MR L A

These are some REALLY nice touches... KSP is slowly becoming a nicely polished game imo... if only I had a rig powerful enough to play it at a decent fps lol

THAT WAS SO COOL Yeah, I'd say that was a pretty accurate title imo

Editing: What do you mean by this? If it has a single stage it is an SSTO regardless of how it takes off or if it has wings, wheels, legs, none or all of the above

@Trekkie148 was that screenshot (the one in the sph with CoM and CoL) fuelled or unfuelled? If it was fuelled then that's probably your issue... when the tank empties that CoM is going to shoot backwards... @SiriusRocketry sounds like you need to realign your CoT and CoM

Why do you want it on gog and not steam? Good sales on steam atm

I like to balance practicality and aesthetics with all of my designs... I also like to add a dash of reality, for example, if I'm using MJ for a launch, I alter various settings and vehicle parameters (TWR etc.) until I'm no longer getting reentry burn on the way out. But something that does annoy me slightly is that even my simplest regularly used rocket (1.25m fairing, 2xFL-T800, and a swivel) is nearly an SSTO - in reality the first stage of a rocket doesn't do the majority of work to reach orbit, the second does. For example the SpaceX launch of THAICOM 8 sees MECO and first stage separation at 8331km/h (2314m/s) @ 67km, the second stage then finishes its burn at 36,435km/h (10,093m/s). I often find second stages in KSP are not overly important (if the payload has its own propulsion at least) though this is a very broad statement and is entirely mission dependant... though is true for a lot of in Kerbin SOI work. This isn't really a criticism of the game and nor am I suggesting this is something that should be fixed... it's just simply how physics works given the size of Kerbin. I just find myself a little uncomfortable with it - does anyone else?

Don't you remember? You told me that he phoned you especially and gave you permission to continue his work and redistribute as you see fit

Turn advanced tweakables on > right click landing gear > click "deploy shielded" > problem solved

Yeah, I love that contract pack too! Struggle to play career without it... has contract configurator been updated to 1.51 yet?

Don't thank me, thank SWDennis for making it I'm just happy to share it on his behalf

I play with quicksaves off because I'm a madman Rovers are the one thing I've never really been able to build well... I try to balance practicality, part count, and aesthetics with everything I design... but rovers have consistently defeated me That sounds a lot like you've mastered a very difficult solution to an average-difficulty task

Is it actually deploying?

I know there's the mathematical way to work this out which involves doing the rocket equation in reverse... Is anybody good at maths willing stick it in a spreadsheet and share it with the community? I know it gets pretty complicated when we start calculating for staged launch vehicles too, so it would somehow need to have an option for selecting the number of stages and then inputting their dV and TWR etc... hmmm, sticking weights on rockets and testing is beginning to sound a lot easier now.

I think you might be right... can a mod take this post down please ?

I don’t believe I said they aren’t. What I’m saying is, they’re no longer posted in a single place with a single unifying title that we can all look out for, which was greatly convenient for all. But thanks for sharing, I’d never see one of the update posts on there before.. and I’m not particularly interested in following an entire section of the forum just to check if a post pertaining to 1.6 is made. That said, I am considering deleting this thread if it continues to be as superfluous as it now seems

I really want to try running KSP on one of the AMD APU's like the 2400g Obviously the performance won't be stellar but I currently play it on an old A10-7870K which is significantly worse...

With the death of KSP weekly we lost a great source of information on how the game is progressing. The information is still out there, just not in a single place so far as I have seen. So, with this thread I am attempting to compile the information we have so far for those of us that do not use other social media outlets as much as Squad might like us to. As far as I am aware, there is no thread in the discussion or announcement or development sections that will be posting this information (I'll delete this thread if I've just missed it somehow). Also, a note to the mods: I believe this thread belongs in discussion rather than development for two reasons; first is this section's high visibility to the forum user-base, and secondly because I intend this thread to tread the same waters as the above 1.5 thread. Also, I encourage users to post any additional news that I have missed in the comments! p.s I am in NO WAY trying to take credit for Squad's work here! EDIT: Please, if you have a Facebook account or any other of the social media website I post, PLEASE give the official Squad accounts a like an a follow, show them your support! *********So, ON WITH THE NEWS.*********** 1.6 and the part revamp continues! Part 1 [Original FaceBook Post here https://tinyurl.com/y937ybsx ] A nice Quality of life update here ! 1.6 and the part revamp continues! Part 2 [Original FaceBook Post here https://tinyurl.com/yanaregn ] 1.6 and the part revamp continues! Part 3 [Original FaceBook Post here https://tinyurl.com/y9rgx4gj ]

I'd much sooner have the advanced tweakable Rigid Attachment turned on by default...

You could hold shift to make the notches smaller... unless you already are?

FRONT... well, in front of your centre of lift anyway

Love this mod and can't wait for it to be updated! Can't thank you enough for your work

The developer for SR2 states that it is also coming to PC https://www.simplerockets.com/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/870200/SimpleRockets_2/

Afaik he's currently working on simple rockets two which is much more KSP like Maybe a bit of competition for squad?

seems a bit of a leap to me... sure the wheels still aren't perfect but I've honestly not seen a severe bug for a long time. Perfect? No, of course not. Broken mess? That's a step too far the other way... but I do get what you mean regarding the rest of your comment.