• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

89 Excellent


About SchweinAero

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1380 profile views
  1. The two-way split presumably makes for less cycling whenever you want to cut the charge consumption of a reaction wheel, such as when entering atmo on a glider with limited solar panels. I haven't run into a situation where this is crucial, but since the context menu is not overly wordy I'd prefer for the settings to stay separate.
  2. MechJeb does not let you plan an ascent one throttle setting and one degree of heading at a time, though. Actually programming the autopilot yourself is a whole different challenge.
  3. Your suggestion will receive better momentum if you mention kOS, the state-of-the-art mod, and say why it won't do.
  4. Not many people except for everyone and their goldfish. Not even us warp-then-sync proponents like the idea because it wreaks havoc on the idea of predictable transfer orbits.
  5. That's no Boomerang, it's a Möwe.
  6. I'm still inclined to think the effect is psychological, but I will now make sure to test it for myself. It might have something to do with the aerodynamic forces on vertical and angled nacelles with lateral velocity. Edit: the results are in and it seems @Dafni was right. Having engines far from the CoM and tilted toward the CoM are two ways to give their gimbals a longer lever arm - better control authority. If you lock gimbals, all-vertical and tilted setups work identically except for thrust loss.
  7. Physically speaking this should not be the case, unless it's some consequence of ground effect (not in KSP) . I wonder if and how it really happens.
  8. This thread could do with a name that avoids confusion with (part attachment) nodes. Maybe "Separate editing of maneuver vector and magnitude"?
  9. Thread's over, folks. Yall have better things to do than this.
  10. There is no end to how much I support this ability. I often fly impromptu grav assist routes on little fuel, and it would be an amazing help to see where the same Dv can take you if you point your nose differently.
  11. It is not going to be the yellowish-white we know and love, though.
  12. This thread was three weeks old at the time of the OP.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.