M5000

Ugh, another update. Perfect <3 I am loving those new sounds. Gonna download as soon as I get home. Also, I'm looking forward to any pods you guys end up adding, as I'm sure it will be worth the wait. Do you have any details you're willing to divulge about the Ceres pod? Anything, even basics such as crew capacity or general styling? I'm glad you guys hold your work to such a high standard, it really shows. KW is the one mod I would keep if I had to get rid of all others. It is absolutely indispensable to my designs and work, BECAUSE of the high standards and beautiful models included within it. Love this pack! -M5K

I'm 20. I design all my base craft (planes, rovers, un-payloaded rockets) to look excellent. I only accept the highest quality mod packs such as KW and B9, and spend more time in the VAB/SPH than anything. A craft isn't considered legitimate until it's been tested countless times and has proven itself to be reliable. Once a lifter has proven itself reliable, I will attach it to a payload that is to be sent on a mission, and try my best to fit it into the fairings. Sometimes, however, it doesn't fit. I try to design big, beautiful rockets, and elegant, sleek spaceplanes. However, thus far, I fail at spaceplanes so I've yet to build anything worth flying.

I'd just like to add my two cents in here, I've been getting the frequent crashes that other users are describing, I use other mods, but I imagine it's not just me having too many mods, as I've seen Cyberstate say, he's tried removing everything and it didn't fix it. I've also been running B9 alongside several other mods for a long time before this update with no problems whatsoever. But now, even after removing a lot of mods, it doesn't seem to fix the problem. There weren't THAT many parts added this update were there? I mean, I'm sure I removed as many or more parts as were added...

I'm not sure if you can apply this to KSP, but I think a fundamental in helicopter design (eg: using a rotating wing to generate lift) is that you'll almost always need two rotors. One to provide the lift, the other to counter the spin that the main rotor (or other same-sized rotor in some cases) causes. For example, the traditional helicopter design consists of a large rotating blade to provide lift, and a smaller, tail-mounted blade that spins to move air to counteract the spin naturally induced by the main rotor. Examples: AH-64 Apache MI-17/MI-8 MI-24 UH-60 Blackhawk You get the idea. However, just because you have two rotors, does not mean you have to put one on the tail vertically mounted. You may be able to get by with a dual-rotor design where both rotors are nearly equally sized. Designs that use this way of dual-rotors are... CH-47 Chinook CH-46 Sea Knight H-21 Workhorse "Flying Banana" MV-22 Osprey (Albeit not a true helicopter, in VTOL mode it uses the dual rotors in this manner.) Even still, there's another way you can avoid using a tail rotor. Some design houses, such as Kamov in particular will use two rotors that counter-rotate (read: rotate the opposite direction) that are stacked on top of each other. The two I'm most familiar with are: KA-52/KA-50 KA-137 Just google those designs and you'll see that helicopters are a bit hard to do without having dual rotors. I'm not a flight engineer but I think this may be intrinsic to a successful helicopter, you need a rotor to stabilize your copter.

Nope, I've done tons of orbital rendezvous and dockings, and it never gets old when you get that one perfect one where everything just lines up perfectly and goes like a textbook perfect mission. It really adds to your confidence when flying if you can do this type of thing more often, it's a good feeling.

I don't think I'd enjoy this option, I spend a lot of time in the VAB as it is, my rockets already take time to build D:

Voted, and as of 10:22 EST we appear to be in the lead! Although, I wouldn't quite classify KSP as "sci-fi" in my opinion, it's really more of a "science" game or something, it's just not quite sci-fi enough for me to call it a sci-fi game. But whatever, voted!

Yes, as shoveycat said it's simply not implemented yet. You may be able to edit the .cfg and make it refer to the MkI cockpit's interior, if you don't mind it being the same. Not sure if it'd line up correctly though, but something to try. I imagine a full, complete IVA is planned, though of course I can never speak with 100% certainty, as there are many things in development that are tentative.

Moved to the suggestions forum c:

Because on a vacuum world where the atmosphere does not limit their speed, they're ludicrously fast given a moment or two of acceleration, and thus can climb hills with momentum if you happen to get them that fast. Heck, I was testing a runner designed for the Mun on Kerbin and, albeit I was using mod-parts-yet-balanced engines, it got up to about 40m/s on a flat which is faster than pretty much any rover you can build with conventional rover wheels/propulsion will go. So I maintain, they're ludicrously fast when used properly, and they're fun. Very fun.

