z26

I think aerobraking is useful if a) you have a lot of speed to get rid off and/or your desired periapsis is relatively close to the atmosphere (your wanted apoapsis however can be wherever you want) In many situations at least one of those statements is true. However, there are some situations, like going from a kerbinsynchronous to a semikerbinsynchronous orbit, where neither of these conditions apply and aerobraking isn't that great. Also, when you aerobrake you may want not to wastefully lower your periapsis. To do that, you can of course take many shallow passes, but that's boring... A solution is to do just like what you do when thrusting: To avoid affecting your periphasis you want to gain/bleed off speed as close to it as possible. You can use airbrakes/parachutes close to the periphasis, then desactivate them when you are too far from it, to remove unwanted drag. That way you can lower the apoapsis without affecting too much the periapsis, at least in theory.

KSP Version: 1.0 windows What Happens: "A potato like rock" available as a surface attached part in sandbox Mods / Add-Ons: All Stock Steps to Replicate: (can be tricky to replicate) 1) Get in one of your sandbox games 2) Open the vab 3) Add something as a root part. 4) Quit the VAB (don't save) 5) Get back into the VAB. The part you previously added should already be there. 6) enable advanced parts mode. Select "filter by cross-section", then select "surface mounted parts" Result: Hopefully you get something looking like this: PS: They fly strangely well for their weight. Managed to raise two of them 1 kilometer with only a stock kerbal x.

Well, thanks pellinor for explaining it better than I could

KSP Version: windows 1.0 What Happens: parts proportions off when reverting to launch Mods / Add-Ons: All Stock Steps to Replicate: 1) Make a small rocket like in the first image below (battery, probe core, nosecone, small srb all 1.25m) (important : the srb must be the root part for it to work!) 2) Launch 3) Revert to Launch Result: The ship will look like the one in the second picture Fix: Revert to vab instead of reverting to launch before: after:

This sounds nice, I think the lazor mod already has support to send a ray and mesure how far it gets before colliding. Maybe reverse engineer that? Integrating this with smartparts would be better than making this a standalone mod.

Hi! This mod offers a lot of customability (which is nice), but it does so to the point of defying physics. For example, with manual mode you can set a chute to have a much BIGGER area before deployment than after, the result being a chute that despite being minuscule slows downs a capsule to 3 ms. I'm just curious: are these kinds of exploits possible because this mod was made with a "give the player as much control as they want and let them self-regulate" philosophy or you simply haven't had the time to make the mod more realistic yet?

These two engines are indeed completely separate. I'm not sure what happened, but I guess they first started working on the game using unity, then at some point ditched unity and started from scratch with unreal? Anyway, reading about the making of this game is inspiring but I wonder, is your insistance on using bullet simply motivated by it being moddable to use double precision numbers, or there are other major reasons behind that choice as well? (I'm wondering because me giving a go at making a physics game is a tiny but existing possibility)

Except that's incorrect, I'm at tier 1 rnd at moderate difficulty and have a minmus, a duna and a ike mission proposed. I can make 400k from a single duna-ike trip, which is totally doable with 30 parts as long as you are using a probe core + thermometers + solar panel + antenna. I also can make 140k only from putting up a satellite in kerbin orbit.

unlocking the RnD isn't a grind when each big mission gives you 200k... 5 missions and you are done.

I feel like a complete idiot now... I didn't think direction mattered. thankfully, my probe was so overkill that I just fixed this by reversing my orbit completely thrusting retrograde.

I'm trying to do an orbit mission, the precision requested is only "reasonable" yet despite my apo and periapsis being within 100 meters of the requested values apparently it's not precise enough. I haven't upgraded to patched conics yet so I can't get the other values exactly, but you can see my apoapsis overlapping the target apoapsis quite nicely. I feel those orbital contacts are much too strict.

Right now the engineers are a bit useless compared to the 2 other classes. When deep space refuelling is implemented, they might be the only class able to operate the ressource extracting manchinery. That would make them quite useful. Also, if kerbal attachement system was added into stock engineers could be the only ones with access to the kas functionalities. Overall, kerbal experience is well implemented. Only one thing I'm worried about: some probes cores seems advanced enough to remplace pilots completely. I personally feel like the advanced probes cores should have basic sas, but nothing else. And like everybody else already mentionned, some buildings are way too costly to upgrade. But overall 0.90 seems to be the nicest upgrade regarding carrier mode so far. And so far as the perceived difficulty of the new carrier mode: Squad is so often accused of trying too much to cater to new players, so an update like this one adding some depth is a breath of fresh air .

Well, that shows what kind of stuff the gizmos can be used for. Since it's name is Smaug the unflyable, editing it so that it can fly would be false advertising.

One possible reason two cars facing each others at 40mph doesn't impact as strongly as one car hitting a wall at 80mph is because if the wall is "anchored" to the ground strongly enough, in this scenario it acts as if it has infinite mass (you can't push it back no matter how hard you try). Oh, and no crumple zone probably doesn't help.

I'm using this with NEAR and 32 bits windows, so far managed to make a capsule reentry within 3km of ksc after a few quicksaves. However, I had to reenter the improper way (narrow end first) because I was confused on how orientation works. Somehow, +180 degrees and -180 degrees give different results, aren't those supposed to result in the same orientation? It might be cool to have the option (rather than fiddling with sliders) to steer your spacecraft in the orientation you want to make your whole descent in, (relative to the horizon OR the prograde marker, depending on your preference) then push a button to compute the trajectory of that descent.