just engines.

We have vacuum engines with tiny, wrongly-curved nozzles, lower-stage engines with nozzles that...I just can't even, and engines that are all nozzle and no turbopump. Squad's (and, following suit, modders') engines' nozzles usually bear no relation to the role of the engine or it's performance. Consider for example Apollo's Service Propulsion System. It's nozzle is gigantic in KSP terms--2.5m diameter or so, ~3m length. But the throat is miniscule--as small as the throat on an LV-T45 at most, if not rather smaller. And it delivers ~70kN thrust. Vacuum-rated nozzles should be very large, very light, and have a very high area ratio (exit:throat). Sea-level-optimized nozzles should have low area ratios (which almost all of Squad's nozzles do, fine) but they should also be rather longer. Only the LV-T30 and T45 even approach the right aspect ratio. This is _not_ my area of expertise. Just what I've picked up. IIRC regex, rhoark, asmi, and others know rather more.

Sounds like it might be worth going to steps of 1m then. Or maybe steps of 2m above 4m. How about: steps of 1m (size 0 = 0.5m) until 4m Then steps of 2m until 10m That means we only need 6m, 8m, and 10m diameter tanks/engines/decouplers. That can be done with rescales. What we really need are more realistic engine models.

Again, NO. They are not moved. What happens is MJ _immediately stages again_. As it should, since it says "aha! I have more engines I can activate! Let me do so!" It just doesn't check whether they're pointing in the right direction, or whether you, the omniscient designer, decided "no I want MJ to not fire these engines now, even though they are available and sitting around wasting dry mass until fired." Same thing with procedural fairings: Since there's no fuel behind the decoupler, MJ thinks they're just wasting mass and thus decouples them ASAP. (Though IIRC this one got special handling and doesn't happen anymore?) What _actually_ happens is the engines that are currently firing, because they are not decoupled on that stage event, are "brought up" to the currently active stage graphic. Notice the stage # in the lower left next time. When the LFE fires, it'll say 4 (for example); when the separatrons fire immediately afterward it'll say 3 (again for example). It happens *only* when: MJ finds a stage above the current stage, the activation of which will not decrease the current stage's dV. (Since the separatrons _add_ dV, though in the opposite direction, this returns true and the stage is activated).

First: I have updated the public spreadsheet to MFS v3 level. It currently has some "engines in progress" from the awesome Chestburster. They'll be in v4. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvHneDAy4k99dHlhdktvZW1NS1lndlhNNnRwd3FEblE&usp=sharing Starwaster: Well, at least it ends with things working, eh? I can add support for the former. I've actually been working on the latter for a while. I believe I've figured out how to programmattically clear the FX list and re-add the appropriate FX for each engine type, multiplied some by engine size. If you want a taste, try my real-size/mass rework of frizzank's Gemini-Titan II GLV. I was thinking yellow for kerolox, yellow+blue for hypergolic, and blue-a-size-smaller for hydrolox. Also, much more smoke for kerolox and hypergolic. Ah, cool! I have some vague memory of NK-33s tested for hydrolox but I can't recall where. It'd be way the heck later than '62 though, since they were still -15s then, weren't they? Um...FASA is in, has been since MFSC v1! So is the RLA stockalike LFE, but I haven't done the aerospike or the nuke yet. Chestburster is handling the NTRs. I'll see about the Kosmos engines--they should have been in long ago, I just forget each release. Oops.

Oh crap. I committed, but didn't sync with the repo. Sorry. (Also, I haven't done much to this in the last couple days; was finishing MFS 3. It has your heat multiplier in RealSettings.cfg now, asmi. ) OK, minor fixes uploading now. Next I'm going to rewrite the way planet changing works, to (1) abstract it all so it can be done by cfg and (2) implement ZRM's idea regarding axial tilt. EDIT: Up. v3 -- \/ *Automatically multiplies distances in solar panels' powerCurves by 11 so that they yield rated charge. *Fixed Kerbin's SMA

It....requires larger rockets? There's no visual difference. If you want to see how it works, just build a rocket that gives you 9000dv.

