Kymlaar

I noticed some of these same issues in the past when I was using NovaSilisko\'s mod parts in ways they weren\'t designed for, specifically the larger parts. I\'m wondering if the wobble might be an artifact caused by parts that are too large, and that\'s why I experienced it back then. Thanks for the tip concerning the coupler, I\'ll give it a try.

I\'ve run into the instability as well. It seems to be if they have a heavy load above them, or if you combine sizes. The parts looked like they shifting back and forth at their connection points, kind of like this: I found that if I stuck to all one size it worked out for the best. I do wish I had understood the scaling thing though, as I was hoping to be able to visually adjust the size of some components to match others.

For destabilizing orbits, that\'s definitely a problem but we already deal with problems. It\'s one that could be resolved as new features are implemented (speed maintenance auto-pilots for when we\'re not in control, better planning, things like that. If we don\'t have to deal with that ever, than we\'re going to end up with silly things like debris needing to wait until it\'s pushed out of the buffer. We\'re also going to have magical satellites that stay up forever, and effectively break immersion. Don\'t get me wrong, I can certainly accept that. I just worry that there might be really cool things that we\'ll miss out on later on because of it, like space station resupply missions needing to involve transference of RCS fuel and things like that.

I don\'t see a problem with high time warps if you\'re only calculating the effect the orbital bodies have on your ship, and not on each other or you on them. If they\'re on rails that\'s all that would be required, and it would make for a relatively simple equation. This would also avoid the 3-body problem that was being discussed earlier.

It may not be a big deal when you\'re simply calculating out 3 bodies, but what about more than that? And as for the 3+ body problem, the problem only exists because all bodies are effected by one another. If we accept that the planets, moons, and star are all on rails than the calculations no longer result in conservation of energy issues and many of the irregularities go away. So long as the gravitational bodies all remain on rails you should even be able to calculate the trajectories at high speeds. I understand that this is a problem which is partially caused by the framework being used currently, but I worry that Squad is setting themselves up for a headache by using a 'quick-fix' which will result in the end code being more complicated than necessary. PakledHostage: How long did the data take to come up with in all three of the cases? It looks like you\'re doing the exact thing I\'m talking about, so having some hard calculation on the time that set of calculations took would be beneficial to the discussion I believe.

I accept this challenge! Having to land without SAS on something that wants to roll constantly and without a joystick sounds like a joy. I\'ll check back later tonight with an update.

Good work. I\'ll have to give them a try when I\'m off of work today (the .15 versions). For the Peregrine you might want to consider making some adjustments to give it an aerospike for space travel, as it\'s able to run in space it seems. I hope that helps and we see a spaceworthy version of it soon!

I gave it a try. It worked great, though for some reason when I was on my way into the moon the engine wouldn\'t thrust with the last fuel tank (it was a bit odd). Aside from that, which I\'m calling a bug, it\'s pretty easy, small, and stable. Good work.

Adding in the improved pictures of the launch system, as well as the RCS nodes for control/thrust in space. As a note, I\'ve removed all of the smoke from my engines to cut down on lag (commented them out), but everything is stock short of that adjustment: Launcher design (mirrored). Likely overdone. RCS Thrusters. More RCS and just a nice picture.

No offense taken. I\'ll take some pictures from the VAB to show off the design. That should help. Thanks for the feedback!

Nice! I really wouldn\'t expect something that small to make it all that way. I suppose with that little weight it can manage it. Slowing down must be hair-raising though. Good job!

I left them up there for 7 Kerbal days while I worked on improving designs, and then decided it was time for them to come home. Using RCS they slowed their orbital velocity and were able to achieve re-entry, heading directly for the landing strip and coming in for a smooth landing without a hitch! http://i.imgur.com/TQUGG.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/I7ASr.jpg Next this crew will shoot for taking a spaceplane to the moon! A silly but entertaining project.

Nice. I downloaded and gave it a try. The thing you did with the fuel tanks in fuel tanks is wacky. ??? Definitely does pretty well though. I managed to bring it around for a landing, but didn\'t stick it I\'m afraid.

I\'m not sure if this is the right place for this, so please feel free to move it. I wanted to show off my first Kerbal shuttle in an official orbit! Still with final booster section attached. Final booster separation. In free orbit without it\'s boosters. It has large amounts of RCS to help with adjustments, and will be using said RCS at it\'s Apoapsis in order to achieve re-entry. Around 12,000 meters I plan to initiate the main engine and perform a controlled landing. This design has had several landing tests and land to space to land transition tests, so it seems to be fully functional. It\'s not pretty, it\'s not perfect, but it\'s a good start I think! What do others think? **Attachment is for the VAB** *Deleted from General and moved here*

It definitely does. Thanks for the quick reply.