NathanKell

Ferram, regarding SoI, my understanding was that was auto-created based on mass, but it can't hurt to have the line in the source. I'll fix it. Oh please fix aerodynamics more! Always appreciated. (Actually, how hard would it be to just handle parachutes too?) And yeah...it looked freakily, awesomely real. I mean, totally obviously simulated, and blurry terrain, but so real compared to KSP! Re: scaling: actually, I'd suggest then scaling _down_ surface area. Because I don't think PhysX can take three thousand tons of stack. But 750? Yeah. And I'm perfectly happy having FAR required for this. Heck, my original thread title idea was "Realism Total Conversion"--a package deal. Starwaster: I'll try with higher drag then. Who knows... DRE Continued v1 is released, btw, so y'all can play with DRE on Earthbin (Kearth?)

@Starwaster....That really stinks. Something going around; just lost one myself. Least it was a storage drive. In other news, I think I have working DRE: I scaled heatmult down to 8 (from 25) and it seemed to work fine for a Mercury-esque reentry (it's from the Gemini pod, but it's scaled to Mercury size, and I did the 168m/s retro kick of Mercury from MA-6's orbit) I didn't do 35 degree down-angle, though, just straight retrograde. Still have the parachute bug--any ideas, anyone? NOTE: DRE debug info shown on screen. Also I was using a 2.0x multiplier to G tolerance (that, configurable, is in the new DRE), which wasn't quite enough to prevent my nose cone blowing at peak G (8.5Gs, for the record) @Camacha's ninja: Right-click the link, copy link (or shortcut, if IE). I just googled https://www.google.com/search?q=formula for heat of reentry

Not planned by me, but others are welcome. It would also involve moving KSC to the Cape, presumably, and be a big hit on memory since we can't as yet _unload_ textures. Hey ferram, after looking more deeply at the DRE code...I think might be good for DRE (right now temp starts at velocity -275; don't think ialdabaoth had a chance to go further) to just depend on FAR, so we can calculate ballistic coefficient (with, perhaps, a scalar based on 64%-real-size?), lift, etc., and then get an actual estimate of the shockwave and the temperature-on-the-vessel. When I have a chance I'll read (rather than skim) this, which looks helpful: FAA.gov - Returning From Space.pdf But that reminds me, Dragon01, my apologies: you were right in part re: scaling. While it's true that if we scale mass by 1/4 when we scale diameter by 64%, then we keep center of mass correct, ballistic coefficient (which is kg/m^2) will _not_ stay correct. So...how should we handle this? Final note: Forgot to rescale Kerbin's ocean. Fixed. Also, Mun rescaled and repositioned correctly. Source and DLL updated.

...I think I'm in love.

Thanks, zirgon! An update, folks. I had originally planned to just retcon the first few missions to use LVs and probes up to my present standards. But a new opportunity means that I basically have to redo everything. I mean, the _text_ will all be correct, except for the stupidity of deorbiting satellites, but the LVs and orbits? Totally different. A sneak peak of what's coming (note the dV and Periapsis figures.) And the giant Kerbin, obvs. Granite-Attica WIP. All this to launch 190kg. Argo-Herakles II WIP

D'oh. Quite right. Used to it above the variables, not to the left. *((@%$ eyes. :\ Thanks!

Hey e-dog, any way I can persuade you to read density and specificmass (respectively) from the cfg, rather than hardcoding it? For the Earth-size Kerbin with Earth-size dV, I want to try to check and tweak all component masses vs. RL rockets'. I mean, I can do it on my end, but I figure it'd be useful to everyone who's playing with rescaled Kerbin.

Hey sarbian, did the pull request about thrust correction show up? I sent it to your dev build repo rather than the main MJ one, oops.

Oh heck yes. I need to make sure the heat shield values are as good as RL or reentry is impossible.

Sweet, so we can instance PQS controllers then I think. As long as they are in different SOIs and gauranteed to not be loaded at the same time, that is. Also, as promised the Gemini-alike mission: Since this is a rescaled Gemini with smaller SM, I went with a Titan I-like configuration of smaller upper stage, and added an escape tower. Also, it's all 64%, so I couldn't use the 2.5m FASA engines. It's taking a lot of getting used to, when to end turnover. I had to burn upwards some in spurts well after I was horizontal because I was losing too much vertical velocity.

