Giggleplex777

Apparently, there's also a limit to how long each fairing section is and it's not very long.

Yes, a single piece interstage would be awesome! I hope this is true, although (knowing SQUAD) it is very unlikely that they will a one-piece interstage.

Thanks for the reply. I'm looking forward to see what you guys are able to do. Hopefully they separate outwards from the top like real fairings, since most fairings in KSP have their ejection force at the bottom (which could be a hazard for your rocket).

Do the fairings always separate in segments?

It would be nice if the large fairings split (vertically) in three parts instead of two, or, even better, the option to choose how many parts the fairing splits into. Also, a problem with large fairings is that the game likes to eject them from the bottom rather than at the top, and with no way of adding sepratrons on the fairings, the top of the fairings could end up hitting the accelerating rocket below.

Click on "My Account" and then "Transfer Purchase". IIRC, this only works if you purchased the game before it was available on steam (~March 2013), so you're probably out of luck.

I've been playing with gizmos since 0.90 was released, but I don't have time to play the game lately. :/

Screw strategies! >:3

I've converted the ZF-22/23 into a heavy ground attack aircraft to fully take advantage of the twin vertical engines. Behold, the A-20: It carries two large SRB missiles and two small sepratron missiles, whose combined mass is about 8 tonnes(!). Including the armament, a fully loaded A-20 weighs about 16 tonnes. Due to the large mass of aircraft, a single vertical jet engine would not suffice, and here's where the swiveling engine design comes into play. The A-20 only needs two engines rather than 3 in a comparable fixed-engine jet because the swiveling engine can act as a vertical engine or a horizontal one. So in theory, it would be lighter and have better performance*. Here's a demonstration mission I performed with the A-20: Managed to blow up the admin building. There are still some tweaking the needs to be done, but it's almost ready for release. *Unfortunately, the additional weight of the balancing parts and the hinge add up to ~1t, so there really is no performance edge. That said, it's waaaaay cooler than a conventional VTOL.

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?

It didn't work very well.

I will have my revenge. One day... EDIT: The shuttle was named Enterprise if you want to put it in the registry I've encountered this bug several times before, and it has been a major hindrance to shuttle missions. Here was flight that didn't quite make it back intact: I believe it is caused by leaving your spacecraft in orbit for too long since shorter missions don't tend to suffer the same fate. Surprising how this old bug hasn't fixed yet. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I've made a prototype of a slightly redesigned second stage to first stage connection of the Gamma series last year. The cubic strut truss was lengthened and connects directly to the first stage tank. I then surface attached the 2.5m to 1.25 adapter to the tank and then, using the offset tool, I shifted it over to the center of the truss. Since the struts are connected to the adapter, you'll have to add a few more struts from that to the fuel tank below. For my tests, it's slightly sturdier than the original, but there are still improvements that could be made.

I changed the screenshot button to 1, so I take lots of screenshots of pretty much every mission. I usually end up having to make 2 folders with 2000+ screenshots for each version of the game. By my estimations, I have amounted roughly 40 000 screenshots during the three years I've played KSP. That's about 80Gb worth. Yeah... I made 7 different Imgur accounts.

It would be nice to know the maxium capacity of your lifters, so we can chose the right one for the mission. You should also show off your rockets in this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/99965-Showcase-Show-off-your-Launch-Vehicles!

Peregrine as in a wanderer or traveller. The rockets are named with words that approximately mean "traveller".

Would look better on an Android device without those cluttered icons obscuring the background.

The twin engine booster was nerfed in 0.24 so it is now less efficient than the Mainsail(which got a buff). These rockets are a bit outdated now, with those heavy structural panel fairings and all.

While it's not the first, it's certainly one of the best (if not the best) executed. Awesome job gGATORr!

I'm planning on building a new shuttle with mk3 parts to carry larger payloads. Meanwhile, I'm working on replacing the nose of the Odysseus Orbiter so it works in 0.90. Alas, I don't have the time right now to do either.

Reminds me of my first asymmetrical rocket from 0.17: ^Note the unusual appearance of the second stage; it had a cluster of LV-909s that I somehow clipped inside. Of course, this was before cubic struts were added, so engine clusters were very difficult to make. I'll just leave this here... ...and this:

Sorry about that. The quote turned the [noparse] in to url tags[/noparse].It should look like this: [noparse][imgur]pI08Z">Javascript is disabled. View full album[/noparse]

Here's a guide I posted in my Launch Vehicle showcase thread: [/noparse]The end result should look like this:

In that case you should try reducing the fuel in the core stage. You probably don't need all that fuel anyways.

You can also make hinges with LV-1Rs and landing legs.