Magniff

Well, it's almost the same as with the second gas giant. Since 0.90 we are scope complete (well nonetheless resources were added in 1.0) and adding clouds would require a significant input of money and manpower. Therefore I don't expect them anymore.

Thermodynamic reentry heating. Since I saw those flames in 0.19.1, I wanted them to have an actuall effect on my craft. In addition, I think Squad hit the sweet spot with the aerodynamic. I never felt comfortable with NEAR, but I liked the aerodynamic in 1.0.2 and I also like the new one in 1.0.4 (Did never really get my hands on 1.0).

To me, it's an electric motor. I really don't understand why're people regarding Kerbals as some kind of space orcs, nowadays. Both share a green coloured skin and a limited drive for self-preservation, no further similaritys! EDIT: Well, this proofs it isn't an electric motor!

As NovaSilisko left the dev.-team some time around KSP 0.25, odds for a quick addition of a second gas gaint had allready become quite bad. Nevertheless, I was still expecting GP2 at some point in a distance future until beta was announced. I don't know Squad's current statement on their DLC policy, but I highly doubt Squad's ability to afford such a labour intensive project without any monetary compensation. By the way, Nova is still present on the forums, just a few days ago he replied to one of my threads. Maybe there is still some hope left .

Hey Claw, glad to see you had time to update this and even add some improvements! \(^u^)/ By the way, how do you think about bug fixes for Squad mods (like AsteroideDay), do you consider a StockPlus integration (in case need arises)? EDIT: After some reconsidering, I guess it's probably the same situation as for the NASA mod.

Do some of the bug fix modules still work in 1.0.4? I'm a bit cautious, since the 1.0.2 versions of some mods (like KER and Chatterer) did cause me issues in 1.0.4 (e.g. unresponsive VAB interface). Fixing required me to overwrite the persistence file with no mods installed. @Claw: I really appreciate your great work! It's one of the best KSP mod in existence!

I've been using Deadly Reentry since KSP 0.23.0 (on normal difficulty, therefore it never was "that" deadly). Thought I'd give the stock system a try, but well..., since version 1.0.3 added the transition from laminar to turbulent airflow, I find it rather confusing (maybe I'm just to used to DRC). But take your time Starwaster, I can wait . And I have to admit, that cat picture is quite sad ='(.

One KSP will run in one window and an entirely unrelated KSP will run in an other window. (In case you don't have enough RAM they will crash very quickly) No spooky self stalking and no exploding universe.

Yep, obviously Kerbals prefer their rockets nicely precooled .

Indeed, this will proof to be very usefull for my testing . Well, happy rocketing everyone!

Just repeated your test on the launchpad using my original engine settings. Indeed there is a significant heating. A consistent cond. flux of almost + 3 is displayed. Well I'm not sure, since my original readings showed a slightly negative cond. flux (I still got the screenshots). I've probably just encountered a display bug, on my first flight. Thinking again about that dropping temperature readings as soon as the vessel left the atmosphere. Maybe I unintentionally turned off the engine without recognising it .

As NathanKell pointed out, we probably need atmospheric density values to properly calculate the threshold for the transition from laminar to turbulent airflow. According to the wikipedia entry on air density, atmospheric density can be calculated as follows: Density = preassure(Pa) / ( R * temperature(°K)) where R is 287,102 (in case of dry air) Therefore I did try to record the required data on very slow ascent (Wasn't sure wether the wiki Data is still up-to-date). But since I recorded an increasing temperature all the way up (travelling at roughly 34 m/s), my data is almost certainly flawed.

