Dman Revolution

Hey everyone, So i thought, "my shuttle is already a slideshow, I can spare a few extra parts!" Well 600 parts later we have this:

No, just the SRB skirts.

Hey all! I got this exact version working after giving up about a week ago. I lined the underside and the top of the skirts with elevons and it worked perfect. Heck it works better and more realisticly than my old one!

should work now

Was working on this last night: (Full album including use of the arm: https://imgur.com/a/HSZGhbv)

Glad to see this got posted. I'd almost just make the thread about all your series, not just this one!

Could totally work for scooping jool, laythe, or eve's atmosphere tho. You just get a really low concentration of ore.

Are you following the placement conventions for radiators? You need to place them within 2 or 3 part connections. Ie: (Parts in order of placement to each other) Fueltank (root) -> fueltank -> radiator |---> drill

@mystik Ah I think I finally realize your misunderstanding... Kerbal Space Program is NOT a flight simulator. You should NOT expect it to look or play like FSX or any other sim, because it is not. You don't expect physics simulation games to look like crisis, and should not expect kerbal to look like crisis either. For example: although I would say a game like BeamNG looks pretty good, not insane, but decent. I don't expect it to have lense flares and crazy reflections because thats not why you play that game. If you want a fun spaceflight simulator go play orbiter.

Working through a problem to reach a solution is at the end of the day engineering. Doesnt matter if im playing a game with flying frogs or in real life. My stuff broke in game? Lemme figure out why it broke and how to fix it. I don't think that thought process is any different in real life. What you might be surprised to find out that I do minimize the parts I have on my ships. I still get terrible framerates. If there is an engine that allows for better total part performance, great! I'd love that. Do you have any example of this hypothetical "Great Physics and Graphics" engine? One that can handle large particle effects and a large amount of physics simultaneously? Also, by saying that youre happy to deal with low part craft and thats why you want better graphics youre implying that your way of playing the game is the only way the game should be played. This is where my comparison to minecraft and lego comes. You can play Kerbal in any dang way you want. Just like lego, just like minecraft. Just planes, microcraft, dyson rings, I don't care do it. If you were to change the way the game performs you would be taking out many possibilities. Theres a reason minecraft is mainly just blocks. Theres a reason why lego has a relatively standardized connection process. If you were to change those you'd lose so many possibilities. I'm not telling you how to play Kerbal, so why are you telling me how to play? EDIT: might I also say that you can't state how kerbal was meant to be played so the statement: "The game was not built to handle very big ships and models." is invalid

1. I never said it teaches you math. It gives you the opportunity to learn math if you want to get really good. 2. You didn't refute the engineering argument because you can't. 3. ksp is to minecraft as minecraft is to lego. (yes I played both before getting into kerbal back in like 2013) 4. Please check out some of the things I work on. I can assure you that moving to a more intensive engine would make some of these projects impossible: Space Shuttle: https://imgur.com/a/hdJQZ6I Robotic arm for space shuttle: https://imgur.com/a/yZwWac1 Multi satellite deployment: https://imgur.com/a/tx01Smn Large space station (built with shuttle and modified with arm. can easily get close to 1300 parts): https://imgur.com/gallery/VmkeBmV Actually reusable spaceplane: (Has flown 8 times without recovery, 5 more already planned) https://imgur.com/gallery/VCsrc94 International Space Station: (Worst part about this one is that I still dont feel comfortable building it until I get my new PC. Planning on using the arm for the whole thing) https://imgur.com/a/QWXPlty Starship (BFR): https://imgur.com/a/HVa6RPN Large Duna Base (Id like to add more ground pieces, but again part limits lol) https://imgur.com/gallery/Ju8U961 (and check out EJ_SA on twitch. He builds whole 1500-2000 part launch complexes and actually contructs falcon 9's at the desert. Hes working on a shuttle system to do the same thing rn) Now, as a student who is studying aerospace engineering I feel that kerbal has actually influenced my decision. It allowed my love for space to blossom. If it wasn't so readily available I don't think I wouldve been able to play it back when I first started. I don't want to take that away from anyone.

Honestly if there are gonna be further planets then the timewarp system needs to be reworked. I dont think extra scaling would work because you know how it feels to time warp past something by accident. There would need to be better implementation of the auto-warp feature. Specifically continuing a high scale warp for longer instead of cutting it in half when you even get remotely close.

