wibou7

It would probably be easier if we would have screenshots of the rocket, wouldn't it?

Well that one made me laugh. Oh so very Kerbal

WOW! Very very impressive! You really are the king of the cavemen. Sadly, no level flight yet Maybe if you enlarge the lifting surface by A LOT it could somewhat substain level flight..?

Aaah rigth, I just spotted them. It must take a while with only 2 RTGs, though. Unless you have more clipped in of course

Maybe, maybe not. KSP was perfectly stable for me pre-1.1. On 1.1.2, it crashes about once every hour or so. So as a programmer, I'd consider instability sources were introduced between 1.0 and 1.1.2... The code is multi-plaform compatible, so the instability may very well be the same on all platform.

KSP crashes on me since the update.... under Linux. So forget Microsoft Onedrive, it is totally unrelated.

Interesting! I really like the "flip-proof" triangular wheel set. ...but since you don't have solar panels (that I can see in any case) of fuel cell array, how does this rover recharge its battery?

Here is a full album of (a slightly modified version of) the Winter Goose in flight. I tried to give it a bit more autonomy. It kinda worked but the minimum altitude is now even higher. I didn't test for sure but I don't think it would be be capable of level flight below 5000m. There is still room for improvement, though. I could probably remove 2 of the ailerons, maybe 4. That would give slightly less drag, so I could maybe remove an engine. Replacing the large battery with small ones could be something to try as well. The margins are so tight anything could make a difference.

And by "hilarious", I suppose you mean "so funny you will die laughing"?

Hehe thanks for the enthousiam but I don't consider this version to be final at all. My design (just like @UltimateSteve design) has a limited autonomy. I am confident I can improve it into something a least a little bit usable.

Ok, I've made several attempt tonight and I wanted to share my progress. First, this is the "Mutant Butterfly" It was promising, I could get up to 14m/s but I could take off so slowly. Then I experimented adding tons of winglet. Meet the "Hornet" Needless to say, it did not end well: My most promising attempt so far is the "Winter Goose": It can accelerate up to 21m/s on the runway... Needless to say, it is not enough to take off. However, if I somehow bring it to a higher altitude IT IS capable of level flight. At about 4250m, the ION engine has enough trust that it is capable of level flight at ~50m/s. It even build up (very VERY slowly) speed given enough time. I used solid fueld booster on a cart (I know it is against the rules, I was testing out the concept) to bring it to an altitude of 4500m on those pictures. That's why you don't see any wheel on that one (it got jettison with the booster). Then KSP crashed on me; I take it as a sign it was enough for tonight. Impressive!! Have you tried replacing the fuel cell array with static solar panel? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't need that many ion engines if it wouldn't be for the additional weight of the fuel. Even accounting for the drag, it should be superior to using fuel cell at this altitude.

This thread is incredibly interesting. What about using rover wheel to roll past take off speed THEN jettison said wheel? @The_Rocketeer wouldn't that work to get you past 24m/s? But then I guess you wouldn't stay airborne for very long..?

Killboard?

Sooooo if I understand right (no quite sure) the challenge is to either: - LAND 10 kerbals on Eve (can start from Kerbin Orbit OR Launchpad) OR - ORBIT 10 kerbals around EVE and return them to Kerbin Landing 10 Kerbals on Eve does not seem very hard to me... RETURNING from Eve is the hard part. Orbiting and returning wouldn't be terribly hard either.