Hey KSP community, I was trying to recorde atmospheric preassure and temperature data for Kerbin (during a very slow ascent of approximately 34 m/s). (I didn't know wheter the wiki is up to date for 1.0.4) Since my thermometer was placed pretty far away from my engine, I expected temperature readings to drop, during my slow ascent. But instead I recorded increasing temperatures. As soon as I left the atmosphere, temperature readings finally started to drop. Unfortunately I didn't enable "Thermal Data in Action Menus", until my "science junior" module started glowing at an altitude of 29 km. I therefore can't provide any "thermal flux" data for altitudes below 30 km. As you can see from these flux data, there was a continuous thermal flow of 0.07 from the thermometers skin into its interior. Does anybody know what caused the increasing temperature readings during my very slow ascent (~ 34 m/s)? Installed mods: Telemachus – Telemetry and Flight Control Shortened table of the recorded data: [table=width: 500, class: grid] [tr] [td]Altitude[/td] [td]Temperature[/td] [td]Velocity(surface)[/td] [td]Cond. Flux[/td] [td]Conv. Flux[/td] [td]Rad. Flux[/td] [td]Int. Flux[/td] [td]SkinToInt.[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]0.2 km[/td] [td]301 °[/td] [td]12.1 m/s[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]10 km[/td] [td]357 °[/td] [td]31.5 m/s[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]20 km[/td] [td]428 °[/td] [td]34.7 m/s[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]30 km[/td] [td]489 °[/td] [td]33.6 m/s[/td] [td]-0.03[/td] [td]0.00[/td] [td]-0.11[/td] [td]0.00[/td] [td]0.07[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]40 km[/td] [td]548 °[/td] [td]35.1 m/s[/td] [td]-0.04[/td] [td]0.00[/td] [td]-0.16[/td] [td]0.00[/td] [td]0.07[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]50 km[/td] [td]602 °[/td] [td]34.5 m/s[/td] [td]-0.11[/td] [td]0.00[/td] [td]-0.23[/td] [td]0.00[/td] [td]0.07[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]62 km[/td] [td]638 °[/td] [td]77.1 m/s[/td] [td]-0.03[/td] [td]0.00[/td] [td]-0.29[/td] [td]0.00[/td] [td]0.07[/td] [/tr] [/table] (Please excuse any misspellings or flawed grammar in my posts)

Looking at my own screenshot again, I recognised something I didn't before. Within that flamy ball of death you can still spot the main body of my reentry vehicle. Since the big explosion around it can only be caused be the heatshield, we indeed have at least some basic burn-up order. If the entire process continues in this fashion (and the temperature gauges are indicating it does), it would be allmost perfect (just way to fast to realise it). The reentry-vehicles main body, can still be spotted! Well, we still got the droping skin-temp. issue. But as S1mancoder pointed out, this might not be too unrealistic. Well, after this discovery I'm more positive about the new feature (it's just a bit too fast).

Well, I wasn't asking how to play the game. But since you're a forum mod, you can probably asses such things better then I can do.

Possible, I was considering something similar too. But well, maybe I'm expecting to much .

Hhm - well in KSP 1.0.2, I trigger at least some battery explosions on pretty standard reentry profiles (aiming for 42 km periapse from LKO). So far I was unable to reproduce a partial vessel burn-up during a reentry at Kerbin (might still need some further testing). You are right, I did this intentionally to inspect the changes on reentry-heating in 1.0.3\.4. The issue is: I wanted know wheter people like it, the way it is. I don't, because my ships either blow up incredible fast or nothing happens at all. As stated above: I haven't managed to produce any partial (or even slow) burn-up's so far in 1.0.4. But nontheless, I'm glad to hear you guys like the new mechanic!

Remember the last time you've seen a falling star breaking up. It's debris usually continue the reentry for a few seconds, they don't get vaporised in an instant. In addition, I'd be very surprised if a meteors skin-temp. would start to drop until it breaks up. (Things are probably different for comets in this case. But I doubt spacecrafts do behave the same way as comets do.) Well isn't aerodynamic heating the same as reentry heat? - please correct me if I'm wrong. - - - Updated - - - Yes, exactly. It just feels like a hardcoded (checking for certain circumstances) -> You go BOOM. Not like my vessel is burning-up because of the reentry-heat. I may have to add, the reason why I'm complaining is: I was testing reentry effects on Kerbin in 1.0.3 and I only managed to either get an entirely harmless reentry or this kind of instant vaporisation.

