NathanKell

v3 alpha uses my own one; I'm still updating the google docs one. YGPM.

1. Thanks for the catches. I'll fix. 2. v3 Alpha uses my own custom configs for now; I tried to make each engine a specific engine with only sparing fuel-change options (it ain't easy to change fuel type on an engine!). In fact I think the LR-87 is the only rocket engine in history to operate on all three basic types, and conversion required extensive changes in each case. But I think that for more stock-like play, it makes sense to open up most engines to most types. Regarding the S2 Bearcats: because they had low thrust for their diameter, and because IMO they look like the SSME, which is hydrolox only. Though on taking another look...bah, KSP engines almost never look like real engines, so who knows.

Cool, thanks. One other suggestion though, that shouldn't require any work or complexity. I notice RT1 hardcoded Kerbin's radius. Would you mind drawing from referenceBody.Radius instead in RT2? I fixed it in my fork of RT1 (so RT1 will work with my Kerbin->Earth rescale mod), but I haven't seen how you're calculating the position of Mission Control in the RT2 source yet. Seems good to me! Other comments will be onsheet.

Oh, I'm not saying such a plugin wouldn't be useful! I'd use it. It's just not a showstopper yet for me, and thus I'd encourage anyone who wants it to write one. My plate is...kinda full. :} Also, regarding the real solar system discussion. One reason for setting the orbits exactly like the real world is so that we can use real porkchop plots. Otherwise, since the existing KSP transfer window calculators will be out the window, we'll have no way of determining transfer windows. Unless someone rights a custom porkchop plot generator for whatever orbits we decide on.

Yes, see the first screenshot in this thread, from mushroomman (who is, I assume, using the pack from...mushroomman).

You're most welcome!

This looks awesome! I look forward to writing the ModuleTechLevel to support the mass changes.

And you downloaded ModularFuelSystemCont_v3.zip? EDIT: @amo28, sorry, missed the bit about KW. I think that was a bug I fixed for v3, but I don't have unchanged-thrust-and-mass configs for v3 yet. Try v3 just in case and see if it goes away.

Regarding planet sizes, orbits, etc., as asmi says please don't argue here. If you want to _discuss_ it, please go to the Realism Overhaul thread in Add-on Development. @Dooz, yep! @Dragon01, isn't 100,000x enough? Regarding Minimus: someone had a good idea on the Realism Overhaul thread: treat it as a captured asteroid or something. So a highly eccentric orbit. Now, regarding RemoteTech. Before I said it was incompatible. Well, I finally looked through the code and found Kerbin's radius was hardcoded. So I fixed that. I now offer a build of good ol' RemoteTech 1 optimized for this mod, to hold us over until Cilph releases RT2. Here's a copy of my fork. It has my previous changes as described in the RT thread: the new antenna range calculation, the new GUI info, the ability to use multiple antennae (though each additional antenna beyond the first contributes only 1/4 its range), and support for a Range Multiplier so you can play with this mod. If you want stock RT, set those two new things to off in the Settings.cfg file, and set Range Mult to 1.0 (In RemoteTech/Plugins/PluginData/RemoteTech/Settings.cfg) Extract your archive to KSP/GameData/ https://www.dropbox.com/s/16928ut2x37kih8/MyRemoteTech.zip

Did you extract RealFuels.zip? You only get real settings if you're playing in real mode.

@Camacha, if we scale planets down, we would also have to hack every call to what gravity is at a specific point (among other things). Since gravity decreases with the square of the distance, not linearly, the gradient wouldn't be the same going to orbit. @Dragon01, isn't 100,000x enough? You could do a year and a half journey in about 8 minutes, I think. (That's how long it took Voyager to get to Jupiter by way of a gravity assist). But it might well be possible to add another level of timewarp. @TheCanadianVendingMachine, No, it doesn't. I mentioned in my screenshots that I had personally scaled _down_ the FASA Gemini to fit the same scale as the Mk1 pod. Totally unrelated to this mod. That said, MFSC does support FASA engines and tanks, so if you want realistic Isp and thrust-to-weight-ratio for FASA engines, get that.

Also, yes, if you're running Mission Controller Extended, cost does change for procedural parts. And these engines are half-procedural.

