Northstar1989

That's GREAT that you think you can get KSP-I to support more resources w/o clutter using "smart detection"! I assume you mean that collecting LiquidFuel is an abomination? Fractal_UK just assumes LiquidFuel represents Hydrogen, although you're right its performance is in many ways more similar to Kerosene. The RealFuels+KSP-I integration config already replaces LiquidFuel with LH2 (Liquid Hydrogen) whenever you can gather or require LiquidFuel in normal KSP-I, though, so a substitution for this case might not be useful... (and in fact could break KSP-I/RealFuels compatibility) Also, just confirmation: so will the Propulsive Fluid Accumulator mechanic also work with other gasses, like Hydrogen on Jool, or Oxygen/Oxidizer on Kerbin? (with a plasma engine, it can be assumed the craft is collecting enough Nitrogen to cancel drag, and surplus Oxygen for other uses...) Speaking of the latter, is it possible to collect BOTH Nitrogen and Oxygen/Oxidizer at the same time with a single Atmospheric Scoop? OR do I need to alternate between the two if I want both resources? EDIT: Looks like I missed this post before. An IMPORTANT question though- is it possible to run the Propulsive Fluid Accumulator off Microwave Beamed Power? It *SHOULD* be- in fact this is one of the major ways to power PFA's suggested in real life (one plan- "PHARO"- called for solar power satellites in higher orbits beaming microwave power down to the Propulsive fluid Accumulator, to avoid having to launch nuclear reactors or beam large amounts of power up from the surface and through the atmosphere... It is actually mentioned briefly by the Wikipedia article on Propulsive Fluid Accumulators...) Regards, Northstar P.S. I created a thread about Propulsive Fluid Accumulators on the Science Labs some time ago. I'm thinking about reviving it, now that we finally have a working version of KSP-Interstellar which allows for Nitrogen-electric Propulsive Fluid Accumulators... Feel free to check it out and comment on it... - - - Updated - - - Freethinker, One more thing- whenever you reach a point where you feel this is ready (all the bugs have been wiped out, if any should appear, all the features you want to add have been integrated, etc.) I *HIGHLY* suggest making a pull request on the Github for the main KSP-Interstellar version so that Fractal_UK can integrate it if he wants, as well as a post on the main thread asking him to do so (although he'll likely miss the post even if you address it with @Fractal_UK as he has been gone for a long time and has much to catch up on...) Also, could you see about getting Boris to integrate this into his main 0.90 port? I see no reasons these tweaks/features/bugfixes shouldn't be part of the main 0.90 portm and it increases the likelihood of them making it into the main version of KSP-Interstellar when Fractal_UK returns... Regards, Northstar

It's for balance reasons, mostly. And, it's realistic. See the above. Thermal rockets shouldn't be capable of sustaining a Propulsive Fluid Accumulator... I guess I could see reasoning for allow a Vista to do the job, but a Vista engine seems like drastic overkill for station-keeping a PFA satellite. Why don't you just set up a small, specialized satellite with the job of collecting these resources (the code for scooping gasses above the atmosphere should work for more than just N2, right FreeThinker?), and a depot in a higher orbit for storing them and refueling interplanetary vessels? That's basically how a real life Propulsive Fluid Accumulator scheme would work... Scooping Hydrogen off Jupiter should be equally possible in real life, if the H2 is used for plasma thrusters, by the way... You mean RCS? Adding additional RCS fuels is a little beyond the scope of KSP-Interstellar, but if you're interested in that, RealFuels+Stockalike already has a module that uses Nitrogen (the compressed gas, not the cryogenic form) as an RCS propellant. You can also use Hydrogen Peroxide (aka. HTP, which is already consolidated with the KSP-Interstellar version of the resource by the RealFuels/KSP-I integration config built into RealFuels...) or the bipropellant combination of MMH/N2O4 as RCS propellants as well... Speaking of which, if you're interested FreeThinker, adding support to manufacture RealFuels hypergolic propellants from Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide, and Hydrogen in various proportions (all resources in both RealFuels and KSP-Interstellar, albeit with different names) would be AWESOME. All RealFuels (and real life) hypergolic fuel components (as opposed to the oxidizer, N2O4) are derived from Hydrazine (N2H4), with varying amounts of methylation (basically, adding -CH3 groups) for the Hydrazine determining the difference between MMH (one -CH3 group), UDMH (two -CH3 groups), and Aerozine... (which is really just a blend of MMH and UDMH- and is in fact often prepared by simply mixing the two) All that is needed as feedstocks for these reactions are sources of Nitrogen, Hydrogen, and Carbon- which can all be found in the various atmospheres modeled in KSP-Interstellar... (although it might be wise to carry Ammonia to Duna as a Nitrogen and Hydrogen-source, Carbon Dioxide from Laythe to Jool, or scooped Hydrogen from Jool orbit to Laythe orbit, due to the limiting concentrations of certain elements in each atmosphere...) Regards, Northstar P.S. The atmosphere of Mars is 1.9% Nitrogen, so it *should* be possible to manufacture hypergolic propellants there entirely out of local resources, assuming an adequate local source of Hydrogen can be found... (and without any of the active-cooling requirements of "mildly" cryogenic fuels like LiquidMethane/Liquid Oxygen) Similarly, I should think Duna's atmosphere contains at least some Nitrogen- does it?