This is a game about science and engineering. I personally find the fact that the base game with fairly simple vehicles is extremely easy to run a huge selling point. More people can play the game and more people can learn math, science and engineering from it in ways that you can't even learn in school. Even beyond that, I have a fairly beefy system. Im not gonna say an i7 from a few generations ago and a 1060 3gb is insane, but even with that I push maybe 6-15 fps with some of my ships. Thats why I dont play with mods like scatterer and EVE. I doubt unreal has a more efficient physics engine, and if it doesnt have a more efficient engine then large crafts and multi vehicle bases and systems would be near impossible. I don't know what kind of nasa hardware youre working with, but I sure as heck dont have that kind of cash. At the end of the day I honestly think youre being quite selfish by essentially asking squad to take the game away from its many fans on low powered pcs. If you find a game that works exactly like kerbal that looks and runs better, lemme know cause I would be interested in playing... Edit: I see after reading again you mentioned how if the whole industry were basing off ... (clipped)... wed still be playing minecraft. ...You realize ksp is essentially just minecraft in space, and, although i dont know if its a stated goal by squad but, it should have the same availability as minecraft for the educational value it provides.

Specifically missions to land the shuttle itself on other bodies. I can get a shuttle to the Mun or Duna using tugs, but I doubt I can pull off landings with a realistic shuttle. Let alone trying to return from the surface of other bodies. I was thinking of using landing carts that could either be carried there by a shuttle with a tug or just use my aforementioned centaur-g.

So after many attempts I had to give up as the game wasnt allowing me to place struts on the new srbs, so I couldnt keep them from shaking apart. That plus the 7 or so minutes between *Press Launch* > stationary on pad > spacebar > explosion. After a few hours of that I just modified my current one with a 2.5-3.75m adapter and it looks good enough. I also built a Centaur-G with deployment mechanism like this: And it actually rotates at about the same point as in this picture, allowing me to use the full length of the bay instead of having to waste a bit to attach it to the aft of the bay. Ill post some pics later with all the upgrades. I might take a look at trying some of the new challenges with my current shuttle. @4x4cheesecake Would you mind if I modified the challenges a bit for myself as to try and perform them with pieces of the real and proposed shuttle program?

I just had the idea to add control surfaces parallel with the underside of the srb skirt. The extra drag will pull the COP down. Ill try that later as I'm not at my PC rn. If that stabilizes it then I'll go ahead with optimization for ascent. I'll keep you guys up to date

Ive tried. You should see the body lift vector those fairings produce going supersonic lol. The next best thing I managed was to use structural tubes, and those seem to have worked, but I just need to solve some twr issues with it. It doesnt look nearly as good as those do tho

The fairings generate a huge amount of body lift past mach 1, so if launched individually they flip the second they pass mach 1. This translates to extreme roll and yaw instability past mach 1. Previously I had used a much smaller fairing at the top of the srb with a large number of control surfaces angled out to lower the center of pressure, essentially pulling it like the string on a balloon keeping it stable. With the fairings its difficult to clip or use at all the control surfaces like I did previously, so I'm looking for other options.

Hey all, I've been working on a new srb design. It has an outer shell and then a cluster of srbs as the "core". The core srbs are all configured to essentially go through thrust tail off through the launch. They were built separately then the core was placed in the shell. This is what I have so far: It no longer shakes itself to pieces from all the clipping, but its horribly aerodynamically unstable. My previous variant had a bunch of control surfaces at the base of the srb moving the Center of pressure down keeping it stable. Due to the fairings and their crazy body lift even if I add a reasonable amount of control surfaces it still doesn't help. (Those ants are to simulate lox venting and are surface attached to the vectors) Does anyone have any ideas on how to stabilize this new design more? The fairings are the only difference between this version and the older one.

Ya know what, you're right. I actually completely forgot about that comment. Ignore previous posts lol

@4x4cheesecake I don't know if you saw this, but if you have time maybe we can look at designing a challenge together using my arm? (its a subassembly with all of its ports attached to the wide I beam at the base of the arm)

I appreciate the info, but honestly I only have a few craft that are fully self sustained deep space vehicles, so I wouldn't be too into that lol. Most of the stuff I do is in LKO, I even have a 250t ssto plane that uses a stock gantry to reintegrate payload, including a reusable upperstage. @Ultimate Steve Heck, I just remembered... If you guys want an arm for the station, I got one. It can snake its way around on jr docking ports. I don't have any pics rn, but if yall are interested I can take a look at posting some

Hey, thanks for the quick reply! I had a feeling that the shuttle was a no go, but I thought I might at least leave the door open for you guys lol. As for the Dragon 2, like I said in the original post, it is *technically* reusable since everything except the in oms fuel and the solar panels, but thats all a moot point seeing as you guys are all set. Looks real good, thats why I was hoping to hop in lol

@Ultimate Steve Not trying to spam, I just don't know if tag notifications go through when a post it edited

@michal.don Hey, I'm the guy that posted the canadarm a few months back. With that guy doing the hubble repair mission, I thought of a mission idea for my arm! A Hubble servicing mission! (Woo exciting seeing as I spoiled it in the previous sentence) It could be a solar array repair, or even a gyro repair if you build Hubble with modular sas units. Basically use the arm to retrieve hubble, place it in the bay, and then use the arm or mmu's to move the replacements around. Heck you could even use it for a total retrieval mission. (IT BELONGS IN A MUSEUM!)