SFJackBauer

Ah OK. But isn't the issue the decoupling between the controller and the control surface? In other words, the difference between the commanded deflection and the actual deflection? Because from what I've tested, the higher the response speed is, the better for MJ/SAS to handle it. As you can see in the video I posted, once the initial roll-wobbling, its stable as a rock. But I still don't understand why MJ commands so much roll during the first 60 seconds or so and can't stabilize it - sounds more like a bug since it does not happen in the other axes. Fiddling manually with those values in flight, specially when you have an engine cluster, is not something I would expect when using an autopilot. I'd rather fly with SAS only.

Hi Denny, First of all, nice job on the LEM! Looking forward to your next projects! I see that you modelled those in 1:1, then rescaled in KSP to be 55% of the original size. I can easily rescale the parts back to 1:1 by cfg, however the IVA must be rescaled separately, and that's a lot (a LOT) of numbers! I was wondering if would be (relatively speaking) easy for you to make a separate package with 1:1 size, or it is too much of work?

My pleasure - actually, would be silly by me to not share since I only made it (alongside other less-realistic rockets) to test some characteristics of the mods we are working with, like the awesome Earth Nathan released, RealEngines gimbals, RealFuels ratios, tank masses in StretchyTanks (see that I used balloon cryo tanks for S-II and S-IVB, otherwise they would be too heavy), the nice textures for StretchyTanks released by Ferram, KJR ability to hold it all together etc. Yes, the Saturn-V in my install is a test rocket I haven't launched anything outside LEO for a long time now. Sure, actually DennyTX released the LM separately, and I've rescaled it to 1:1 but, the issue is the IVA still is smaller than the outer model. I'm gonna ask him to release a full-blown 1:1 version Here is sitting inside the LM adapter:

No to both questions. But that seems a loaded question - what exactly are you suggesting? Because given the same gimbal configurations (I test with 4 different plugins) MechJeb is outperformed by the stock SAS (in the ascent phase, at least).

Except nobody before talked about winning a war, but only a scenario of 1v1 or 2v2 where you don't have the unnecessary burden of calculating all the variables you listed above to compare the machines performance. Of course it is assuming the AF has trained properly its pilots, that they are well fed, supplied, had a good night of sleep and all the other basic necessities that any modern AF of any large enough country have access to. Otherwise it's not possible to baseline the aircraft... Or would you say that the A6M Zero maneuverability and range was a factor of pilot training? It was a design of the aircraft, and the pilot training or what he ate last night is completely irrelevant when you analyze this fact alone. By the same principle you can compare an hypothetical engagement between a 4th and a 5th gen fighter and based on its design factors conclude which one has a greater potential of killl / survivability.

Not even close. Correct. But then it closes the weapons bays and goes back to a beach ball. Now even if the Typhoon has fired an active, it will not have midcourse updates, and when the missile switches on its radar, there would be no F-35 in the area to lock into. It would have flexed to way far from there. Meanwhile the F-35 wingman, the one the Typhoon pilot never saw on the radar, but that was looking at him the whole time, datalinks midcourse updates to the missile the first one fired.

That's correct, sarbian has been working on some integration with FAR but right now drag losses will always appear as zero. But you can calculate it roughly: dragLosses = (dvExpended - gravityLosses - steeringLosses) - surfaceSpeed

Glad you worked it out The problem with the 5-engine from NP compared to individual engines is that... you can't shutdown the center engine, nor you can have roll control since it behaves like a single monolithic engine. BTW your SLS opens here just fine. And another thing - you are launching like you do in stock Kerbin, turning at 10km. If you are interested in efficiency, don't do that - start turning much earlier, like 1km or 100m/s, as the drag losses are much lower in Earth than Kerbin.

Still it's good that you have brought the issue. Remind that the "Stock SAS" option may not be better in all situations, for example once in orbit it is a RCS guzzler since it over-corrects so much. You have to switch it off then.

By that I meant when you can't load a craft, so please look at your log and check any lines like that. No troubles caused

No, his issue is something else. If the nodes are far above and far below, then he can't be complaining about the nodes inside. And, before that, people complained that the circular base of the engines didn't fit the tanks diameter - of course they wouldn't fit. I guess you can't please everybody. @jonnyt21, most likely its due a messed install. To help you I need to know what you did before you got to this point - what you installed, and in which order. But some recurrent things are: - having two .cfgs that alter the engines - not having the latest version of all mods - having two or more ModuleManager dlls inside GameData I can easily make a .cfg that uses only stock gimbals - in fact, it's so easy that I did - http://www./view/ul6ep3sht6z1vu6/real_engines_gimbal_stock.cfg.optional. Just remove the .optional from the file and delete the other gimbal .cfg But I did a test with MechJeb - apart from the bizzarre rolling at the launch, everything goes fine from then on.

Okay... in KSP_Data/output_log.txt, if the craft fails to load there should be a line similar to this (where I intendendly messed up with a part name): [ShipConstruct]: Trying to load Saturn V2 - No AvailablePart found for F1.RocketMotor

Uhhh... what is the "something like that" in your question? - Disrupt permanently the rings? - Disrupt permanently the rings by mining? (which is the OP question) - Mine the rings? - Read Project RHO sci-fi pieces? - Disrupt permanently the rings by moving a Saturn moon closer to it? (which is Red Iron Crown proposed exercise)

Nope, the name for the F-1 engine part inside the part.cfg. The space in folder names is not a problem.

To the ones with problems with MechJeb - Try this and see if it helps. The default settings of RealEngines with dtobi gimbal is to have the Response setting at max, exactly to be able to fly with SAS or MechJeb. And regarding throttling down engines - there are other ways of keeping Gs down, like using a cluster of engines and shutting some down on the ascent.