I can answer that! To understand why you need thrust to maintain an orbit, you need to understand that the line between "space" and the "atmosphere" is entirely arbitrary- it doesn't abruptly cut off at some altitude, like in KSP. The Karman Line (100 km in real life) is one arbitrary distinction between the two that is used in real life, because orbits below it are highly unstable. It roughly corresponds to the edge of the atmosphere in KSP (70km- but the scale height of Kerbin is 5 km, whereas Earth's is 7.64 km). Actually, the atmospheric density at Kerbin sea level is about 1.2 times that of Earth sea level when using FAR, if I remember correctly- which would mean 70 km is just about right for the Karman Line. Don't quote me on that last one. Anyways, 70 km in KSP acts like the Karman Line in real life in that it is the point where atmospheric gas behavior starts to change significantly (going inwards towards the Earth), reaching a sufficient density to allow for effects like compression-drag and aerodynamic-lift... So there is MUCH more drag below the Karman Line than above it. But there is still drag *above* the Karman Line, because there is still atmosphere. In fact, the Thermosphere doesn't even end until about 1000 km above the surface- placing the International Space Station squarely in the middle of it. There is still atmosphere around the ISS (though not enough to stop your blood from boiling and your skin from simultaneously freezing and exploding due to the incredibly low pressure), and this is a big part of the reason it requires regular "station-keeping" burns- to counteract that drag! (there are also instability effects from the Moon's gravity and the solar wind, among other effects...) Anyways, a Propulsive Fluid Accumulator operates within the Thermosphere, and still encounters some drag from the extremely low density of gasses at this altitude. In fact, it couldn't operate at all without these gasses- as the whole point is to collect them for propulsion! In order to counteract that drag, the Propulsive Fluid Accumulator requires some form of thrust. In order for it to expend less fuel than it gathers, it requires a high-ISP engine like a Helicon Double Layer Nitrogen-electric Plasma Thruster... Although the balance between drag and gas pressure DOES become more favorable at higher altitudes as gas behavior changes with decreasing density (allowing PFA's to profitably be deployed above 150 km with solar panels instead of nuclear reactors, for instance), the gasses of the Thermosphere also layer according to molecular mass- so there is an upper limit to how high up you can operate and still collect Nitrogen (rather than lighter molecules/atoms like Methane, Helium, and Hydrogen...) Regards, Northstar

Tuareg, does, unfortunately, have a point. "The casuals are far less forgiving". So far KSP has been operating almost entirely off a very niche player-base willing to try out an Early Access game. But with 1.0, that's likely going to change quite significantly. And casual players will NOT be forgiving of things like random CTD's, rockets that explode on the launchpad or when re-loaded in orbit without warning, random phantom-forces on ships, or splashdown in water basically equaling instant death half the time (ALL of these are bugs that have happened to me on DOZENS of occasions, and even caused occasional ragequits from me, a loyal veteran of KSP...) They will also not be very forgiving of the terrible lack of optimization, and reusltant slow performance on even fairly powerful systems at times... (the inability to utilize multiple CPU cores, for instance, is *unforgivable* for an "official release" in a day and age where almost all computers are multi-core...) Squad needs to reverse the 1.0 announcement decision. Sure, it won't look great- but releasing a space game without even such a simple thing as clouds, and with new features that have never been exposed to the players before the "release" will NOT end well for anyone involved. Which is sad, because KSP is an increasingly awesome game by a generally awesome development company, both of which DESERVE better than what they will get if the next update is the official release... Regards, Northstar

