jros83

I use fins as well. Doesn't always work. Assume fins are included in my example.

For reasons unknown to me, it is clear that a rocket that starts with the default orientation, that is, East over the water is on the right, is vastly more stable even sitting still on the pad than one that is, for example, oriented in the VAB to "face" East (something I like to do for standard orbiting, and whether that's right or wrong is not the point of this). I don't see why this is the case. It would be nice in my opinion if a static rocket on the launch pad, all things being equal, starts equally as stable no matter how you have it oriented. As well, for both the launch pad and the runway, why do vehicles always start slightly off the surface and drop in to place? That causes more stability issues with the launch pad than the runway, as on the runway you can always immediatly engage brakes. However, the fact remains that it's bizarre. Is there a behind the scenes reason why we are at 1.05 and vehicles can't start flush on the surface? If not, then I would also suggest that they do. Maybe these things have been explained in the past, but I have missed those explanations. I don't mean to sound upset or disgruntled. I am by no means either of those things. And I am enjoying KSP here at 1.05 as much as I ever have.

Let's assume a smaller rocket with minimal contact points, no struts, symmetrical in both aesthetic and weight distribution, and with no flat surfaces fighting against atmosphere. In such a circumstance, what causes wobble, especially from lift-off to breaking into upper atmosphere? If airflow is the same at any given point and surfaces are aerodynamic, I could only assume vibration? I ask because, whereas using a pilot this can be easily remedied, I like to do small missions early in Career with the Stayputnik, and typically I have no SAS module at this point, or if I do, it's the first gen SAS disc, which still rarely helps with wobble. Most of the time, I end up with a vehicle that tips past critical, or (most commonly) one that starts spinning after separating the first stage, and/or upon engaging second stage engine. I either lose control completely, or spend precious time and fuel trying to right the thing that I do not have sufficient fuel and momentum to complete my goal. Also, when not using a human, I mean, Kerbin, pilot, how can you finely tune movement to correct errors when you can't engage SAS? Because another issue I often face is finding myself nearing the 70km border to space trying desperately to get the thing in a stable orientation, and often failing, because no matter how lightly I tap any direction, it seems the slightest touch is still overcompensating, and I end up in an overcompensation cascade, that is 9 times out of 10 irrecoverable.

I KNEW they didn't retire the F-14! It's now our first starfighter! Nice touch with the VF-17/VF-103 motif.

Thanks for the informative replies. Cheers all around.

I understand there's a limit to where debris disappears. This is not that. I performed a test a moment ago that required low speed and very low altitude, so it was very inexpensive. Because of this, I also tried something for my own amusement. The test was to activate ([run test] worked so I didn't need to do it through staging] the Hammer SRB in a specific altitude and speed bracket. So I went Mk1 command pod, Hammer SRB (removed all fuel in the VAB of course), decoupler, smallest first tier liquid fuel tank, and Reliant engine, and of course topped off with a parachute. Now the EXTRA that I did for my own purposes was to attach a radial chute to the fuel tank + engine assembly, to deploy at the moment of separation. Also I placed the first gen landing struts at the bottom of the SRB so I could recover it intact, because the chute at top of command pod would have just barely not slowed me down enough for the SRB not to wreck on contact with ground. Well everything worked out as I had hoped, being such a small and easy thing. However... The liquid tank + engine assembly, though the chute fired fine and it came to rest on the ground with no damage, was not recoverable when I went back to the space center. There's no way to recover parts that come to rest peacefully, even right at your facility, once they leave your primary vehicle?

You people are doing all these great things. I struggle to orbit Kerbin without maneuver nodes. lol....

That is AWESOME!

lol then it must fly pretty well because I think it looks nice.

That's pretty cool! Is this fully stock? I'd love to give this a try, but I don't want to mess with mods right now.

Could you give more detail about this talk about Geocentrism? We know that literally, the Earth is not in the galactic center (we wouldn't be alive if it were anyway), and as for the spread of the known universe I haven't heard anything about the Milky Way being "center." So what exactly are they talking about, if not referring to Geocentrism as a way of thinking? Asking for real, not flaming. As for Kerbin, and speaking physically and literally, there is no other solar system in the game, let alone another galaxy altogether, to measure by, and Kerbin being a planet is not in the center to begin with...

Had Jeb freefall from roughly 40,000 meters over ocean. At about 750 meters, turned on his pack and began continuous upward thrust. Jeb hits the ocean at about 37m/s. JEB LIVES! Jeb achieves World First 10m ocean depth. lol wut?!