First of all, what this new feature is intended to do: (Unfortunately I don't know how to properly quote an article, therefore I used this little dirty trick ) Since reentry on Kerbin is currently rather harmless, I fundamentally agree with the new "to fast, to low" feature (introduced by patch 1.0.3). There should definitely be at least some basic threat to burn-up during reentry. In addition, you'll probably only encountered this new feature if you intentionally try to destroy your vessel. But, I dislike the way this new feature is implemented: Any part that exceeds a particular velocity on a given atmospheric density, will be instantly destroyed by overwhelming amounts of heat. Futhermore there seems to be no consistentl heat progression towards the burn-up. Instead the maximum skin-temperatures will tend to drop for some seconds, until the final burn-up occurs. There's also no recognisable burn-up order of the involved parts. It's not like: Your heatshield goes first, afterwards (almost simultaneously) your batterys overheat and finally (with a small delay) your fuel-tanks explode. Instead the entire burn-up feels much more like crashing into a wall! To illustrate this behaviour, I've prepared some pictures from my previous reentry testing in 1.0.4. The test-vehicle's apoapsis is slightly above Minimus orbit, it's periapsis is close to the center of Kerbin. Inital reentry velocity at 3.3 km/s. Max. recorded skin-temperature is at roughly 2900 °K (all my other screenshots showed a lower skin-temp.). You can also see the vessel's propulsion-stage, falling in front of it at 600 m distance. Skin-temp. has allready droped by almost 200 °K, less then one second away from final burn-up. In front, you see the propulsion-stage hitting the "to fast, to low" wall. More than 2 km/s below 19 km altitude? - KSP says: Nay! In this screenshot, you can also see the temperature gauges of some parts inside the explosion. But you probably won't be able to recognise them during normal gameplay Maybe the feature is intended to simulate g-forces instead of heating, you might say. In this case, I'd at least expect to see a recognisable order of structural failures. According to the individual part's impact tollerance. What do you think about the new "to fast, to low" feature? Should it be rebalanced or is it fine as it is? (Please excuse any scribal errors or flawed grammar in my posts!)

Hi all, I've took the first option. But I don't consider the new gizmos cheating, they just feel inferior to me! The off-set gizmo as an example: I can't off-set a radial attached part exactly where I want it to be. It's always moved into a different (probably predefined) position first. So fart I've always ended up getting better results with the old tools.

Excellent analysis Slashy! Just wanted to share the results of a test series I've recently run on the same subject. Unsurprisingly, the outcome is pretty much in line with your analytical results. To give a brief summary of the test conditions: I used a test vessel flown by Mechjeb. The ascent-path was roughly adjusted with respect to the special requirements of an air-breathing main engine. The vessel was equipped with a single rapier engine and the number of intakes was set up to induce roughly the same amount of dead-weight once the vessel arrives in orbit. Additional intakes were added if the vessel failed to achieve orbit in its original configuration (only true for fuselage and structural intakes). In addition, the vessel was burdened by two tonnes of payload. Mechjebs flameout prevention and intake management were enabled. Also the angel of attack was limited to 18° via Mechjeb. Closed-cycle mode was manually engaged as soon as the vessels apoapsis started to drop. Intake performance was rated by the dV left, after a circular 72.5 km orbit was achieved. My Results imply the following ranking of intakes according to their effectiveness: 1. Ram Air (dV = 693 m/s @ 0.055 t of intake mass) 2. Circular (dV = 577 m/s @ 0.055 t of intake mass) 3. XM-G50 Radial (dV = 269 m/s @ 0.05 t of intake mass or alternativly dV = 404 m/s @ 0,0625 t) 4. Shock Cone (dV = 249 m/s @ 0.054 t of intake mass) 5. Structural (dV = 88 m/s @ 0.084 t of intake mass; Note: vessel failed to achieve orbit if less intakes were used) 6. Fuselage (vessel finally failed to achieve orbit) Note: Maximum dV @ an intake mass of zero (no air intakes attached) was 888 m/s. As already stated, the data generated in this test series is supporting your analytical conclusions very well. Thanks for the additional insight your analysis has brought into the realm intakes - Magniff

To summarize things a bit (just in case somebody isn't already aware). Development has been taken over by medsouz ! In addition he has already provided a new 0.25 compatible version of StarSystems. The new development-thread can be found via the link that has been posted by _Augustus_° or here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/99353-0-25-StarSystems-v0-3-3-1-%28Nov-13%29-Under-New-Managment

Micro suggestion: IMHO this mod isn't drawing the attention it deserves. The cause of this might be the Mods naming which (to me) does sound more like a Parts-pack instead of a Galaxy-simulation. Therefore I’d suggest a more aggressive naming like “Galaxy-Simulatorâ€Â. In case medsouz wants to keep things more quiet, “Multiple Star Systems†(as originally used by OvenProofMars on Reddit) could already improve the community’s perception. In this case, you might as well drop the “under new management†addition for a reference like “aka StarSystems†(to avoid the current audience from getting lost). Best regards and thanks a lot to medsouz for his willingness to continue this great Mod, Magniff

Would be great to see this project taking up some pace again.