The problem, as I see it is, SQUAD doesn't seem to realize that officially "releasing" the game will expose it to a lot of attention from the more mainstream reviewers and gamers. People who look at games and judge them by their graphics before even trying them, players who look at a game and say "lame graphics, not playing it" (one of my apartment-mates I've tried to get to get involved in KSP repeatedly is unfortunately like that, and has had this precise reaction. He's a nice guy and a gamer, but I'd say he's unfortunately not of the broadest perspective and is of only slightly above-average intelligence at best...) People who have MUCH less tolerance for bugs than the average KSP player, and will likely lose patience with KSP if it doesn't significantly improve its tutorials before release... Something as simple as adding clouds and EVE-like enhancements to the game's visuals would go a LONG way towards making the game appealing to a lot more players and reviewers. Optimizing the code so that it takes less CPU/memory (can can actually run with better graphics at a faster speed) and doesn't have memory-leaks would be another: and I've talked to a number of people with knowledge of programming and KSP's code who are ADAMANT that there is a LOT of room for improvement on the optimization side of things... Stuff like optimization, bug-fixing, and improving the graphics may not sound $exy, but it makes an ENORMOUS difference for player experience (even I have ragequit KSP at times because of bugs- or quit because restarting was the only way to make the game stable again...) Honestly, KSP should bide some time balancing the parts, filling some parts niches that are still unfilled, designing+adding new planets, releasing multiplayer, and squashing as many bugs as they can (did I mention multiplayer will probably have a *HUGE* number of bugs that will need to be squashed when it's first released? Every multiplayer-capable game EVER has had to deal with large numbers of bugs related to multiplayer...); and then make a massive optimization/graphics push as soon as Unity 5 is out (should be within the next 6 months from what I've heard). Then, and only then, will KSP truly be ready for release. Regards, Northstar P.S. Some of you may notice my earlier posts seemed a little out-of-context with the discussion here. That's because they weren't originally part of it. Much to my irritation and dismay, the moderators merged several other discussions I was taking part in with this one (at least they didn't close them). It's almost like they're trying to drown out further dissent under a 40-page wall of text or something...

@Rdivine Some great insights, and I wholeheartedly agree. I would give you rep if I hadn't already hit my limit for a 24-hour period. Since this is presented as a thread about what is missing, rather than how to solve it (roll back the 1.0 announcement), can I suggest you re-brand this as a "Discussion" thread rather than a "Suggestion" thread so as to help avoid the wrath of the moderators and the mighty thread-closing hammers? Regards, Northstar

@klgraham1013, @Bill Phil I agree wholeheartedly with both of you guys. I'd give you reputation if I hadn't already given out too much rep in a 24-hour period! Regards, Northstar

I've started a thread over on the Suggestions and Development forum suggesting that Squad roll back the move to version 1.0 and "release". I just thought you guys should know: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108465-Roll-back-the-decision-to-jump-to-1-0 Feel free to go over there and post on it, to keep it towards the top of the Suggestions/Development sub-forum (so hopefully the mods will see it and Squad will realize this is a major community concern). I encourage you to send your support, but even if you disagree with my opinion, PLEASE don't troll the thread or start flame wars- the last thing we need is the only thread on Suggestions and Development about this topic to get closed thanks to poor poster conduct... Regards, Northstar

