SchweinAero

Members
  • Content count

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

83 Excellent

About SchweinAero

  • Rank
    Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

1189 profile views
  1. I'm ambivalent about a landable (solid?) core, but I'd welcome a change to get rid of the unsightly inky void of explosions. Nothing fancy, maybe just an ocean with extreme temperature and density. To make it harder to reach and more mysterious, the lower atmosphere should be hot enough by itself to vaporize almost any stock craft.
  2. If the engines are surface-attachable, as many are, you can mount them onto the tank directly. If the engines are not surface-attachable, they will simply fly through the tank when you hold the mouse close to it. In that case you will need a proxy part that has an open node. The Radial Attachment Point in the tab Structural is a common choice.
  3. Fascinating, thanks for the writeup. I'm not familiar with any comparable hypotheses or research into them, but there are maps that show tentative distribution of "dark matter" within our universe, correct? In that case, 1) would it be possible to come up with plausible mass distributions for 'nearby' 3D spaces such that total accelerations in the observable universe match what is seen? 2) could we try to find the "plane distance" that makes those distributions most similar to the one in the observable universe? Assumption of shared physical laws as in the OP.
  4. Well said. If someone wants a boom sound because of realism, how about constant loud noise that you can only hear if your camera is near the sonic wavefront? I'd welcome that.
  5. Thank you for being one of the rare voices of experience in this kind of thread. To everyone else: If you have a concern about multiplayer and haven't tried DMP yet, please, I beg you on my knees, do. It's not perfect by any means, but knowing our best current option will sharpen your questions immensely. It will also lend credibility to your thoughts.
  6. If you feel serious about the future of your space program, then it seems KSP has succeeded with you. You are immersed in and thrilled by the very questions that surround real space travel. I think that feeling is one of KSP's greatest gifts. Also, remember that the timing of the mission is completely up to you, and this is good and just. KSP is a tool for you - not the other way around. If you are concerned, do other things. Eventually your curiosity about the outcome will overwhelm your anxiety, and that is when progress happens.
  7. I'm linking this here for the sake of chronicling the history of stock propellers. This person, Squiddy, claims to have exceeded 343 m/s in level flight. There seems to be no public craft file, though.
  8. Awesome! I'd take it for a spin myself, if I had a meteorite... >.> That recovery boat looked great too.
  9. Thank you! Every part and function here is bone stock. The trick is that the authority limiter also affects how far the surface deploys: crank that up to 150 and then keep the elevon permanently deployed while switching deploy direction, and you'll get almost 90 degrees of rotation. It's only too bad no control surfaces are longer than they are wide, or this could yield pretty good WW2 naval fighters.
  10. This is an experiment in folding wings without multi-part hinges. Switch the deploy direction of the Big-S Elevons to toggle them up and down. The craft will take off at 40 m/s and land safely at 100 m/s on level terrain. Also includes a radioisotope generator for infinite roving range. Craft file on KerbalX
  11. I support this, if only for the ease of getting pretty screenshots while maneuvering around a station. But I used to have KAS too, and getting any work done in orbit was an excercise in timing before the poor kerbal drifted out of range again. We have no way of anchoring ourselves to a module, so fine jetpack controls are the bare minimum to ask for.
  12. Then how about taking it one step further, and co-opting the closest approach markers to show where your orbit passes closest to the targeted one. Time doesn't need to be considered at all. Then you could judge the apsis match of your Hohmann using those and the velocity match using the imaginary vessel. Mostly devil's advocate, I find the current procedure easy enough.
  13. If you selected an orbit as a target, where would the target direction marker point? What would your relative velocity with a stationary path be? Though this does make me wonder about another scenario. Imagine targeting an orbit and, from that moment, seeing navball markers as if the closest point to your vessel on that orbit was a normal spacecraft. A new closest point chosen for each frame, and its "orbital velocity" calculated from the properties of the orbit. Would this help with something?
  14. I support supporting this. Are there any people who support not supporting this?
  15. The two NoNameShips servers reliably have people playing most of the time. There's a stock one and a a heavily modded one with near-future parts, weapons and robotics.