Ahhh, yes, that explains a lot. Specifically why it was showing green when my standard speed reading was above 310. Excellent point, thank you. I'll make the change. EDIT: Thanks Reaper. Contract complete.

Here are the Contract parameters: Kerbin Flying 44,000 to 49,000 meters 180 to 310 m/s I have been able to build a rocket that meets the requirements. I can get to the correct altitude bracket, within the correct speed bracket. However, the requirements do not fully tick on as green no matter what. I have noticed, that even with an apogee (sorry I just like that word more than apoapsis...) well below 70,000, the navball still changes to "orbit" around 36,000 meters. Is that what is bugging this contract, because the game thinks I am heading to orbit (I am not) rather than technically flying over Kerbin (which I am)? Could it also be that perhaps if you are meeting speed requirements while descending, that it doesn't consider that? Lastly, could it be because I'm using a classic VAB designed vertical rocket, and not an SPH built atmospheric exclusive vehicle (I hope not, I'm not geared for those yet)? In either event, there's something that's not clicking here, either a failure on my end or a bug. I only assume a bug because I have repeatedly met requirements only to not have it reflect as such.

100% Agree with this and everything else said here.

I think visually and aesthetically rockets should look like they would in the real world but I think physics and handling should stay as they are in game. It's a nice balance between Close Enough without being Brutally Realistic.

That's just how the PC gaming industry is today. Developers and Publishers save cost and time by releasing a product sooner and cheaper by leaving out logical things, but make the program relatively easy to mod so private folks can do it on their own time and dollar. PLEASE NOTE: This is NOT a swipe at Squad. KSP is a wonderful program that I thoroughly enjoy, and it would be ridiculous for me to attack them for participating in a trend that the majority of the gaming industry is in on.

Q1. I think it's wonky but not in a broken way. As others have said, you can have one early mission generate a good chunk of exp, or you can play baby steps and it seems forever. In the end I think it evens itself out. I'm more about the rockets! Q2. Baby steps. Have to start somewhere. I see the early Kerbin only science missions as training for the real thing, and training gives experience. Q3. I've played World of Tanks/Warships, and War Thunder. I'm not the right guy to ask about if something is grindy. Compared to those grind catastrophes, nothing is "too grindy." My concern is running out of ways to make money. Typically in a Career (Normal difficulty, no custom changes, including keeping reentry heat at 100%) I find myself at about the fourth tech tier completely researched or close to (I usually hold off on Aviation), with few contracts left that make enough money to really get ahead of the costs of missions. I end up having to farm the contracts that ask you to test some part on the launchpad or in atmosphere that generate, surprisingly, much more money than I would think them worth (i.e., test a parachute at 120-240m per second between 3,000 and 11,000 meters, and be rewarded around 20,000 cash for a mission that cost about 1,000 with 100% recovery). Thing is, you don't always get those contracts, and to make room for those kind of contracts I sometimes have to decline ones that want me to do something either beyond my technical capabilities at the time or beyond my personal capability with KSP in general (for instance, I still have to learn how to precisely match orbits, so I'm not comfortable accepting a Rescue mission and run the risk of failing it, for one example). I've been gaming the system. For instance, after getting the Stayputnik, I typically strap it on to a cheap small liquid tank with the LV-909, attach that to cheap basic solid rockets (the cheap early tall ones, BACC I think), and blast it off out of Kerbin's SoI, and have it get captured by Kerbol. It does nothing on its own; there's no science on it, no extra power, no way to generate power. It's just a derelict mass captured by a star. BUT, entering Kerbol's SoI counts as both a Flyby World Achievement and "We Have Enter Orbit Around the Sun" Achievement in one cheap mission, and each Achievement generates about 30,000 cash, so it's over 60,000 right there. But it only counts once. Might be a little gamey, but in my head I justify it as Proof of Concept. EDIT: Earlier I said third tech tier. It should have read fourth. I have fixed that.

Without making a new thread, I want to give a BIG THANKS to Kasper for having helped me with the same issue!

I have not played in a very long time, before 1.0, but as I recall, there was a time landing head first from any altitude would save your Kerbal.

I ticked on unlimited fuel in the debug menu to return from the Mun in Career mode...

that would be cool

but... all of kerbinkind has already planethopped, what's to prove? lol

soooo once they got to Kerbin they forgot everything about space travel and had to start from scratch again...?

former presidents are still addressed as President.