I like the parts that modders offer, as well as the stock parts, so I can't say I'd wish for more parts as a priority. Personally, my favorite things I like to see implemented are things that improve performance/engine upgrades. Those, as well as functionality upgrades to the game itself. Little tweaks that make the game run faster, or generally offer more options to play with. I'm not as keen on huge things being added, rather, I tend to take joy in a lot of little things that add up to a lot of content. Especially any and all performance increases, I love when the game runs creamy smooth.

Embarker I in the demo version, which was an upper-atmosphere rocket, which then had a spinoff once I bought the full thing that turned into a Mun mission with rovers.

I thought they always just synthesized another Kerb.. Boy was I wrong.

Yes, this design looks very similar to the one I submitted, I mean very close. It actually looks like an older version I ended up scrapping for that very reason during the build process. To fix the light nose, use the stock TurboJets and clip some canards in the front. The canards may be optional, but those B9 jets do not have thrust vectoring, so you're relying on those control surfaces only to keep the nose down.

Alright, I'll try to get started in the next few minutes here. I'm actually looking forward to this, as the Concorde was one of my favorite planes of all time. Certainly in the top 25. EDIT: Seeing as this is an untested vehicle and I'm too lazy to even take screenshots, here is the .craft file on RapidShare, since Spaceport is for finished, refined things only. I've flown it a bit, not HORRID to fly, but not the best either. It flies exactly like you'd expect a huge airliner to. I've clipped some canards into the front, as well as used the stock thrust-vectoring turbojets instead of the B9 non-vectored ones. Without those modifications, it would NOT be able to keep the nose down at speed. I haven't flown and landed it but maybe you're a better pilot. It CAN take off of the runway without using the drop-off at the end, but watch your tail, as it is exceedingly easy to do a tail-strike and blow off your engines. Action groups are defined on a B9 Info Drive that pops up at launch. Uses PWings and B9 Aerospace, no other mods. Get it here. Please do let me know how she flies and looks. I think I got the looks down pretty well.

I'll attempt it if you let me know the following: -Does it have to be stock? -If not, will you accept one made with PWings and POSSIBLY B9 Aerospace? Also, it probably won't be able to hold all the people it should be able to, as there's not a whole lot of fuselage options..

I'm still gonna have to push you towards NovaSilisko's sound mod. It's really cool, separation sounds and everything are muffled. I like to play pretending I'm a third entity, a sort of "space-god" and I should not be able to hear things in space, Muffler does a very good job with that..

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand the meaning of this, if you'd like to talk about the update of .22, which seems to be the case, check it out at the official thread here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53061-The-Grand-0-22-Discussion-Thread Thanks, -M5K

