wizzlebippi

1. Add approach guidance for the runway. Why not a Visual Approach Slope Indicator next to the runway. Maybe ILS guidance on the nav ball like mechjeb, I don't care. No autopilot needed, just something to show if you're on the glideslope. Most any absurdly long runway would have this. 2. Give Kerbals the ability to track a survey target when on foot. Maybe a close up of a handheld tracker in the corner like a minimap, something unlocked by a facility or tech upgrade. 3. If a survey target happens to be on the other side of the planet, the target needs to be visible without pointing the aircraft at the ground. Or if you're flying a VTOL to get a survey point in-between two mountains, that target needs to be visible at all times. For in atmosphere flying, we need a Horizontal Situation Indicator with targets listed on their true heading. Maybe apply this to rovers too. 4. Drag devices for spaceplanes so they can actually slow down. Even if just the landing gear get a deployed drag value, that would be a vast improvement. Speedbrakes and flaps would help greatly. That is all.

I've tried both the ascending and descending nodes as well as after a fixed time. EDIT: Nevermind, I needed to correct 180° for mechjeb since 0° is apparently a due eastward orbit.

I have found an error. I am trying to fulfill a contract with a westward orbit. In adjusting the inclination of the orbit to 10.2°, mechjeb gives me an answer of ~4200m/s. It's about 4000m/s to reverse the direction of my orbit an actually 350m/s to adjust the inclination. I don't understand this answer, but it's very repeatable.

I support this.

By that standard, a jet engine is an explosion because it's constantly burning fuel. What you must realize is that the only form of energy we humans have mastered is heat, and that everything from cars to electric powerplants to rockets runs on heat. An internal combustion engine is the easiest to explain so I'll start there. You suck in a charge of air and fuel, compress it, ignite the mixture producing heat and causing the gas to expand, then shove the unusable energy out the exhaust. Jet engines work nearly the same way, just all the steps are happening linearly instead of sequentially and, like a rocket, the exhaust is forced through a nozzles to provide energy to the compressor and eventually thrust. The only way rockets differ is that instead of outside air being the reaction mass, you only have what's left of the fuel and oxidizer after combustion. Burning the fuel and oxidizer causes the expanding exhaust gasses to accelerate supersonically through the nozzle.

Thanks. I thought that had to be on while the drive active. Now I just have to figure out how to fly the thing.

How are any of you taking a ship anywhere with this mod? I built a ship that's nothing but batteries and a nuclear reactor from near future electrical with a little xenon fuel. As soon as I advance the throttle, the .625m drive uses literally all electrical power and the ship blows up.

I like the idea of putting telescopes in orbit to track asteroids

I vote for building/launching a fleet of ships to explore beyond the kerbal system. Each ship would need to be very large and something like DARPA's 100 year starship and require top tier tech to build. Basically, give each one enough a low relativistic dV target to escape the kerbal system, each on a specifc heading. Once the last ship exits the kerbal system, roll credits while showing a montage of happy kerbals landing on alien worlds.

After making a serious miscalculation on how much fuel I would need to return a craft from a polar mun landing, I set Jeb adrift. After a few more missions so I could unlock the grabber, he was in a solar orbit. I successfully deployed the grabber to retrieve Jeb, his craft, and all the science it had. I think something like this should be a mission as well.

1. No properly designed supersonic aircraft should exhibit mach tuck, therefore it really has no place in ksp. Also, you need to quit thinking of SAS as a stability band aid. It's a simplistic attitude hold autopilot because it removes the need to actually fly your craft. 2. Unless you tell players at what dynamic pressure their ship will fly apart at, aerodynamic failures are just punishment for players. And while we're on the realism side of things, not many aircraft can achieve their max dive speed in level flight. Yet in ksp, I've yet to build one that can't while climbing using FAR. 3. If you want to make ksp more realistic, you need to figure out why it's broken in the first place. Basing all aero forces off of airspeed/mach would be a good start.

1. Mach effects on stability - Ever heard of Mach Tuck? Basically, as you accelerate through the transonic region, the center of pressure shifts aft. This increases pitch control forces and as quite a few Leer drivers discovered in the 70's, it can quickly overpower the pilot. I never want to see such a thing implemented in game. 2. Aerodynamic Failures - There are those who fear flutter because they don't understand it and those who fear it because they do. Again, something I never want to see implemented in game and a key reason why I hate FAR. 3. Aside from actual shape/profile based drag and something like deadly re-entry, I don't think KSP needs a healthy dose of reality. More realistic tendencies would be nice, but absolute realism is unatainab

1. How do you read from a cfg file in a module? 2. How do the tangents work? Like the altitude vs ISP on a jet engine.

I know, but I hate to let misconceptions stand.

Propellers and ducted fans are very different, mainly that flow over ducted fans are mostly 2D because the duct prevents the formation of tip vortices. This allows thrust to increase linearly from the hub outward. Also, next time you see an airliner, look at the shape of the bypass duct. It widens from the inlet to the fan, slowing air and increasing static pressure, in turn increasing thrust.

I didn't say propeller, I said ducted fan. A modern multi-stage turbofan engine has a core that produces all the energy to drive the main fan. The majority of thrust comes from the fan, not the core. It probably won't get you supersonic, but it will keep you flying.

You would be far better off with an electric ducted fan, assuming your craft has the ability to generate enough electricity.

NASA wouldn't be sending probes everywhere if they couldn't stream data back. Big aircraft manufacturers routinely stream thousands of parameters in real time to a remote telemetry station, and that data is just as good as if the engineers were on the aircraft. So why can't transmitted data from a thermometer be just as useful as getting the thermometer back.

Please, I don't know the names of half the parts in KSP. So when a contract is asking me to test the LFB KR-1x2 on the Mun, I don't know if that fits into the mission I'm planning. If a part description was available in the contract menu, it would make choosing contracts far easier.

That helps, thanks

I recently bought a new laptop with a 15.6 inch 1080p display that is capable of running KSP at 1080p. At 1080p, the flight interface on KSP is so small, the numbers are difficult to read with the laptop sitting in my lap. Is it possible to add an interface scaling option for high dpi displays?

That helped immensely. I can now calculate angle of attack relative to the ships flight path, but everything seems to break down at 22,000m. Is there some magical transition that occurs here?

Bump for previous post's edit

I'll give that a try. But first, I'll need to do some research on vector math with quaternions. Thanks, EDIT: I'm having a really hard time figuring out which way vectors are pointing. Is there any debug option to draw a vector?

I am looking for a way to measure angle of attack, angle of yaw and angle of side slip all relative to the ships flight path vector. So far, I've found almost nothing on the flight path vector. Also, angle of roll relative to the planet's surface would be nice too. Thanks