I don't know what else to call this, and I would ask that the moderators *please* don't give me an infraction or close the thread for suggesting this (although I can't find it anywhere on the "Do Not Suggest" list, so...) I am of the firm belief that Kerbal Space Program is NOT, I repeat *NOT* ready for its 1.0 release just yet. I am not alone in this belief, either. A thread asking players whether they thought KSP would be ready for 1.0 in its next release, started just yesterday, has already received 484 votes, with more than 76% of players voting NO! I do not think it would be wise for the future of SQUAD or Kerbal Space Program to push the game to its 1.0 release just yet. If NOTHING else, it needs another publicly-release version to allow additional bug-testing of the feature-complete version by the entire KSP community. If they release as planned/announced, on the other hand, they will expose Kerbal Space Program to potentially vicious reviews by reviewers who will NOT be as kind to a game that is officially in its "complete" form as they were to KSP back when it was still in Alpha/Beta. Besides, isn't bug-fixing and working out the final kinks what a Beta is for? So far, they've only spent one update in Beta- and that was the release that moved Kerbal *INTO* Beta in the first place, so that hardly counts for a "thorough beta-testing cycle". Releasing KSP at version 1.0 would be a very bad idea for the future of SQUAD *and* Kerbal. It would hurt SQUAD's reputation in the long run, and would hurt KSP's reputation even more (thanks to bad/mixed reviews- there are simply too many bugs left to possibly iron enough out in just one update...) I think they can spare the wait for at least one more (bug-focused) update before the final release. Heck, SQUAD has a community on their hands with not one, but *TWO* Cubesat projects currently under works based on community donations. I think if the community is willing to pay to put a satellite in space, we could certainly raise the funds to keep SQUAD's development cycle going a little longer for the game that inspired us all to do it, eh? If they asked, we'd be more than willing to help them, if money for additional development is really the issue... Regards, Northstar

Any chance you could get Boris to add your config into his OP version? It seems that the changes are in line with the KSP-I mod, generally speaking... Nice- but can we actually do anything with the CO2 on the KSP-I side? Like use it to run a Sabatier Reactor in Duna orbit via CO2 collected on the suface, rather than having to send the ISRU refinery (and seed Hydrogen) all the way to the surface? (Theoretically this also would also work with PFA's, although good luck building a CO2 Propulsive Fluid Accumulator that gains more mass than it expends fighting drag... The best ISP you can get this way is from Methane/LOX propelled thermal rockets running off the Sabatier products...) Also, just an idea that I've suggested before to Fractal_UK (he didn't want to implement it because of time constraints, and because he felt it would overwhelm players with too many possible ISRU reactions in a cluttered interface- this was BEFORE the ISRU interface overhaul that he implemented for precisely the reason of adding more reactions...), but this reminds me of the Solid Oxide CO2-Electrolysis (SOCE) reaction. Which turns CO2 directly into O2 and graphite residue (which is periodically cleaned off the electrolysis unit) The only problem with it is that it requires crew members to clean off the electrolyzers periodically. Nonetheless, it's made it into NASA's Design Reference Missions, as a SOCE unit is simpler and less massive than a Sabatier Reactor... The other option for CO2--> O2 with no consumption of H2 is the Reverse Water Gas Shift Reaction (CO2 + H2 --> CO + H2O) coupled with Water Electrolysis... (this is how Robert Zubrin wants to do Mars Direct) See this study for more information on both reactions. So the code isn't implemented yet? Any idea when it WILL be ready? I want to hold off on installing KSP-I a little bit until this is added, as PFA's take a LONG time to run at physical time-warp, and should be the first KSP-I project I attempt in my current RSS save... (where propellant costs in orbit are ENORMOUS at 7.5 km/s to LKO...) Also, it would be helpful to have the code check for some sort of power-source (either a Microwave receiver or a generator+reactor or generator+thermal receiver) in addition to a plasma engine when deciding to allow an Atmospheric Scoop to work above the Karman Line (the edge of the atmosphere in KSP) to prevent exploits with unpowered plasma thrusters... Or maybe it's not worth the time- just let cheaters cheat- I dunno... Regards, Northstar

I don't get why people keep making this argument. Having fixed fairing sizes was never a challenge in real life (it's just an aeroshell- they design it to whatever specs are needed), and it wouldn't be a challenge in the game even if they did things that way either. All it would be is annoying- you would just have to use fairings a full size larger than your payload if the payload was just a *tiny* bit too large to the closest size... Regards, Northstar

I wonder if this recent spurt of publicity has anything to do with SQUAD *rushing* to "release" (so they can tell reporters the game is finally in 1.0). It's way too early for 1.0 when they haven't even let the general community look for bugs in the yet-unreleased features, and there are a LOT of long-standing bugs that really should be ironed out before reviewers get their hands on the game... Regards, Northstar