This thread has been stickied forever and I've never made a post in it. Just wanted to thank the Devs first and foremost for the immense amounts of effort, time, and dedication all of you have put into this game. Truly, this game has evolved from when I started in .18.2, from a basic space simulator of orbital mechanics, to a highly polished game with a vast array of possibilities, and more arriving every update. The possibilities are more than endless, and I firmly believe that our community has some of the best, if not the best developers in the entire industry. Some decisions they make may not please every last member, but such is the way of development. However, I think we can all appreciate their profound ability to be given a small base to work on, and accomplish amazing things with it in a very big way. The way the Devs have bent, molded, and shaped the Unity engine into something that the original Unity coders could never have imagined, and turned it into a proper game, still, to this day, boggles my mind. I will forever appreciate the development platform that KSP uses, letting the community have a direct voice in the way the game takes shape, and furthermore, the Devs' overall attitude about the development process itself. These people seem, to me, to be very dedicated to the project and face every problem with a "Yes we can" attitude, as well as taking things that already exist, and refining them further and further, increasing playability on a wider scale, and decreasing the footprint on the computer. I think it is very accurate to say that the Devs have, in fact, turned Unity into the Little Engine That Could. Secondly, I'd like to give appropriate thanks to SQUAD as a corporation. While I don't know too much about them, or how they operate, I hear that they've basically fostered this whole project from the beginning, since it was an idea in Harv's head. This really is unheard of from a large corporation, and it says something about the business when they're able to maintain a project such as this. So, thanks to the ladies and gentlemen at SQUAD who have helped the Devs make this possible, and for not being evil. Third, I'd like to thank my own fellow moderators, and the entire moderation/community management team who I've had the opportunity to work with for several months now. Truly, it is a privilege. You guys put up with my antics and you keep this community running like clockwork. This forum is one of the best-moderated ones I have ever seen. Everything has its place, and every topic is approached with an open mind, taking consideration so that the opinions of users are not smothered, rather than some other forums, where there is immense disorganization, inconsistency, and a general air of frequent abuse of power. I'm glad that everyone on these teams certainly strives to maintain our good reputation to the public face. Penultimately, I want to thank the amazing game-modding community that exists. You all are seriously awesome. You take the tools the Devs have kindly given out, and create things that you want to see in the game. Current release doesn't have it? You all make it happen. It's that sort of attitude that gets things done in the world. Not to mention that you are all working for no profit at all, yet release very high-quality mods to the community. In the same light, I want to thank the people who build very high-quality craft and release them to the community, you too are a large part of keeping the community well-versed in the way of always having a good ship design to go off of. And lastly, I'd really just like to thank the community. Every one of you has done something amazing here, most of you've committed your money to a project, at the very least, and further, have done awesome things with it. It really does take a certain type of person to play this game, and I guarantee there are several people among us who will go to space, in the real world, some time in the future. But really, every one of us is on the bleeding edge of highly-refined gaming technology. It's been awesome, here's to everyone involved with this community.

Very well done! I really like the sound of it, deserves much recognition

Personally, I don't have any problem with the standard cursor, and as Wait, Was That Important? said, it would be very easy to make an obtrusive cursor that just gets in the way. The Windows cursor is very precise and I don't think adding another one would really help anything.. But that's just my opinion.

Hmm. I know the trick well, but it just seems weird since the NERVA is such a long engine... There seems to be a LOT of it hidden..

Indeed, the density of the atmosphere is not a straight line if it were to be graphed against altitude, rather, it would follow an exponential curve that I believe is also logarithmic. So after a certain point, it does get MUCH easier. That's why there's a big difference between 0-10Km, but not too much of a difference between 50-60Km.

For note, I believe the KW tanks of largest diameter are 3.75m, by the way. NOT 3m even. As the stock large tanks and KW medium-size tanks are 2.5m in diameter, 3m would not be much bigger, which the 3.75m parts are, in fact, much larger. However, NovaPunch did offer some strange sizes, I believe. They had 1.25, 2.5, and 3.75 as is the standard sizes, but I believe they also offered 2.18m and obviously 5m parts. The 2.18m parts were ideal for a 2-man Gemini-Titan II type rocket. Yes, I would much enjoy more sizes in the stock game, and in the modding community in general. The only problem is as stated, standard sizes. If nobody built to a standard, our parts would be all over the place and rockets would look quite funky. Ugh, but 2.18 meter would have been perfect for the bottom end of the core of a 2.5m Soyuz rocket.. It's not confirmed, I don't believe, but it certainly has been brought up and to the attention to the devs, I'd think, by now. EDIT: Also, it is NOT .5m for the probe-sized parts, they are .625m in diameter. And anyone who finds the stock .625m selection a bit lacking, I highly advise you to check out RLA Stockalike. It seems like it's the predecessor to the spirit of KSPX, adding parts into the game where there currently are none. It offers some impressive .625m selection of bipropellant tanks and two bipropellant engines, and I think there's a few monopropellant engines in there as well. So that.

Once again, if you look at the picture that SFJackBauer posted, it takes 3070 Delta-V for a trip from Low Tylo Orbit to surface. Since there's no atmosphere, it takes another 3070 to get back up, however, as has been said, that chart assumes optimal everything. Landing will take you extra delta-V, simply because it's landing and not ascent. Plus, you're likely to mess up elsewhere along your ascent, so let's just say from low Tylo orbit, to surface, and back is..Let's call it 6600 Delta-V to be on the safe side. So that. Okay, now what about transit? Well with that, you're going to want to be packing the better part of 10Km/s of DV from LKO, I'd imagine.