Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Building'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • Welcome Aboard
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP2 Dev Updates
    • KSP2 Discussion
    • KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission Ideas
    • The KSP2 Spacecraft Exchange
    • Mission Reports
    • KSP2 Prelaunch Archive
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Gameplay & Technical Support
    • KSP2 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Mods
    • KSP2 Mod Discussions
    • KSP2 Mod Releases
    • KSP2 Mod Development
  • Kerbal Space Program 1
    • KSP1 The Daily Kerbal
    • KSP1 Discussion
    • KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
    • KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP1 Mission Reports
    • KSP1 Gameplay and Technical Support
    • KSP1 Mods
    • KSP1 Expansions
  • Community
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
    • KSP Fan Works
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Categories

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


About me


Location


Interests

  1. Hello All, More and more frequent I have problems with developing spacecraft for extrakerbestrial atmospheres. To minimize the weight I like to keep my probes and craft to a minimum with proper weight distribution. However the atmosphere's and gravitational pulls on other planets make testing things sometimes hard. I cannot develop something, send it to eve, only to discover that once there it cannot make the liftoff, of that my angle of re-entry is either too high, or too low. Especially spaceplanes really need the ability to model/simulate in a windtunnel to see how they will behave. I'd say that a good and realistic addition to Kerbal would be a wind-tunnel, alike actual aerospace uses all the time. It would be a new building which can simulate physics depending on size of the craft and atmosphere's etc. Maybe some manual constraints, but preferably pre-set conditions of atmosphere's. An additional function could be that you would need to have atmospheric data and temperature first before you can simulate a planet (from a probe or something) Either way, it would be a great help to my missions.
  2. Hello! I'm quite a beginner to the game but has gotten as far as orbiting Kerbin. Now, im trying to get to the mun with a lander, the landers i've come up with are pretty big since i want a bit of everything with me. So my real question is, my spaceship turs too heavy at the top and tips at 10k meters. What do i need to do prevent this? I'll post pictures if anyone wants them
  3. Hi all, At some point in the past, i remember downloading a small mod, that, amongst other things, allowed you to tweak the building upgrade costs. In the stock career game, in my opinion the vast majority of the money is used on building upgrades whilst space vehicles are really , really cheap. I'd like to have cheap building upgrades but reduce funds rewards or increase part costs, so there is some incentive to re-use and build out infrastructure in a new career game. Anyone remember what this mod was called, i'd like to get it again..
  4. Well I continue my experiment trying to build the cubical space station further, I add pre-built sections and try docking 4 docking ports at the same time which can be tricky to make sure all four connect but it is possible the only problem is that my FPS goes down to 4 so we try some impact tests
  5. I saw a lot of people both on forum and reddit asking tips on how to create a space station, so I thought it would be a good subject for a comprehensive tutorial:
  6. Because of a misunderstanding of the message I made this is now closing due to the lack of visitors. Sorry for the inconvinence!
  7. So, I'm building my first orbital tug for space station operations as I plan a rather robust local tourism infrastructure consisting of modular components so that passenger modules can be docked to vehicles appropriate to their itineraries. (This same infrastructure will include scientific and other payloads as well, but tourists seem to have enough variety in their needs that designing for that use-case will be a goodly ways towards what I need.) The problem is thus: I can't seem to make the clampotron Jr. lock to directly above the center of mass. Given that this tug will be attaching to things much larger than it, an offset CoM from my CoT will be problematic in an environment where high degrees of precision are called for. Am I missing something obvious? Other parts, like parachutes, snap just fine. I'm having similar issues with the command module's roof. Edit: If I turn the clamp-o-tron upside down (such that it generates the 'uselessness' error) it will snap just fine. Of course, then it's upside down and can't be used.
  8. Launch towers: They are used on almost all operational rockets today. They provide stability, electricity, coolant, fuel flow and many more to the rocket, thus making it essential for a rocket to launch. The old launch tower was removed as it occasionally clipped with large rockets etc. Furthermore, it didn't actually provide structural support as much as serving as an asthetics entity. The old launch towers cannot be replaced by the launch stability enhancers. The current launch stability enhancer is unable to provide stability to tall rockets (since the base of the rocket gets wider than the top, the launch stability enhancer almost ends up clipping to the rocket all the time). The current artwork is outdated. Occasionally, the launch stability enhancer magically follows your vessel to space. Furthermore, the launch stability enhancers must be recovered after every launch, making it very inconvenient. Additionally, here are some of the reasons why we should bring back launch towers: -launch towers should be optional -a ladder for kerbals to get up and down the tower -fuel crossfeed from the bottom of the tower to the rocket -allows rocket engines to actually touch the launchpad instead of magically floating above it -allows kerbals to access the rocket from the bottom of the launchpad -generate electricity -3 or more arms extending from the tower to the rocket(it's length will be calculated based on the rocket's proximity to the tower) for structural support -lights installed around the tower to illuminate the rocket at night -provide structural support without excessive part count or use of launch stability enhancers. -looks nice. Let's share your opinions and comments on this below!
  9. So far i have not seen many boats made in 1.0.5 none at all actually. So i want to see some boats made, and not just any type of boat i want to see some H1 unlimited hydroplanes. These boats can go up 200 mph, which means only 89 m/s . I challenge anyone who reads this thread to try and make one of these boats, but the specifications are *the boat has to go over 100 m/s (that is the max speed it can go the minimum speed is 70 m/s) *it can actually float *try to keep the weight close to 4 tons have fun and happy building .
  10. After toying with SketchUp (for 3d modelling) I'm reminded of the snap-to stuff I've been using in editors since MSVC 6; as you move something past an item across alignment with another relevant line it sort of sticks briefly, making it easier to do - say - alignment of the nozzles of your engines (drag an engine placement down and when it notices the bottom of the bounding boxes line up, you get feedback without too much hinderance). Is there a mod that does something like this, already?
×
×
  • Create New...