Yeah, reporting a serious problem with Alpha 10 (did not exist in Alpha 7, the last I used before 10), same as Lucchese. When in PQS mode, the overlays flicker like mad. They're picture-perfect when Kerbin is in scaledspace though, as my above screenshot shows. I should point out that I edited no files, just a straight extraction of your latest GameData. What's puzzling is that it used to work perfectly (aside from the issue regarding underlighting I mentioned before) Lucchese, AFAIK the mod pulls right from the CelestialBody radius, so I don't think that's it. Unless, rbray89, you now precalculate some stuff on startup, that depends on radius?

I wouldn't touch the existing tank and engine sizes; there's still a need for .625, 1.25, and 2.5m rocket cores. Addons give us 3.75m and 5m. All we need now are the sizes above that. Probe parts--MedievalNerd was working on a pack of smaller probe parts, for early probes. (Explorer 1? 13kg.) That should work well for this mod. Squad's crewed capsules, however, should be scaled by 1/.64, yes. Though the masses can stay as they are. If you add the recovery equipment and heatshield mass in each case, they come out about right. But that leads us to the question of what our standard sizes should be. Should we stick with the existing 1.25m per step, and have the crewed parts be odd man out? Should we go to steps of 1m, to better fit US capsule and rocket diameter? (Mk1 rescaled by 1/.64 would have a 1m top and 2m bottom, and the Mk1-2 would have a 2m top and 4m bottom, and Titan II has a 3m core). Of course S-IVB (and the Saturn IB) had 6.6m diameter cores, so that doesn't fit so well. Back to fitting for Saturn V, with a 10m core. I don't know Russian cores off the top of my head, I'm afraid.

There's also the problem that it looks like StretchyTanks may not scale the collider along with the visual mesh, given which transforms it's scaling? Also, even if it does, ferram, you'd have to query the size of the mesh _after_ the first update, as otherwise you'll get the unstretched tank as the mesh; it's loaded at stretch factor 1.0 and rescaled on update.

ZRM: Don't see why it wouldn't, but haven't had a chance yet. Busy day alas. Still nailing down a few existing things before I try that. But thanks again, it's brilliant! And, heh, yeah, re: other planets, not going to say it's impossible. Never Again. Just not on my radar yet.

The cloud edits were just suggestions, and as of alpha 7 I stopped using them anyway. They look good in PQS mode, but clip the planet in scaledspace since the scaledspace Kerbin is just flat-out rescaled 10.6x, we can't keep height ASL constant on scaledspace mesh rescale, there's just the one transform. Anyway, thought I'd post this too: really pretty! Can't tell you how much your mod adds to the game, rbray89! Syncom 2 in Kerbostationary Equatorial Orbit. Ignore the fact that the central antenna is too fat for the real deal.

Syncom 2 in Geostationary equatorial orbit. Please ignore the fact that the central antenna is far too fat for the real deal. Also, solar panel fix is working. That'll be int he next update. 7488275: There was discussion of time warp a few pages back--my answer was, faster time warp would be nice, but it's not a high priority given we have 100,000x timewarp (1.25days/second); yes, distances are being rescaled (it says in the OP: "Kerbin and Mun are rescaled and placed in their correct orbits.") ANWRocketMan: I think, with ferram's latest, we can just blast ahead with 1:1. That's certainly what I did for the Real Gemini config I did for frizzank's Gemini and it works great. Regarding planets, that approach sounds good, but it'd be worth it to have a poll regarding full-on real solar system (minus the Saturnian and Uranusian systems, alas), or just rescale things in place.

Oh! Of course! You said east. I wonder if it's to do with rotation? And the rescale has a higher linear velocity, despite lower angular velocity.

ZRM: thanks for the "it's possible" (And the high praise, obviously! :] ) Also, YGPM. I'd like discussion of the planet rescales themselves to be in this thread, and the dev thread reserved for general realism work (real-size rockets, what masses are correct, what other mods are needed and we don't have yet, etc.) iVG: A number of prominent mods do not allow redistribution, even unmodified redistribution (and for a realism pack, they'd be modified.) However, if modders _are_ interested in having their work also in a single Realism Overhaul Package, modified for realism, that would be useful.

