Kerburettor

Thanks for the indication. I figured I'd open a new thread as per the forum recommendation because the FAR thread is getting a bit too long. But maybe this is the right way

Any idea? Or did I post this thread in the wrong subforum?

Haha I was not planning on using ms paint although this could have been fun. I'm going to start with more trivial examples as you suggested. Maybe I'll try my hand at creating a fuel tank. Sometimes I see works of art such as this one and wanna burn steps but then I realise I don't even know how to exploit Gimp to the summit of its potential and consistently generate a correct normalmap. I'll try to do that by the end of the week if my work laptop stops crashing and spamming me with BSODs....

Thank you @Benjamin Kerman for taking the time to answer my questions. As for cockpits, I hear these are rather difficult parts to mod as they require you to model both the exterior and the interior for IVAs. Are there any existing examples I could draw inspiration from? I feel motivated but lost at the same time. Also I didn't know that I had to install Unity. Is KSPParttools a mod?

I'm new to mods. Never modded before on ksp although I've got rudimentary experience with modding (on a rugby video game). So I've got everything to learn. My plan is to create cockpits and other aviation parts for ksp but I have absolutely no clue where/how to start and so far I haven't found any tutorial that explains the process. Which softwares and tools will I have to use? I guess most image manipulation programs such as Gimp or Photoshop will do for rendering. Then there's surely Blender which I have never used before. I suppose the learning curve is quite high, but it doesn't matter. If someone has some video to share with me or a quick tutorial, it will be more than handy as a first introduction to the software. But is that all? I think there are other elements I should be aware of. Will I need to generate config files? What do I write/generate them with?

I've been playing with FAR for the past three weeks month already and I wouldn't say I feel at home using it, but it's like sleeping with a heavy snorer. You get used to the pain. After successfully managing to carry out lengthy survey missions in the upper layers of the atmosphere (still, I wouldn't have done it without Boris' atmosphere autopilot and its wonderful fly-by-wire capabilities), I think Cpt. Valentina 'Val' Kerman likes her planes with a bit more oomph. She asked her engineers to design a beast that will "take my breath away™". After nearly two weeks of hard labour in an obscure soviet camp, this was the preliminary prototype: Since last week, I've been tweaking some parameters a little bit, adding mass where needed to allow the center of mass to be noticeably in front of the aerodynamic center due to a tendency for the aircraft to flip over when subject to important angles of attack. Re-discovering KTech's Saturn AL-31FM1 engine was a true epiphany as it allowed me to care less about the very subtle trade-off between TWR, Dv and CoM-CoL positions. It also significantly increased my Dv and my ability to recover from stall (TWR going from 0.80-something to 1.15): At an altitude of 2km at around Ma = 0.3, which is the typical flight regime where you want to attempt the Cobra (cf. for instance... ) But the aircraft remained uncontrollable during stall. Here is my aerobatic attempt: and here the way I configured my primary and secondary control surfaces: My questions are: 1 - Why is my aircraft not post-stall maneuverable? I think I've got a rough idea why that would be the case: My pitch rate derivative is positive at the flight regime at hand, which means that the aircraft will tend to pitch over if the AoA becomes too important. What should I do to improve post-stall pitch control at a very high AoA WITHOUT having to change the geometry of the aircraft too much? 2 - What should I do to prevent my aircraft from obliterating when subject to intense g-loadings (I'm talking about g-forces > 6~7)? I mean sometimes I feel like native FAR structural parameters will cause structural failures even when my dynamic pressure is way lower than breaking point. My plane is profusely strutted, especially in the wings and wingroots. Additionally, autostruts were added and had to be set to "heaviest part" for most of the components otherwise I'd have parts colliding with each other at launch, which I suspect is due to the complexity of my build (88 parts). I sadly had to deactivate structural failure in the FAR GUI or my plane would not be capable to engage in any stunt. 3 - More particularly, what would you give as an input for parameters such as AoA% for each of my control surfaces? I understand that I'd better put -100 for my front canards as it helps them align with the airflow and energize the detached turbulent boundary layer over the wings to try and regain control after stall. What should I put for the rear stabilizers? I didn't have much time to delve into knowledgeable resources but I'd be more than glad if you suggested me a few reliable pdfs or books for bedtime reading. A few interesting papers on supermaneuverability I had already found are Rick Cory's PhD thesis and Sibilski's article among others works, but I have yet to dissect them carefully... Thank you for reading so far. Hopefully my design is not so deeply flawed that I'd have to start over

I actually encountered the same lag a few weeks ago. Removed ksp wheels which I thought was causing issues (and it did, whenever I replaced these landing gears by stock parts, it stopped lagging) and decreased graphics quality. Did not have any issue ever since.

Got two ships to french kiss each other in outer space and without SRBs (because I'm a stupid headless kerbal) PS: can someone help me insert pictures? Edit n°2: got it

There's a lot of common sense in your comments. I've decided to put that project between brackets for the moment and focus on a station-around-Mun mission instead, which proved to be far easier. I'll go rescue a Kerbal who's stranded in a low Kerbin orbit and make her go plant a flag on the Mun or something, this will clear up a few slots in my contracts. I checked the Munar map and you were right, these 7 sites are amassed into two main regions on the Mun. I'll send up two rovers for each one of these if I manage to collect a bit more science until then I guess you don't want to spend unnecessary time for elements which bring nothing from a gameplay perspective.