There's a mod called Atmospheric Trajectories that can predict landing spots through the atmosphere with FAR (you just have to tell it your intended Angle of Attack throughout the descent), and even provides a Nav Ball icon to help you land. It's one of the mods that I consider a *necessity* for stock KSP, and don't see why the devs haven't brought in yet... I suggest you check it out. Regards, Northstar

ISRU systems *SHOULD* be heavy. They're not meant to be hauled around everywhere you go (as many players have taken to in Kethane)- they're meant to be landed in place and used for permanent bases... Oh, and it's more realistic that way too, which gets bonus points with me... I think it's MUCH too early to declare the next update as 1.0 though, and I think SQUAD should *REVERSE* that decision IMMEDIATELY. They need AT LEAST ONE update before 1.0 to test all the new features for bugs, logically- and there are so many long-standing bugs in KSP (wings flexing asymmetrically on the runway being one example- this is one reason so many spaceplanes end up in the ditch...) that there should probably also be a dedicated bug-fixing update too. I'm used to the bugs, I've been playing with them for over a year now, but the *reviewers* will NOT be so kind with a game that's officially "released"... Regards, Northstar

They're SQUAD. They can easily change their minds about it if they want. Sure, it might disappoint a few people, but the damage will be *MUCH WORSE* if reviewers get their hands on a "release" with bugs in the new features that we still haven't seen yet... It's common sense- a 1.0 release should NEVER contain major new features (and several of these features are indeed major- or will be perceived as such by reviewers...) SQUAD should go back and reverse their decision IMMEDIATELY. There's no time to lose. They really need to allow at least one update cycle for the general community to catch any bugs their QA process missed before declaring KSP "ready". Oh, and there are still a large number of long-standing bugs that I doubt they'll have gotten around to fixing if they're adding this many new features. It's too early, and defeats the purpose of calling 0.90 "Beta". They might as well have skipped "Beta" altogether if they were only going to spend one update there... What happened to the frequent "mini-updates" SQUAD talked about for Beta before? Regards, Northstar

Awesome! How do I actually install the config? Do I also need Boris' update to KSP-I for this to work, or is this a version of KSP-I patched to work in 0.90 with these changes already made? Also, CarbonDioxide was already a resource you could harvest and store? I thought, like Nitrogen, that it was a resource that only showed up in atmospheres... Speaking of atmospheres, any word on making it possible to scoop from just outside the atmosphere yet? A couple mods already allow this for their ISRU systems, one of them being Karbonite. Waiting for an atmospheric scoop to collect Nitrogen at physical time warp can be *QUITE* boring... Regards, Northstar

Incidentally, the KSP-I/RF integration config already makes Hydrogen Peroxide production compatible with RealFuels (the resource is re-named "HTP" for High-Test Peroxide). The only thing that is missing there is the ability to manufacture Hydrogen Peroxide directly from Liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen, instead of from Liquid Oxygen and Water... The same integration config was slated to change Monoprop production into Hydrazing production when RealFuels is installed, but Dreadicon went AWOL on its development (he did most of the complex coding- I was the ideas man who did just a little simple coding) before that could be completed. N204 would be awesome, though. See my PM for a bit more relevant info to that. Not sure what a player would do with Nitrous Oxide. It *might* already be a RealFuels resource though (I think used for RCS or some very specialized engines), I'll have to go check on that... Regards, Northstar

A picture is worth 1000 words, and so I respectfully present *proof* that control surfaces can act as both flaps and elevators: Notice the control surfaces on the rear of the plane which I have opened the context menu for. They are quite clearly flaps (though currently undeployed) as they have a "Flap Setting" detail showing their deployment status on the context menu, but they are also currently deflected upwards (the opposite direction a flap would deploy) to help push the tail down so the spaceplane can keep its nose up as it climbs towards the upper atmosphere... For what it's worth, that was actually a *suborbital* spaceplane- it deploys a cargo at the very edge of the atmosphere (this is in RSS 6.4x, so approx. 91 km) which then circularizes using its own fuel/engines. A *true* spaceplane in RSS 6.4x is virtually impossible without OP'd/unrealistic mods (the exception to this *MIGHT* be using KSP-Interstellar and Microwave Beamed Power, a technology that actually exists in real life and several teams of engineers are trying to get NASA to switch over to instead of chemical rocketry, which allows spaceplanes by raising ISP to 850-1000 seconds...) Regards, Northstar

