• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

263 Excellent

About Signo

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Contact Methods

  • Website URL Array

Recent Profile Visitors

2,070 profile views
  1. 1) in my experience, it seems to me that explodium is as dense as kerbin water. Kerbals float almost the same way. 2) I suppose that the deeper you will go the less ISP you will get from your engines. They surely work underwater, but your range might be severely shortened depending on how deep the sub will sail. 3) it seems a very good strategy - at least worth a try. 4) The only suggestion I have regarding a precision landing is "F5/F9". Good luck
  2. While purchasing a copy of 7 you were entitled to a free downgrade to XP or any other MS system still under support. So, I suppose that if they are still a "normal" company and not an online store they should at least give you an answer. Business always find a way. EDIT - moreover ppl working at the correct helpdesk can generate a new working license number with a single click.
  3. I might be wrong, but if you payed for your WinX licence you might be entitled for a free downgrade to Win7, since it is still under support. I might be wrong, but you know, you are a customer so it might be worth to bother MS help desk.
  4. Do not forget you have wheels, you can go for a flatter landing where the terrain allows you, like on Minmus flats. Do not forget you are technically landing backwards, so if you have a tricycle configuration at take off, while landing in vacuum you will have a taildragger. You need to tweak the gears before landing to adjust the steering direction and brake balance or you might experience a sudden tailspin. Do not be too afraid of "bouncing", engines and wings are pretty tough. "Rigid attachment" and "Autostrut" are your friends. I suggest you to disable gimbal, you do not want your CoT going around while landing a "longship" and you should have plenty of torque to maneuver as you please. I recently added a LY-10 wheel on the angled plate of the engine mount to avoid issues at take off on vacuum bodies.
  5. If the rover is not supposed to come back and "small" I usually go for a "skycrane". If the rover is manned and I have enough room however I prefer to stick engines directly to it.
  6. Good luck - I second the claw solution, but this is "absolutely Kerbal".
  7. I am not saying that I support part clipping, but if you imagine the tanks under a hollow and empty "mk2 to mk1" adapter they should be shielded and they should have room where to belong. Some parts, especially adapters, need a few tweaks like "stock configurable fuel", and Mk1 parts might enjoy a little bit of extra love like a longer cargo bay. However, this is a little bit rhetorical, due to the fact that the kerbal law is the law. At least until next patch.
  8. Hi all, it has been a while since I have last seen an "Infini-miner" around here. Even more uncommon, a LF only infini-miner. Introducing "Ajax 122", 93.480t at take off - 73 pieces - 4 crew - 3 rapiers, 5 nukes - 4638m/s nuke propelled with full tank It takes 30 days to refuel with no engineers onboard and an average ore concentration (3.8) - solar powered for inner system, fuel cells for outer system (220 Ox available at take off from Kerbin), RTGs for "ongoing duties" - crew in HH module in the tail bay, functional ladder. TWR is not exactly "top of the crop", but more than enough to land on almost any vacuum body (except for youknowwhere) and of course Laythe after a Minmus pit stop. The extra Ox storage can be used for those "painful" high TWR burns with rapiers. No Ox needed to reach orbit. Craft file available on request. Thank you for reading. Cheers.
  9. @Hodari, @tseitsei89 and @Eidahlil - thank you for your feedbacks. They are all really appreciated. @hodari - you are right, and you forgot to mention the "well, it does not work..." moments you have when you first try a design. I know that it takes time and I would like to improve the quality of that time for the people entering the next challenge. I still think that it is not completely fair for a host to enter his own contest - just to avoid any possible "conflict of interest". Speaking about the scoring system, I think that it would be better to have more strict gates at the "entrance" and a simple scoring system kinda like - Build a single rapier powered craft, best remaining d/V at LKO wins. It would still be "exploitable" as usual but with less room for any real game-breaking craft. Thank you all again, I love you guys.
  10. @Hodari: thank you, I was expecting something like this. Keep in mind that this was my first attempt to host a challenge. I fully understand your point but you must admit that this community is pretty "hostile" in terms of discovering sneaky ways around the system. Next time I hope it will be "set in stone". By the way, the only true rule change was about the formula and it happened just after your submission. I tried to keep it as much "open" as possible, I think that the only true "rejection" was about @foamyesque staging craft. I would like once more to apologize about your "score change". If I may, this is a game, nobody bombed your diamond mine and you can still submit a new entry. It takes less than 15 minutes with warps.
  11. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to close this challenge as soon as possible because I think that it needs a pit stop and an overhaul. TWR has got too much weight in this evaluation process, below I will show you a couple of example pictures to better explain my point of view. However I do not want to end this abruptly, I think that Sunday the 8th, 23.00 GMT can be a reasonable deadline for anybody still wishing to submit any entry. I would like to gather, if possible, any feedback you have on this challenge and any suggestion on how to implement a consistent scoring system. I would like to thank again all the participants. It was quite an impressive airshow. Following a comparison of two hypothetical bananas: (these are by no means "entries", hosts should never enter their own contest imo, apart for "never done before" achievements; moreover there is just the "moneyshot" so I am disqualified) TWR d/V Score Banana2k (sample 1) 0.51 4855 2000.79 Crack O'Maface 3 (sample 2) 0.50 4926 1997.32 In such a close TWR contest I was expecting the second craft to top the score of the first due to the range advantage but I was wrong. As I wrote above, I am open to any suggestion that could help the balance. Sample 1 Sample 2
  12. @tseitsei89: thank you for your entry, that is why team Passionfruit does exist. A whopping 3864.92 points. Best score to date. You are currently holding the "Triple Crown".
  13. Yes: "winged rockets" were pretty much ruled out before the "first amendment"; the original purpose of the challenge I had in mind was to work on aero and TWR balance to maximize the results of a completely reusable utility aircraft. Due to my inexperience in managing the rules and due to the endless resources of the community this is now a grand carnival. A very good one, but in my opinion not exactly "spot on". We are however already approaching the ceilings for a few categories; I gathered enough data (I hope) to propose a new challenge, with a better set of rules.
  14. Oh, I did not read carefully - are you going to submit a passionfuit too?