@TheCanadianVendingMachine, You must be running Modular Fuel System Continued v3 You must be running Real Fuels version of it (have extracted the RealFuel.zip file to the ModularFuelTanks folder) Then go into that new RealFuels folder. Open RealSettings.cfg. Change the line useRealisticMass = false to useRealisticMass = true Zander, while I am happy to send you a preconfigured archive if you need one, I would prefer not to constantly maintain three different archives. That will, IMO, prove more confusing to people than having the one archive. Regarding tech levels. I implemented the system before .22 hit, and since I've been busy rescaling Kerbin I haven't integrated it into the tech tree. First, let me run down how the system works; second, I'll tell you how I recommend you use it. In order to have realistic engine performance, MFSC divides engines into types and tech levels. While type cannot be changed in game (it is determined by chamber pressure, area ratio, cycle type, etc., all abstracted as "engine type" and applied, as well as can be done given how unrealistic most KSP engine models are, to most stock and mod engines), tech level can. Tech level represents the advances that are applied to a specific model of engine over time. For example, the venerable LR87 used in the Titan rocket went through upwards of 11 revisions over time, and was converted to use all three main fuel types (kerolox, i.e. Liquid Fuel [kerosene] and Liquid Oxygen; hypergolic NTO / Aerozine-50, simulated through the similar NTO/MMH combination ingame; and hydrolox, i..e. Liquid Hydrogen and LOX). Its Isp and thrust-to-weight ratio increased considerably through revision. Terms: SL = sea level, TWR = thrust to weight ratio. Note that in MFSC, all engines include the mass of their thrust plate, so MFSC TWRs will be about 20-30% lower than real life engine stats. So, first MFSC classifies each engine it supports by type. The types are: O = Orbital maneuvering system (like the Apollo SPS or the Shuttle OMS, designed for tons and tons of restarts, and vacuum-only use). High vac Isp, very poor SL isp, lowest TWR. Example: LV-1, LV-909, Poodle. Usually hypergolic. U = Upper stage. At most a couple restarts. Same Vac Isp as O, better SL Isp, better TWR. Like the Titan's LR-91. KSP doesn't really have any of these, they'd somewhere between the LV-909 and the LV-T45. Given the way it's shaped, I made the Skipper one, for example. U+ = Upper stage optimized for vac use. Highest Vac Isp (higher than O). Lower TWR than U. That's what + means, higher vac, lower SL, lower TWR. Real life: Centaur's RL-10. KSP: doesn't have any examples, but KW's Apollo-SPS lookalike performs like one (though it is properly made Type O by me). Hydrolox is the fuel mode of choice. L = lower stage. No restarts. Lowest Vac Isp, highest SL Isp barring Aerospike, highest TWR. Real life: Saturn V's F-1. Stock KSP: the Mainsail, obviously. (Although with its Isp unchanged, it's really an L+, so that's how I rate it.) Fuel is usually kerolox, though could be hypergolic or even hydrolox. L+ = same changes as U+: higher IspV, lower IspSL, lower TWR. Designed for a single-stage-to-orbit stack (or at least an engine that's never staged away even if boosters are). Example: Space Shuttle SSME. KSP example: LV-T45. A = Aerospike. Note that in real life nozzle losses are only 15% or so, and most of the efficiency loss at sea level is because there's air there, not because the nozzle is the wrong shape. For now they have the Isp of a U in vacuum, and 0.9x that at sea level. Real life examples: J-2T-250k (plug nozzle mod of the Saturn V J-2), the linear aerospike on the X-33. KSP Examples: obvious. S = Solid. S+ = Solid for vac use, lower SL, higher Vac Isp. Note that I haven't integrated support for HoneyFox's engine ignition mod, so all the talk of restarts is just for information purposes. What Isp an engine has is determind by grabbing its type, checking its tech level, and getting the appropriate entry in the TLTIsps area of RealSettings.cfg. Then any appropriate multipliers are applied: Hydrolox gets 1.3x to Vac Isp and an engine-specific amount (usually less than 1.3) to IspSL. Hypergolic fuel mode gets only 95% of the Isp in either case. Engines have minimum tech levels; they aren't available before that. You can, however, upgrade past that. =============================================== Now, as to how I recommend using tech levels. Note that the KSP tech tree has, roughly speaking, tiers, going from left to right. Start = TL0. When you've researched all techs in the tier after that, you get TL1. When you've researched all techs in the tier after that, you get access to TL2. And so forth. If there are any remaining TLs, you get them all at the end, or impose a delay on yourself. (Eventually I will make this happen by code. For now, you're on your honor.) You ARE, however, highly encourage to upgrade any engine, after placing it in the VAB, to your maximum available TL. So if you've researched 3 tiers of KSP techs, upgrade that LV-T45 to TL3! Otherwise your Isp will be horrific. Rough TL to year comparison: TL0: 1945+, WW2 and immediate postwar TL1: 1955+, early Space Age rockets, Sputnik TL2: 1960+, Mercury TL3: 1963+, Gemini, early Apollo stuff TL4: 1968+, Late Apollo TL5: 1972+, Apollo Applications Program, etc. TL6: 1980+, the Shuttle era Tl7: The present day.