I had the exact same issue, figured out how to fix it myself... I believe the problem lies on how Unity 1.1 detects dual screen setup on Linux. Basically, on first start, it generates its configuration and saves it to a file. Then on next start, instead of re-detecting the resolution (like it SHOULD do), it just blindly use the configuration file. If the configuration is wrong or if your system changed so that the old resolution is no longer compatible then the game will fail to start... I had the very same issue in another game (Cities: Skylines) based on unity 1.1 as well. I've got to say, I am not impressed by Unity 1.1 AT ALL. This should be basic stuff: hardcoding resolution to a file is a very stupid idea and it WILL generate tons of issues on your users. I hope the rest of their codebase is better Anyway, the bug looked like this for me. In steam, when I clicked "Play", the game status would go from "Running" back to nothing in half a second. Nothing ever happen. I tried reinstalling the game (by using "delete local content" then installing it again) but nothing would work because by doing so Unity buggy configuration file is left untouched. By looking at the logs (that I was able to find thanks to this thread) I could see this in ~/.config/unity3d/Squad/Kerbal\ Space\ Program/Player.log : ...more stuff above... Desktop is 1600 x 900 @ 60 Hz Invalid resolution: 1 x 65290 Failed to initialize ScreenManager If I check into the ~/.config/unity3d/Squad/Kerbal\ Space\ Program/prefs , I have : <unity_prefs version_major="1" version_minor="1"> <pref name="Screenmanager Is Fullscreen mode" type="int"></pref> <pref name="Screenmanager Resolution Height" type="int">65290</pref> <pref name="Screenmanager Resolution Width" type="int">1</pref> <pref name="UnityGraphicsQuality" type="int"></pref> <pref name="UnitySelectMonitor" type="int">-1</pref> </unity_prefs> So Unity expects a resolution of 65290x1. Why, that make perfect sense! Thank you unity for validating your input against my actual resolution! Of course, ScreenManager failed to start using that buggy resolution. So I edited the file and changed the resolution to something that actually make sense (make sure to use something that is compatible with your system!): <unity_prefs version_major="1" version_minor="1"> <pref name="Screenmanager Is Fullscreen mode" type="int"></pref> <pref name="Screenmanager Resolution Height" type="int">1600</pref> <pref name="Screenmanager Resolution Width" type="int">900</pref> <pref name="UnityGraphicsQuality" type="int"></pref> <pref name="UnitySelectMonitor" type="int">-1</pref> </unity_prefs> Having done that, I was able to start the game again.

Ion engines all the way. Satellite is really the use case for them, since they are typically very low weight.Sure they are a tad more expensive than liquid fuel engine but you get more delta-v that you will know what to do with. Ion engine: never again will you wonder if you have enough dv to relocate (tm).

My first was (weirdly enough) Eve. The reason is that I found that Duna is kinda hard to reach using only Manoeuver Node (no window planner or mod). Back in my first career I was still planning my transfer "by hand" and I had found a really good window for Eve. Took me AGE to find one for Duna. My SECOND landing was on Moho. I had found (by hand again) a transfer window to Duna by the time the probe got there (~400days?!?) I had found a window for Moho (~89days). So my second interplanetry landing was a small probe on Moho. I was really short on fuel and the probe kinda lithobreaked but most of the science instrument did survive

You are right. I've made a typo searching for the model and it leads me to something way more bad ass. Sorry about that

Uh, that's VASTLY more powerful than the setup the OP described (or than mine). He will never be able to run 600 parts on his setup.

That's similar to the laptop I run KSP on. It run fine for craft with up to ~300 parts The CPU is definitely the bottleneck, the graphic card is more than enough.

...my god. You are right, why haven't I? I think I'm going to be "sick" for the next few days

This sound very interesting, I'm going to follow this thread closely. Any hints on how to setup the cycler orbit, @jetski? Did you just bruteforce it or was it math involved?

Linux is my main OS. It has been for several years now. I have a dual boot to Windoze for when I have to work with software from the '90 (durrr there is only windows durrr crossplatform is hard durrr we only support internet explore durrrr). But I hate having to reboot to play a game; hell half the reason I bought this game is because they had a Linux version. For the record, my job is to develop embedded software for satellites. So you can imagine that I feel in love with that game very quickly

If you insist on going straight up, another way is to generate more DRAG to slow you down. The Mk1 capsule pod is very aerodynamic... too much for its own good . If you add 3 (radial and symmetrically placed!) basic girders to it, it will decelerate way faster while hitting denser atmosphere. But you will also waste a bit of fuel due to drag while going up, there is no magic.

That's the idea, yes. It was called "Chase" before 1.0. After 1.0, the "Chase" changed slightly, what you are looking for is "Locked".