My Suborbital Spaceplane shortly after (barely) clearing the runway of the KSC: This is in Real Solar System 6.4x, so a true spaceplane is EXTREMELY difficult to build- in fact, I think this might be the closest anyone's ever come with realistic mods (not counting the fusion or antimatter reactors in KSP-Interstellar as realistic, though I would be impressed if anyone managed it with current-generation fission reactors and Microwave Beamed Power- as this would essentially be current-day cutting-edge technology...) I also am running RealFuels (hence the Kerosene and LOX instead of LFO), FAR (the flight data screen on left betrays this), MechJeb2 (mainly for the radially-attachable command unit, Advanced SAS, and informational displays), and Procedural Parts/Dynamics (where the wings and outboard fuel tanks come from)... And here the spaceplane is touched down on the penninsula due east of the KSC after clearing (most) of the atmosphere and deploying its cargo at approx. 90 km (in RSS 6.4x the atmosphere ends at 91 km)- a tiny 1.25 meter Munar lander which then circularized to around 95 km using its own engines/fuel... The spaceplane didn't have *quite* enough Kerosene left to make it back to the KSC without refueling. I'll have to either fly out a cargo plane with some surplus Kerosene to refuel it (not that hard with a low-altitude cargo plane powered by Firespitter electric propellers and static solar panels on really large wings, but extremely slow...), send a boat or rover with fuel (even slower still), or just install the experimental 0.90 build of TAC Fuel Balancer and edit in some Kerosene to save myself some time (not that cheaty in RealFuels- Kerosene is *extremely* cheap, to reflect the fact that it real life fuel is less than 0.1% of rocket/spaceplane launch costs... I could make more money that the cost of the fuel to completely refuel the spaceplane in a single "landed on Kerbin" parts test...) Regards, Northstar

@TaranisElsu I hate to bug, but any word on the 0.90 official version yet? I currently have a suborbital spaceplane (wings don't do any good outside of the atmosphere, and deploying cargo is effectively staging- so it improves fuel fraction to deploy rockets on a suborbital trajectory- and full on orbital spaceplanes are nearly impossible with Real Solar System installed due to the enormous Delta-V requirements...) landed approximately a fifth of the way around Kerbin (on the penninsula to the east of the KSC) in RSS 6.4x without enough Kerosene (I'm also running RealFuels) to make it back to the KSC. I'd very much like to use TAC Fuel Balancer to simulate refueling it by just editing in more Kerosene... I *could* just send a refueling plane (or a boat, or even a rover- there *IS* a land route there!) to land near it and transfer over some fuel (using KAS pipes), but that would take a LONG time. It would be much simpler if I could just edit in the necessary Kerosene in using TAC Fuel Balancer (it's not very cheaty in RealFuels- Kerosene is practically free, and it's the rockets/planes themselves that comprise 99.9% of the cost, like in real life- plus in real life there would be downrange airports to land at...) Regards, Northstar P.S. I like to think of my mission plan as the equivalent of launching across the Atlantic and refueling in Europe (and there would be Kerosene available there in real life- no need to fly a special cargo plane across the ocean just to refuel the spaceplane). I had more than enough fuel to make it even further downrange- in fact I had to go into a steep dive and circle around several times to land on the penninsula, and still had a bit of fuel left- just not quite enough to cross the ocean back to the KSC...

Nice base! To this day, I *STILL* haven't built any actual multi-part surface bases (I'm more in love with reusable launch systems and orbital stations). The closest I come is when I hook up a few modules with KAS pipes/winches and call it a "base". Regards, Northstar

No cooldown. And I'm really not sure why your docking ports don't seem to be working. I've never had trouble like that before (that I can remember). They seem to be constructed properly, at least... I might try rebuilding the craft- maybe the craft file somehow got a glitch in it... Regards, Northstar

