Klingon Admiral

I was using omnis (Communutron 16 on the mothership, the passive 500km ones on the probes which tested the behaviours) in LKO with no less than 16 com-sats employing Communutron 16s operating in groups of 4s in 450km orbits (4 at 0° inclination, 2x4 in 2 45° orbits, 4 @ 90°) I was literally drowning in connections.

Is there an upper limit to how many ships RT can handle at once? If I have more than 2 probes into physics distance one of them seems to lose any control, which is only resumed if I switch to it - at which point another ships loses control.

Only one flag could can be considered worthy of my space program: Fate, I hereby taunt you!

The grand, overarching problem with going the easy route and changing the game physics is that we like to share crafts. I mean, we have an entire sub-forum dedicated to it. If everyone runs his own special little physics tweaks, the sharing of crafts becomes nearly impossible. I had more than enough problems by simply using FAR in past versions.

The new aero is fine /s http://imgur.com/a/ImS1x#0 (credit to u/G1th)

Turbojets are ridiculously overpowered. Their peak thrust is 1015 kN or so. Each engine on a 747-800 produces 296 kN, so a single turbojet at mach 3 can nearly out-thrust a goddamn 747.

What did you expect with a plane having a TWR of 2.5 at liftoff?

If your plane still hasn't taken off at Mach 1 then your design is pretty terrible. In 1.0.2 my planes have a takeoff-speed of 50 m/sec - what is this, GTA V?

Depends heavily on the craft. Planes in FAR profoundely refused to slow down without stalls/airbrakes/flaps, while planes in 1.0 onwards just fall out of the sky once the engine is turned off. It's rather frustrating. 1.0.2 allows for some rather terrible things (pulled from the KSP subreddit, like - the 25 m/sec shuttle landing: https://gfycat.com/AbsoluteFrequentCanine (credit to u/Yargnit) - Heatshields? Where we are going we won't need no heatshields: http://imgur.com/a/CBcbH#0 (credit to u/mad_hmpf) - parachutes aren't needed either: http://imgur.com/a/kPwNh (credit to u/SuperLink243) The 1.01 changes are pretty bad.

Does anybody have an idea why KER doesn't properly register booster separation in this design: Boosters cut of at T+1:16, core at T+2:47. This bug happens across vessels (had it happen in my original heavy lifter design, this thing is a rebuild), KSP versions and KER versions (basically happened in 1.0 with KER 1.16.3, 1.0.1/2 with KER 1.16.3 and 1.0.2 with 1.16.5) - other rockets work fine though.

Aerodynamics are still to lenient

I use FAR and start turning when my rocket breaches 1.3 TWR and/or have completed the roll program. I rarely launch into 0° these days.

The fact that all capsules are not rotated in the proper way for a launch into equatorial orbit. No one likes g-forces coming from the side.

I think part 3 actually bought this up, I think Dr. Grant calls the Ingensaurs "Genetic created constructs, not dinosaurs" or something.

This Dinosaur is so woefully wrong.

Started a new save a few days ago (Science-Mode because Contracts are terrible), achieved first orbit today. At 70% science yield it already gets a bit sluggish in the early game (didn't farm the KSC biomes yet, though).

Apart from the main theme and the music in the science lab, nothing but pure annoyance. I play with muted music.

Why is that so? Can I reverse it somehow? I want my little guys to level up That's how my code looks like: KERBAL { name = Tim Kerbin type = Crew brave = 0.4 dumb = 0.8 badS = False state = Available ToD = 0 idx = -1 CAREER_LOG { flight = 0 } FLIGHT_LOG { flight = 0 } } EDIT: Nvm, apparently Kerbals in Science mode are already at full level.

Once ze rockets are up, who cares where zey come down?

I did an easy-mode space shuttle: 8 Kerbals (+2 Pilots) and 2.25 tons payload to a 100x100x0° orbit, with a bit of fuel left in the external tank (I still want to deorbit it, though, so I let the fuel go to waste) and 560 m/sec in onboard fuel. Who needs SSTOs, anyway?

I did space-planery: That baby is the SAP-3 Parakeet (while not developed from the chassis the SAP-1 Kestrel and the SAP-2 Partridge share, it uses some design phylosophies of the line). While SSTO-capable, the main version utilizes a pair of drop-tanks (one visible in the picture) to give the craft more fuel for orbital maneuvering and deorbit. Warning: Warranty void if droptanks are used as fuelbombs instead.

With FAR 1: Throttle up to max 2: Spacebar for engine ignition and launch clamp release 3: Roll program if necessary 4. Pitching slowly over, throttling down to keep thrust from going too high 5. After booster seperation, throttle back to maximum and continue climb into orbit

I present the SAP-1 Kestrel: SAP of course means "Super Advanced Plane". Why it is super advanced? Just take a look at those stylish forward-swept wings! Based on and quite similar to one of the stock planes that come with FAR, but this baby at least got a much better undercarriage.

Your rocket may also have too much thrust. In my standard FAR rocket designs I go for 1.6-2 TWR at liftoff and about 1.2 TWR after booster separation (usually at about 10-15 km up and a few km downrange).

I'd love if we could generally stop comparing launch systems of vastly different size. Angara will simply launch other payloads than the SLS will, both excel at different things. There simply is no "catch-all" solution for surface-orbit transportation, just as there is none for transportation within our atmosphere. Not specifically directed at you, but at this whole discussion.