Frayne: thanks for the catch! I forgot to include the file, tarnation. The techs are in DeadlyReentry/DeadlyReentryTechTree.cfg I have reuploaded to the same location v2.1. It also includes a 0.625m heatshield as a bonus.

TheCanadianVendingMachine: sorry, I don't get what you mean. Which mods do what to FASA? asmi: heh. Also, ferram upthread said he was maybe going to write a plugin to deal with the joint wobble problem. With that, I think larger massed rockets could work, which means if Editor Extensions removes the height limit on the VAB (as EdTools used to) we might as well go with 1:1 sizing.

I just want to chime in about the new subdirectory plan--I too think, while it's a neat idea, it'll cause more problems than it solves. Also, might that not also break handling of the :Final command?

The planets are scaled to real earth scale so that dV, gravity, etc. will be correct. Rocket sizes will be in 64% scale, so as not to break the game with 10-15m diameter parts. I'll be working with ferram to make sure the aerodynamics don't change from real life.

Synthesis, put the whole log on dropbox or pastebin or something; I need to see the part where all the parts are loading, and it's Looooong.... jpinard, I know about the bug. It happens when DRE destroys your last part. As I've said, you can avoid it if you can get back to the VAB and launch again. Which you can do if you revert to VAB and launch again, then revert again. I'm not sure why that happens; I know it occurs in stock KSP, as others have said when you last brought it up. There's nothing DRE does hackishly about that; it just tells parts to explode using stock functionality. So I'm not sure there's anything I can do. I will look at it though, but I make no promises V2 uploading now, adds the G effects, the tech nodes (thanks Specialist 290), and the added delay on prelaunch.

Fixed......same file. I'll update OP.

ferram: oh, bloody #&%*( you're right. Got confused with rotPeriod, which I knew I just fixed. Sorry. Fix ASAP. asmi: sorry. I will watch and retract. <blush> (I was getting the problem on a 1.25m rocket, btw)

Exposure: If you use the cloud mod, set radius 1 to 1.00038 and radius 2 to 1.00076. Zander: Will fix. ferram, I _do_ set Mun period. It must get overridden. I'll debug it.

What file did you download!?

Aw, thanks folks! 1. For now, I'm proposing taking discussion of this particular mod to this thread (dedicated to it) and leaving the Realism Overhaul thread for bigger-picture stuff. So post here. 2. Babies are nice, but what would be really helpful is if you post some pretty screenshots to replace the dev shots I have in the first post. You are encouraged to use Universe Replacer and/or the City Lights and Clouds mod (although this mod breaks the latter in map view...). 3. Mod suggestions. <MOD INFO REMOVED, SEE LINK TO REALISM OVERHAUL IN OP> 4. Tell me how spaceplanes work! You'll probably need to use LH2/LOX, since you'll need a really impressive engine to get a kerolox spaceplane into orbit.

Oh, right: unless anyone objects, I suggest taking talk of this particular subset of realism to the thread I just made in Releases dedicated to it, and this thread can go back to big picture discussion...

ferram, that plugin would be heaven-sent! I had a go too, as the above post says. Can do it in map view, obviously, and change the angle of rotation, but that would mess up the transition to PQS.