Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'building'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • 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


There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL



About me



  1. When designing crafts and vessels, seeing them in the dark void of space is often primordial if you want to go there more than once. And with the VAB always lit up, it's sometimes difficult to do lighting right. So, that's why I feel there should be a dark mode for the VAB where we turn off the lights, so that we can see what it'll look in the shadow. Might be a bit unuseful for those who actualy plan their maneuveurs to happen with direct sunlight, but for those who like the night, it's pretty nice.
  2. The challenge is simple, fly an aircraft of your own design through the R&D tunnel without damaging your aircraft. You can prove your feat of engineering and piloting finess through either a video or a series of screenshots, before during and after. The tunnel is around 10 meters wide and 7 meters tall, it would be recommended construct your aircraft accordingly. The leaderboards will be split into the speed of the aircraft through the tunnel and the length of the aircraft passing through the tunnel. This Tunnel. Rules; Your aircraft has to enter and exit the tunnel unscathed No parts mod DLC allowed Non Parts mods are allowed, e.g Kerbal engineer Leaderboard (Speed) @swjr-swis 168.3m/s @QF9E 97.4m/s @Socraticat 92.5m/s Leaderboard (Length) @swjr-swis 3.2 @QF9E 2.9m TBA
  3. What do you think about the Starfield features revealed by the gameplay videos and photos - as compared to KSP2? I'm not comparing genres - only "apples to apples", things that KSP also has: ship building features, base building, celestial body environment, ship IVA and third person HUD features. Also remember: Starfield players cannot actively pilot their ships to a planet's surface Ship Building (with details here & here): Base building and resources (details here): Exploration & environment (details about planets here): Ship IVA / flight deck / HUD (but no seamless spaceflight): Clearly KSP2 is doing something amazing that technically has never been done before (even before speaking of the multiplayer aspects). "An update on Kerbal Space Program 2 and how we're enabling players to travel from planet A orbiting star B to planet C orbiting star D, continuously, without any loading screens, pauses, faked out transitions, "warp drives", or other trickery. We're simulating a multi-light-year spanning 3D volume at a sub-millimeter level of resolution, and enabling players to travel to any point in that space if they can build a ship capable of making the journey. Unprecedented in gaming." - Paul Furio, the Senior Engineering Manager at Private Division https://www.linkedin.com/posts/paul-furio_kerbal-space-program-2-episode-5-interstellar-activity-6920089169021014016-J_5I
  4. something that might be useful in the science colonies or interstellar update where you might not be able to make 5000 part crafts or base's so you would have 1 truss or panel that fits your length, instead of 50 parts to fit in that one area if you know what i mean the trusses could be extended only length wise and not increase in size or height, but have different sizes like you do now, xs, sm, md, lg and xl other post https://imgur.com/gallery/Vro8FA6
  5. In KSP2 is there an option for part clipping, or a work around? Probably the old tiny truss gimmick. I know it's very early access, but let's see what's out there. Because someone will ask "why", I just want my rockets to look nice.
  6. In the light of my new line of Carriers, I experimented with the concept of a well deck as can be seen in the Priest class LHA The challenge is simple, Create an amphibious craft, be it a rover or landing craft capable of launch and recovery from the vessel. The maximum dimensions of the opening deck are roughly 6.5m wide by 3.5m tall so plan your craft accordingly. I plan on splitting this into two categories: Amphibious Rovers; A wheeled vehicle able to move a modest amount of passengers of cargo, under it's own power, too and from the vessel Max part count of 50 parts Landing Craft; A specialised vehicle that is able to move heavier cargo, or light vehicles too and from the shore at high speeds Max part count of 75 parts Beyond these design specifications you are free to experiment to your hearts content. Good luck.