Sorry, can you explain? Too dark to see.

therealcrow999, those look cool! One problem: unless you can find the old mod's license, and show it allows importation and redistribution (and no license = all rights reserved...), I can't include them. rosenkranz: Kallista has it, but one other point. Deadly Reentry makes reentry...deadly. That means that you often will need a heatshield to be in front of any components you don't want to burn up. If your landing gear and science instruments are in the flow of hot air, then they _will_ burn. You need to either jettision your landing module and just reenter with a shielded capsule (like Apollo) or use a heatshield large enough to block the flow of air so your gear don't heat up, or somehow reduce your reentry velocity (by propulsive braking, or by many very shallow aerobraking passes to lower your apo before going in for a final reentry).

What things are you wanting to add? What part of the configuration? When a configuration is selected, that entire block is copied over to the engine module, so if the engine module recognizes a line, you can add it. Only exception: If the main block includes techLevel = something, and engineType = something, etc., and the CONFIG includes IspSL and IspV, then any atmosphereCurve specified in the CONFIG will be ignored, and the correct atmosphere curve will be created from those settings (techlevel, as modified by user; engine type; with those, find correct atmosphere curve in TLTIsps in RealSettings.cfg, then apply Isp multipliers). I need to add support for HoneyFox's engine ignition mod. ANWRocketMan, that'd be very helpful! dimovski, you should consider making it 1:1 realistic and use the rescaled Kerbin mod. For super-chilled propellants, I would suggest just upping the fuel volume the tank will hold rather than trying to add new fuel types. Definitely use the right mixture ratios (but remember KSP uses volume, not mass, so you need to divide each component of the mass ratio by its density to get the volume ratio).

Yes, it's compatible with .22, although I still have to add the thermal fins to a technode. Starwaster: thanks, will check. I take it you got KSP running again then? (Unless, Knuth-style, that was just from reading source!) dimovski: Good point. We can add them to the spreadsheet. Post what configs you have, if you're willing; that'll save a bunch of work.

(And the other "what about the other planets" questions): Yes, coming up. Also, AndreyATGB, thanks for the catch; I was looking at SMA but copy-pasted perihelion, oops. Mr Shifty, definitely going to play around with rotation now. I'll see what I can do. That's a very good tip about inclination; if I can't get it any other way I'll do that. Sadly it'll only work for one planet though. Also, yes, 23h56m4.1s is indeed the rotational period.

Away from desktop at the moment, but you can grab alll protovessels. They have protopartsnapshots that have some info; the rest is indeed stored in confignodes under the snapshots. For resources you can get the proto resource defines and edit the amounts in the resource data config node(s). Or you can look at how I handle recycling in MCE. Other than already having been handed a protovessel reference, it's all there in MissionControllerEvents.cs for OnDestroyed()

All right, I gave in. Three versions available so all you have to do is download the one you want and go. You can get to any mode from any download of course (one just has an unzipped RF.zip, and one has an unzipped RF.zip with useRealisticMass = true already set...but I am to please). Links in OP. v3 === \/ *Finally put back stock masses and thrusts (well, in 99.9% of cases) for all engines. Some had to be tweaked ever-so-slightly as they were balance-breakers. *Changed the Isp and TWR curves slightly for the tech levels *added heatMultiplier setting to RealSettings.cfg. Change it to change the global heat multiplier for all ModularEngines. *Fixed more typos *Added missing tanks *Redid the tank masses again for Realistic Masses mode. It should roughly correspond to S-IC for kerolox, Shuttle External Tank for cryogenic hydrolox, and Titan II-1 for hypergolic. In each case a slight additional mass was taken into account to stand for additional stage mass like fairings and decouplers; if you have a fuel tank alone, you'll get a better fuel fraction than real life stages. Note that since engines masses in MFSC incorporate thrust plate mass, tank mass will also be lower. *Added enhanced StretchyTanks compatibility. Things should scale better now. Requires newest version of NathanKell's StretchySRB patch (unzip on top of StretchyTanks).