Giggleplex777

Why not both?

I think this would work way better though: Seriously, the stats of current RT-5 is GARBAGE.

I demonstrated that they don't fire even when they are out side of the fairing by first pushing the stage out with ullage motors before trying to ignite the engine. I agree. What was the point of disabling things inside the fairings anyways? They should reverse this decision ASAP.

Then you won't understand why people are afraid of the reentry heating.

Have you flown a spaceplane in 1.0? 80% of them don't survive reentry.

No, it works fine if you separate the fairings first. I wanted the fairing to stay in one piece like a lot of real life interstages.

Having the same problem here too:

The main problem I have with the nerf is the performance of engines designed to operate in the vacuum. The performance of my spacecraft in orbit have been significantly compromised. That really sucks.

Just a heads up guys: Drogue chutes work on the ground now!

After a couple of tests, I found that the mass of the fairings are fixed. That is, if the base weighs 0.15t, it will always weigh 0.15t no matter how big the fairing is. But damn are those textures ugly. ^It would've looked better if it was just light grey.

Did anyone mention how ridiculously heavy the fairings are? a small 1.25m fairing weighs ONE TONNE. Fairings are meant to be as light as possible, not made of solid lead.

IRL, liquid hydrogen (used by NERVAs) has very low density, which is why the Delta IV rockets are much bigger than Atlas Vs but still have the same lifting capacity. A low density tank actually makes it more realistic.

Interesting idea. This would make exiting out of vehicles a lot easier, and we wouldn't have to worry about blocking the hatches for the cockpits.

The sad things is, we were supposed to get a complex Kethane-style resource system in 0.19, but instead we got this over-simplify version of it. In retrospect, the ore system isn't actually all that bad of an idea, but the new scanning system is absolute garbage. Many of those parts were made for 0.19, and would have worked quite differently than what they do now. For example, the high-gain sensor was designed to make broad and generalized scans of a planet from far away, eg. a flyby situation. The narrow band scanner would have been used in a low-attitude polar orbit scanning satellite, where it would make narrow and more accurate scans in the manner of mapsats (requiring multiple passes). I like this system, but apparently it's too complicated for SQUAD, so they give us a POS system instead.

Ah, great minds think alike. Here's a portion of what I sent to Harv:

I can't stand most of this streams after a few minutes. Most of them build a crappy rocket and then fail and fail again. On slightly different note, Space Scumbag made a nice preview video without an excessive amount flying:

I've already sent HaresteR a detailed PM concerning the atrocious RT-5 and how a 0.625m SRB should replace it. Hopefully I'll get a reply.

I think ore should be sold for much more the fuel costs, since it probably has some magical properties (ie. the ability to invert it to different things). I can imagine ore retrieval missions where you have to bring back a certain amount of ore for a large sum of funds in return. Recovering fuel for funds is not ideal as fuel have little value compared to the tanks themselves. The ore must be valuable, especially if you're going so far to mine it.

That's pretty harsh. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean you could be rude and impolite.

Just sent a PM to HarvestR with suggestions on improving the RT-5 "Flea" booster. I really hope that I'll get a reply this time.

Mod integrations are decided by the devs, not the community. We've been asking for useful mods to be included such as KAC and KER and it never happened. The round 8 was changed back because the majority of the community advocated against the changes. You would be frustrated too if you had been trying to get at least a reply for two years. I don't think it is unreasonable to think that a representative from SQUAD can't reply to more than two posts. All I want is an indication that they have read and considered my suggestions and ideas. The game is about to be released as a complete game and there are still simple, glaring issues concerning the balance of some parts that could be fixed in a few minutes, yet they have failed to do so for several updates.

I've given up nagging to SQUAD and download KER a while ago. They won't reply to any of my questions and suggestions even if I'm the first poster in a Dev note. Good luck getting your point across to them. First page of a devnote: That is going to screw a lot of designs up. Why not just make a new 1.25m xenon tank and add a 1.25m electric thruster (doesn't have to be the same type as the current 0.625m one)? Look, even the creator of the tank believes that it should stay as it is: And while you guys are at it, could you please add more 0.625m parts? The smaller sized parts have been neglected for many updates and 1.0 could potentially make the problem worse. Smaller jet engines, intakes, long 0.625m fuel tanks, and a better nosecone (the current one is outdated and weights 0.1t) would be great. I feel that SQUAD lacks testers that like to build aesthetically, that this, a builder who utilizes a variety of parts to create something "unconventionally", like the creations in this thread. Many of those creations use the toroidal tank as an important part of the design and would not function if the part was changed, and a skilled craft builder would would've noticed the consequences of the change immediately. Just look at all the complaints throughout this thread. Adding new parts has no real downside, and it gives us builders more tools to play with. The aforementioned 0.625m parts would allow for a plethora of great new designs and would benefit everyone would plays the game. Don't let me down, SQUAD! If jet engine behavior is going to be changed, a ramjet/scramjet would be nice to have too. It would allow for more realistic jet engines that aren't overpowered, and sits nicely between turbojets and rockets. RAPIERs would be more useful as convential turbojets won't be enough for SSTOs. Another addition for the turbojet could an afterburner. The dry thrust of the engines should be lowered, and the afterburner could be used to reach the current thrust levels. Of course, activating the after burner would consume much more fuel, but it would make the jet engines more balanced and allow for some cool glowing exhaust plumes on jets. Who wouldn't want that? Nope, nothing. Although there was enough community uproar that they did end up reverting the changes to the torodial tank. Ramjets would work marvelously with the new jet engine behavior, but obviously SQUAD didn't think so. First reply to the 0.90 Q&A: Couldn't even get an answer in the questions and answers thread. sigh. There are a couple more but you guys get the point. SQUAD doesn't give a damn about what 99% of us say, unless you can get the entire community behind your back.

Did you guys see the limit on how long each fairing segement is? It's ridiculous! Even if they couldn't fuse the segments together, at least let them be longer than one meter! :mad Almost as disappointing was the Flea booster, which is another 1.25m SRB instead of a much more useful 0.625m one. They also decided to nerf the already useless RT-10. Why SQUAD?