  7. RSV Challenge (Place Holder Image until a proper badge can be made) Basic Rules; No Mods that add parts. Stick to the briefs, if unable to try and follow the spirit of each category. Screenshots and a craft file required for eligibility for the completion Categories; The categories are going to be split up into 3 weight classes in order to differentiate between the different role and usability of each vessel, furthermore each category will have further stipulations to make the categories more diverse and unique. Class 1: <100 tons Designed for speed and Versatility, these ships should be able to travel at high speeds to conduct mid-range sorties that larger vessels can't reach i.e. along rivers and in shallow waters. Class Requirements High speed and mobility Minimum range of 500km ferry distance Modest science suite Light Communications Array Small crew <20, unmanned is permitted Example Vessel; Class 2: 100-600 tons Designed as a high endurance vessel, these ships should be able to carry out voyages across the oceans with what constitutes a wide array of scientific instruments as well as the ability to launch and recover auxiliary craft. Class Requirements Minimum range of 2000km of ferry distance Expansive science suite with field lab Modest Communications Array Ability to launch and recover auxiliary craft Medium sized crew, 40-80 members Example Vessel; Class 3: >600 tons The hulking behemoths of the sea, these beasts should be able to coordinate, analyse and control all research missions in the surrounding ocean with the ability to launch and recover survey aircraft. Class Requirements Minimum range of 3600km of ferry distance Complete science suite Ability to launch and recover auxiliary craft High powered communications array Large crew, 60-120 members Example Vessel;
  8. The aim of this challenge is simple, create a naval aircraft capable of full carrier operations. Rules; 1. Hard part limit of 70. 2. Maximum stall speed of 65m/s. 3. Take up a stowed foot print of less than 14m long by 8m wide. Inspiration Further Guidance; DLC's are allowed and encouraged VTOL, STOL, SSTO, Helicopter. If it's Naval oriented I want it No Part Mods Optional Contracts Fixed Wing Rotary Wing SSTO's Formatting a Contract Aircraft (Contract No.) (Aircraft type) (Author/s) (Craft Name) (Description) (Pictures - make sure they are spoilered) (Craft DL - preferably KerbalX) Obviously you don't have to create a naval aircraft exactly to these specifications, nor are you obligated to. Work in progress pictures are highly encouraged and I look forward to seeing what you are going to create.
  9. The task is simple, create an electrically powered aircraft catapult capable of launching a craft weighing at least 15 tons. Success Criteria; Electrically powered low part count (below 50 parts) relatively stable capable of launching a craft to 30-40m/s Pictures and download are obligatory
  10. Given 1.11's new feature's, this opens up a whole range of opportunities such as adding to existing bases, Repair and improving in-situ, and most importantly, creating entire light craft anywhere in the kerbol system. Scoring system; The scores will be separated into two leader boards, Aircraft and Spacecraft. Each will be scored using a different formula, for example, Aircraft will be scored using the following equation; Range(km)* maximum-horizontal-speed(m/s) / Mass(kg) So therefore, a hypothetical craft able to fly 500km at 150m/s and weighs 1500kg (1.5t) would garner a score of 50. The Spacecraft, on the other hand (including landers, probes and the such like) will be evaluated using a simplified version of the above equation, e.g. DeltaV (m/s) / Mass(kg) Therefore a craft with 2000m/sΔv with a mass of 750kg (0.75t) would have a score of 2.6 EACH CATEGORY IS INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. Furthermore, Kudo's will be given to the more extravagant location the construction of the craft will take place. Patch; Aircraft Leader Board 1. (contestant)(craft name)(score) Spacecraft Leader Board 1. KC3QJA ~ Bidome 1 ~ 56.75