I may have miscalculated- it only goes up to about 500-600x compression before it liquifies (but your compression factor is off for Liquid Nitrogen: it's 694 times as dense as N2 gas at STP, not 645x). I used the following thermodynamics calculator software to figure out the density: http://www.peacesoftware.de/einigewerte/stickstoff_e.html The density of Liquid Nitrogen at 1 atm (101.325 kPa) and *just* below its boiling point (-200 degrees Celcius) is 824.907 kg/m^2 The density of Nitrogen at 200 atm (20265 kPa) and -125 degrees Celcius is 571.465 kg/m^2. The density of Nitrogen at 1 atm and 20 degrees Celcius is 1.188 kg/m^2 That means that the highly-compressed, highly-cooled Nitrogen is more than 481 times as dense! Of course, if you cool Nitrogen at 1 atmosphere of pressure (101.325 kPa) to -125 degrees Celcius, density increases to 2.319 kg/m^2 (making 200 atm of pressure only 246.4 times as dense). But the densities given for Nitrogen in RealFuels assume it is at STP (1 atm and 0 degrees Celcius), not cooled to -125 degrees. The tank capacities are higher to account for cooling and pressurization... For what it's worth, Nitrogen at 200 atm of pressure and -125 degrees of Celcius may be 246.4 times as dense as at 1 atm of pressure, but the fuel tank is also 200 times more massive as it is a pressure vessel (and its mass increases proportionally to the pressure differential with the outside environment)! Still, I'd take the highly-pressurized fuel tank any day for a rocket, because it still has a better mass fraction (23.2% better, to be precise) AND it has a more compact aerodynamic profile that generates MUCH less drag than the equivalent tankage at 1 atm of pressure. Of course, when considering mass fractions, Liquid Nitrogen is as good as it gets (effective compression of more than 694 times compared to Nitrogen gas at STP, with pretty much the same fuel tank mass except for insulation!) So if you figured out a system that allows engines to use both the Nitrogen gas (the resource in RealFuels) AND Liquid Nitrogen, I'm happy- as it means I can either use the cryostats for Liquid Nitrogen and superior fuel-density and mass fractions, or just the RealFuels+Procedural Parts Service Modules when I need a fuel tank of a precise size and shape and at a much lower cost in Funds than a cryostat (RealFuels+ Procedural Parts tanks follow realistic tank costs assuming 1 Fund = $1000 USD in 1965, which makes fuel tanks less than 1% of their cost in stock, while engine costs remain relatively the same after adjusting to 1965 USD costs- thus obtaining a much more realistic relationship between tank and engine cost...) Money rules the universe, after all That sounds awesome! So I take it I can use *either* resource (Liquid Nitrogen using the densities you provided, or Nitrogen gas from RealFuels) in the thermal/electric engines in the next update? Also, I hope the compressor generates as much WasteHeat as gassification of the nitrogen absorbs. Otherwise, you get a highly-imbalanced system where players can just keep turning Nitrogen to gas and then back to liquid and then to gas over and over again in order to make WasteHeat simply disappear into thin air! Regards, Northstar

No offense, but you're wrong. I was using non-dedicated flaps just the other day on a suborbital spaceplane model I'm working on (basically, it pushes just outside the atmosphere, and then deploys a rocket which circularizes- as wings don't do any good outside the atmosphere...) They worked FINE for me. So, I'd check that you're following my instructions carefully. Try something REALLY drastic, like setting pitch authority to 45 degrees, and flap deflection to only 5 degrees. That should make whether the control surfaces are actuating REALLY obvious to you. My guess is you'll find I was correct all along... Regards, Northstar

Hey Nathan, Starwasher, etc. I thought the resource capacities of the Firespitter parts were fixed to hold real fuels instead of "LiquidFuel" and "Oxidizer". Yet... Also, the Firespitter tweakable propellers still use LiquidFuel instead of Kerosene- meaning my only option for a tweakable propeller engine that actually works is the electric propellers... It's important to note all this is in the dev version of Firespitter that was most recent as of 1/15/2015. As the Firespitter mod has still not made it to its next release, the dev versions on GitHub are the only ones that work in 0.90 What are you talking about??? The creator of Procedural Dynamics/ PWings mod is DYJ, and there is no current mention of the implementation of "wet wings" (wings with integrated fuel tanks) anywhere in the changelog: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/29862-0-90-Procedural-Dynamics-Procedural-Wing-0-9-3-Dec-24 Regards, Northstar