For some reason I can't insert my picture from an existing url (from the steam website) so you can find it here: https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/937214613627046551/5D67826B326539820B7F25CFEB3CCCB712C60865/

I play ksp v.1.6.1.2401 on Windows 64bits. The game visually glitches a little bit, especially when I'm on or around KSC's runway. But gameplay is relatively sound and the game runs smoothly enough (30-something fps by my standards is smooth) considering the quality of my setup. I had to sacrifice a few graphical elements to get it to run without lagging during atmospheric flight: reduce aerodynamic sfx and screen resolution among other things. Edit: And I also deleted some mods that appeared to induce lags

In an unwise attempt at gathering science at all costs, I accepted surface survey missions on the Mun. You might be tempted to answer "you just have to decline them". But hold on, I don't want to impact my reputation by doing so, plus I'm a stubborn mind who's ready to do things the most kerbal way if possible. Do I pack Dvs and cross fingers? This could be unrealistic because a series of take offs and landings on the surface of the Mun might be too much (I have 7 sites to visit). I haven't done calculations but this MIGHT be possible. Someone like Stratzenblitz75 or Turbo Pumped would find a way to achieve that with less than 5 tons, but I'm no Stratzenblitz. I was thinking about a rover, but this will take an eternity to get from one site to another. I have relatively few items unlocked in the tech tree (see figure below): I was also thinking about harvesting the surface of the Mun and exploiting the ore to produce fuel and supply my needs for a lengthy mission. But again, this will take days if not months if not years!! Considering the current state of my tech tree do you think it can still be a conceivable endeavor? Or do I better give up for my sanity?

Thank you for this warm welcome and your advices! My first contact with ksp was through watching Scott Manley's videos (I've got to thank Youtube's algorithm for this)! He's got a knack for explaining astrophysics in a somewhat precise yet casual manner. I'm an avid viewer and got to learn the basics before I decided to purchase the game. Orbital mechanics isn't completely foreign stuff to me but I really appreciated to get a taste of what it meant to manipulate conics in a fun-oriented game. I reckon I'll need to become more organized in the way I play this game. It's easy to get carried away by all the different missions and forget to tidy up your gameplay, which means (in my case) forgetting to erase supernumerary savefiles, useless contraptions, and not scheduling properly. Your remark on biomes reminded me that a mission needs to be well thought through in order to optimize science collection. This is work in progress for me; Not only in the game but also in real life. I kinda rush into things and forget a lot of necessary details that would have prevented me from headbanging the nearest wall. I was amazed at how poorly mechanical contact is simulated when it comes to wheels. Surely real life aircraft landing gears don't have to go through elastic collisions. Sometimes, springs seem to have negative damping, but that may come from conflicting mods and Kraken-like behaviours when you run out of memory (which is odd because I'm supposed to have plenty of it, I'll blame the GPU for bottlenecking my laptop)... I know the first equation for having derived it in highschool quite a while ago during our physics classes (we simply called it the rocket equation), but didn't immediately make a link with the notion of Delta-v. Sometimes I wonder if I have to go through back-of-the-envelope computations before launching a mission. These seem like a waste of time but such is the bread and butter of an engineer I guess! Planning appears to be the step between failure and success... I had an intuition of this principle, but never went through the actual explanation and certainly didn't know that it was called the Oberth effect! I did notice that when I don't have enough Dv for a maneuver, I should often start my burn even before the scheduled time (scheduled_time = maneuver_node_time - burn_time/2) because if my second engine has a greater specific impulse, the remaining amount of burn will take more time than what was originally planned by the computer. Does that make any sense? Now things are getting interesting. I don't quite understand how my gravity turns are supposed to look like depending on the rocket I'm launching. How do I time it? More often than not, I have the unsettling feeling that I could have saved a few hundred m/s of Dv by managing my trajectory a bit better.

Hi mate, there might be some conflict between this mod and another one you have already installed. It happened to me as well but I couldn't pinpoint which one was causing the issue. Best thing you can try is start from a vanilla install and only download the compatible version of B9 procedural parts.

Hi everyone, Glad to be part of the community! Hey, don't leave just yet!! I discovered KSP a month ago, and have been binge playing it. For the (unhealthy) amount of time and effort put into this game, I haven't done extraordinary things. Just managed to visit the Mun or Minmus a couple of times each, using a few dozen savefiles in the process. I still don't have a firm grasp of what makes a decent rocket. To be honest, I'm more of a planes guy... so I decided to install what looked like the nec plus ultra of aviation for KSP, FAR that is (and a few other mods because I really fancied that su-30 or f-35 replica). But I'm trying to keep the gaming experience light enough for my set-up, so I had to - sadly - resign myself to accept that I would not be able to run KSP with stunning visual enhancers. I actually use my business laptop and it's not too shabby, but obviously it wasn't destined to run video games so despite its theoretically encouraging specs, it still doesn't make the cut. Anyway. I'm playing career mode, and I'm struggling to make it to the next level, which means making enough science to leave Kerbin's satellite system, and in the meantime understanding how to actually play the game to create rovers, probes and whatnot, then launch them into space. I can't say I've made enough attempts at orbiting a probe around Kerbin to call it quits, but it is also quite certain that I know very little about rocket science, which is why I'm here today among you kerbalnauts to learn from your wisdom. How hard can rocket science be anyway? Kerbally yours