  11. Logo Created by Myself and @Asksomoneelse. Plane created by @Maxorin This Challenge is a continuation and modification of this thread by @CrazyJebGuy (which in itself is a continuation of two other threads) PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CHALLENGE AIMS TO BE A BIT MORE AESTHETICS ORIENTED THAN THE LAST (though performance is always more important) --- WE ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF EXTRA JUDGES TO ASSIST IN CLEARING THE BACKLOG. CONTACT ME ON DISCORD (Holiday#0321) IF YOU ARE INTERESTED! --- Trans-Kerbin Airways (TKA) is an emerging airline taking the place of the now-defunct Kerbin Express Airlines. TKA is a large client and aircraft ranging from turboprops to jumbo jets are in high demand. Does your aircraft company offer the right kind of aircraft for the job? Trans-Kerbin Airways wants comfortable, profitable aircraft. They're looking for aircraft that meet or exceed their requirements for fuel efficiency, speed, range, passenger load, ease of training, comfort and cost of maintenance, for the right price that gives them the best return on investment. They also want a design that's flexible, offering variations of the same design for a variety of different routes. Trans-Kerbin Airways is also looking for airlines that emphasize passenger comfort for use on their luxury routes. The Rules: Must be compatible with KSP versions 1.8.X and 1.9.X Stock Parts + Both DLC are allowed. CRAFT MUST BE STOCK! Passengers must be enclosed in a cabin. Whether this be a crew cabin part or a custom fuselage is up to you. No rocket engines. Aircraft engines only. Aircraft must stay in atmosphere (no sub-orbital hops) and below 20km. Any kind of engine is allowed for any category. Clipping and CFE is allowed within reason (please negotiate what you are doing first). Engine clipping is allowed within reason. (no more than 3 clipped) You cannot craft file edit engines The aircraft should have a rolling takeoff and landing. Takeoff & Landing speed of no more than 80 m/s on land, or 120 m/s on water. No drop tanks. Your aircraft must stay intact. No afterburning engines unless you are building a supersonic airliner. Variants must still resemble the original aircraft. If it is too different it will be considered a different type. Mach 1 speed limit (343m/s) unless you are building a supersonic airliner. Passenger Cabins: Not all in-game values for how many passengers a cabin can carry will be used for this challenge and certain cabins have a higher level of comfort than most. Here is a list of what each cabin part can carry and their comfort levels according to the challenge: MK-1 Cabin: Carries 4 passengers, standard comfort. Mk-2 Cabin: Carries 8 passengers, improved comfort. Mk-3 Cabin: Carries 24 passengers, increased comfort. PPD-10 Hitchhiker Storage Container: Carries 12 passengers increased comfort. Custom cabins using EVA seats will be judged on how you build it. If it generally looks like a nice cabin, it'll probably be rated higher in terms of comfort. Keep in mind, engine placement (noise levels) can affect the passenger comfort. What is a variant? To improve your design's competitiveness, your company can submit a variant of the same design (See Wants section below). A variant is built on the same model platform with minor changes in design to give it, say, extra range, or extra passenger room. This is most commonly achieved by adding fuel tanks or lengthening the cabin, sometimes with minor changes to wing and fuselage design. To qualify as a variant, it must generally have the same structural layout, meaning engines, gear, and lift surfaces must be in roughly the same location & design. Basically, if you make it too different, it will be considered a separate model/submission. What Trans-Kerbin Airways wants, By Category: The categories are more like guidelines rather than strict rules. An aircraft doesn't need to meet one requirement if it's particularly good at something else. Any category can be made supersonic. For all categories, Range will be calculated by fuel capacity / burn rate * speed / 1000m at the recommended cruising speed & altitude. There are three categories in range and sub-categories for each in capacity. Match up your aircraft to both the appropriate range and capacity requirements. For example, if you have an aircraft that carries 48 passengers and has a range of 2500km, it would be a Medium-Haul, Low-Capacity aircraft. Special categories that do not conform to these requirements will be listed below as 'special categories' ANY CATEGORY CAN BE MADE INTO A SUPERSONIC Range Requirements: Short-Haul Airliner A cruising speed of 110m/s or greater is preferred Must have a range of 1000km Short takeoff and landing is preferred. Must be capable of operating on rough airfields. Medium-Haul Airliner Cruising speed of 230m/s or greater is preferred Must have a range of 2000km - 3000km Should be equipped to operate at smaller airports. Long-Haul Airliner Cruising Speed of 240m/s or greater is preferred Must have a range greater than 3000km Passenger Capacity Requirements: Low Capacity Maximum 100 passengers Medium Capacity Must carry 100 - 300 passengers Standard or greater comfort is preferred High Capacity Must carry more than 300 passengers Must have high levels of passenger comfort SPECIAL CATEGORIES: These categories do not correspond with