Did they change the rescaleFactor or scale in one of the later KW updates? It was fine back when I first did it. ....ah. Yes. I'll fix it.

Starwaster, that's a good idea. I wonder whether you can just pass pqsControllers as pointers. Gah, *&@#^*&@# C#. In C++ it'd be easy to distinguish.

I just launched a Titan-alike last night. Worked ok. Note that in real life the whole thing massed 3.8t, so I think your version, frizzank, is close to 1:1. (but I thought the old NovaPunch version of Titan was 2.18m, not larger-than-2.5?) If you're doing 1:1 (which you need to do if you're hauling 4t of payload, not 1 ton which is what 64% scale Gemini would be), then you want a 3.05m diameter rocket with 450Kn thrust (160s-316s) on the upper stage and 2200kn (258s-296s) on the lower.

I sent him the code. Haven't heard back. I'll recompile my fork.

Yup. Restarted and it got me too. Unbreakable joints helps sometimes, but it's not a traditional wobble problem, it appears to be float errors--at 6317km, one centimeter is much like another. (Pretty sure PhysX, though not KSP internal calcs, uses floats)

Yup. Again, your engines will be...a bit different. And if you play with realfuels and non-realistic masses, your tank mass may be like 0.1%-1% off. No biggie. V3 is still an alpha, so... But you _really_ should try big Kerbin. It's _so_ fun to have a realistic ascent!

Yes. Well, not insanely, but pretty high. You'll probably get something like 1.5x the dV? 2x? Maybe? Fuel mass doesn't change, but the mass ratio means lots of difference. Also, apologies: heat was 3.3x what it should have been. Fixed, please redownload.

Heh. OK, MFSC v3 Alpha is up. Right now it uses my own hand-rolled engine thrust/mass/type configs, so some engines have changed thrust, roles (or even sizes). It's to fill holes. And balance well. Make sure once you download, and extract real fuels, you then turn on useRealisticMasses (set it to true) in RealSettings.cfg in the RealFuels folder. Note that stage dry mass is probably a bit _under_ where it should be; we paused the masses discussion at the beginning of this thread... Right now I'm using 10 kg per m^3 of tank-structure for the base mass of the tank, and up to 13 for LOX tanks. Engines vary from a TWR of 11 (!) for a tech level 0 OMS, all the way to 98 for a TL7 lower stage booster. Note that as tech level increases, thrust goes up as a function of Isp, and mass goes down as a function of desired TWR, all to match the specified TWRs in RealSettings.cfg Even the casing mass for SRBs goes down over time. Coming soon, TL-ized tank materials.

Ok, I'll make sure I'm properly setting that then, and let you know if I run into problems. Thanks!

Finally updated v3 alpha Note that some engine performance (heh, most engine performance) may have changed, since I'm using my personal real-world configs and I repurposed some engines to fill some holes. Many are _close_ to what they were in v2; apologies for the trouble and when v3 goes stable it'll be fixed. That said, it's to support the Earth-size Kerbin asmi and I have been working on. So that means you need realistic thrust-mass ratios for engines, and realistic dry:wet masses for tanks, or your dV will be BAD. See changelog for details on how to turn useRealisticMasses off and go back to stock KSP performance (roughly 3.3x engine mass, and 9.6x tank mass).

Sorry, should have said "this post by Deltac, who found some awesome pics. Apologies. :}

ferram, I hit that, and uninstalled RemoteTech, and oddly enough that fixed it. I think when RT was locking control state (because it thought I was under Kerbin's new surface, heh), that did something to physics. But I agree about needing stronger joints. Any idea how? breakingForce doesn't really do it, IIRC.

Ah? Oh. Ok, Mun coming up. But first MFSC v4 Real Edition

Yeah, FAR knows there's atmosphere but KSP doesn't, that's why there's no sky. I think.

Ah, right, I really need to push the new v4 alpha of Modular Fuels. It'll make this playable. All you suckers are still playing with KSP mass ratios.