the ones above Flying Boat Must be capable of taking off and landing from water Range of at least 500km Cruising Speed of at least 100m/s Can be of any size Cargo/Combi Aircraft Must carry cargo. Range of at least 1500km Combi aircraft must carry both passengers and cargo Judging Criteria: Every submission that meets the requirements will be ranked with feedback from TKA Jet test pilots, but how well it ranks depends on: (Note, this is elaborated on later) How well it meets or exceeds the category requirements Cost of Aircraft Fuel Efficiency at recommended cruising speed & altitude Ease of maintenance. Maintenance is judged through the amount of engines and complex parts (landing gear, moving parts, fuel piping, etc) rather than pure part count alone. This is so higher-part count designs can compete. Engine configuration is also important in how easily the aircraft is maintained. Engines low to the ground would allow easy access for ground crew Having the same kind of engines (if you have multiple) can help ease load off maintenance crews. Passenger comfort Distance of engines to passenger cabins will be considered The type of passenger cabins you use will also be considered. Aesthetics We want nice looking aircraft so they're more appealing to our customers and advertising If it looks right, it flies right. Feel free to ask questions about anything you find confusing in the judging process. How to Submit. Your post must include the following: The name of your aircraft company and model names for the designs you're submitting. Please clarify what category you're entering the plane in. At least one screenshot or very large bold text or something in your submissions. This is so we can more easily see it is a submission, we don't want to accidentally skip yours. A link to your craft files in your submission post. No PMing me. PREFERABLY ON KERBALX The price of your aircraft times 1,000. (If $23,555 in-game, submit as $23,555,000. This is just for fun to make prices more realistic.) The recommended cruising speed and altitude for your aircraft. This is the speed and altitude you've fine-tuned your designs for, ensuring the best balance of speed, range, and fuel efficiency. It's also what the test pilots will be testing your aircraft at for judging. (Optional, but will help in review) Pitch your aircraft to the TKA executives, selling them on why it should be purchased for their fleet. Include any notable features (even if fictional). ========================================================================================================================================== The Judges: @HolidayTheLeek @Asksomoneelse @Maxorin (skilled airliner builder - check him out on KX) @HB Stratos @keptin (original creator of the challenge!) @TheGoldenSoldier @NightshineRecorralis (Judge from the previous challenge) @Servo @ScaryTerry @Mathrilord @Rocket_man1234 @mrdanger2007 @EvenFlow Feel free to message me on discord (Holiday#0321) about being a potential judge) Pilot Review template below: Challenge Submissions: @Klapaucius's Squire Submarine Plane (SUPERSONIC FLYING BOAT) Cheap, fast and easy to fly. Very odd design and kind of a maintenance hog. @Rocket_man1234's K-400 (LONG HAUL LOW CAPACITY) Flies well but a bit sensitive and difficult to land. Cheap, effective and with a range rivalling long-haul airliners. @SuicidalInsanity's IA-480 Dyamerang (SHORT HAUL LOW CAPACITY) Odd bird with questionable design. High maintenance, draggy but powerful. Has spectacular passenger views. @keptin's Longboy (MEDIUM HAUL LOW CAPACITY) Simple, rugged and fairly cheap to operate though unfortunately plagued with problems with landing gear. @Klapaucius's Gogol (SUPERSONIC MEDIUM HAUL MEDIUM CAPACITY) A surrealist avante garde aircraft with seemingly Lovecraftian origins. Powerful, fast and surprisingly manueverable but an uncomfortable ride and a maintenance hog. @keptin's Longboy-EX (SHORT HAUL MEDIUM CAPACITY) The Longboy's big brother. A little bit too long to be safe - questionable airworthiness and structural integrity. @Maxorin's Model 727 (SHORT HAUL MEDIUM CAPACITY) Beautifully constructed aeroplane, albeit a bit inefficient and expensive. @Box of Stardust's A-504-1A-ER ( LONG HAUL MEDIUM CAPACITY) Sleek, powerful and efficient with only minor problems. @chargan's Firebird (SUPERSONIC LONG HAUL MEDIUM CAPACITY) Unwieldy to fly, expensive, inefficient, lacking in range but blisteringly fast with good passenger capacity! @keptin's MANTABEAST (LONG HAUL HIGH CAPACITY) Huge, terrifying and demonic. Impressive, though @Box of Stardust's A-301-2A (CARGO) Same reliable airframe as the A-504 but for cargo @antimatterkill's J.220 (COMBI) Jack of all trades, master of none @Juhnu's JA-42 (SHORT HAUL LOW CAPACITY) A gorgeous aircraft - both beautiful and functional. Extremely fuel efficient and comfortable. Unfortunately, a tad expensive. @keptin's Centurion (MEDIUM HAUL LOW CAPACITY) A very good aircraft considering its low cost. Very powerful and also has a high cruising speed for subsonics. @Servo's LA-600 (LONG HAUL MEDIUM CAPACITY) Great looking aircraft with excellent range - but is difficult, dangerous to fly and rather expensive. @Maxorin's S350 (LONG HAUL MEDIUM CAPACITY) Beautiful aircraft but incredibly expensive. Ease of maintenance is deemed adequate owing to engine configuration and type. @keptin's Duck (CARGO) Works extremely well but doesn't have much of a use except for a small niche. @AVeryNiceSpacePenguin's SBD Dauntless (???) ...it's a war plane... a museum plane... everything but an airliner!!! @Bob_Saget54's Gigant (LONG HAUL HIGH CAPACITY) Premium comfort and excellent safety. Is quite expensive and would only work on luxury routes due to cost. @l0kki's PTSLRA (LONG HAUL LOW CAPACITY) Well rounded aircraft with excellent range. Capable of barely landing on carriers but for some reason has outdated tail dragger landing gear. @rutnam's A917-A Skycutter (LONG HAUL LOW CAPACITY) Has a long range but is loud and fairly maintenance heavy. Aircraft flies well. @mrdanger2007's Model 308 Altoliner (SHORT HAUL LOW CAPACITY) Beautifully retro but unfortunately impractical for regular service. Would work well as a museum plane, though. @espartanlast1's SRJ-10SP/SRJ-15SP (MEDIUM HAUL LOW CAPACITY) Simple, easy to fly with excellent takeoff performance. Works well for low cost! @NightshineRecorralis's Saturn SST (SUPERSONIC LONG RANGE MEDIUM CAPACITY) A sci-fi supersonic with stall speeds rivalling propeller driven airliners. Very fast and easy to fly but a maintenance hog. @MR_somebody's Class 47 Ekranoplan (FLYING BOAT) Expensive, maintenance heavy, loud and slow! Not an aircraft but a ground effect vehicle! @KingDominoIII's C6-168 'TRIAD' JUMBO JET (SUPERSONIC LOW CAPACITY MEDIUM RANGE) Fast but not as fast as a true supersonic. Very strange to look at and very inefficient. @KestrelAerospace's Exmouth Class Flying Boat (FLYING BOAT) A flying boat reminiscent of the 1930s golden age of flight. Excellent to fly and comfortable but limited in range. @antimatterkill's S.126 (SHORT HAUL LOW CAPACITY) A strange aircraft that surprisingly has VTOL capability. Cheap to buy but expensive to maintain with a lot of moving parts. @Nantares' NA-AT 1011A "Tobi-Ume" (LONG HAUL LOW CAPACITY) Futuristic airliner with box-wings and 6 engines. A bit steep but the long range makes it worth it. @Commodoregamer118's DDR ISSRJ1 (MEDIUM HAUL LOW CAPACITY) Small and easy to maintain but with questionable flight characteristics. @Mathrilord's LoRE HST-3-8 Missile (LONG HAUL LOW CAPACITY) Cheap, lightning fast and definitely fitting of the 'missile' title. @TheGoldenSoldier's AirTrain 737 (LONG HAUL MEDIUM CAPACITY) Big and luxurious but expensive to buy and maintain. @Mars-Bound Hokie's B-343 SST (LONG HAUL LOW CAPACITY) Really big, but only carries 24 passengers. Fast but expensive and potentially dangerous to run.
  12. Hey guys, I changed now to RSS/RO and I like the realistic mechanic BUT there is one very annoying thing. And that is the rocketbuilding. First of all the Parts are not suitable so they dont fit that good, they are somehow in each other. Second thing I hate is when I return to change something with control;z the parts change their places and sometimes there is free space and the parts hover in air.... The last thing is when I change the size for example the length of the fueltanks the parts start to move ... Is it only my problem or normal with RO? Because it destroys the gaming flair and makes no fun. I hope you can help me
  13. the title says it all, im looking for professionals who can build epic space stations to collab with me and other professionals who can take kerbals to every single planet in the kerbolar system, if you want to collab with me you will need, restock, restock+, space station expansion parts redux, and planetary base systems. The space station will take kerbals to everywhere and jebidiah will land on every single one of the kerbolar planets, i know this is quite a bit of a challenge as i can just do it myself with a ion powered craft but i want to explore the kerbolar system in style, think about this, would you rather go to laythe in a boring old cramped spacecraft or would you go in a gigantic mothership that has alot of space, and plenty of things to do for the kerbals, you can use visual mods like scatterer if you like but thats pretty much it, im hoping we can get into a group chat and once its done we could stream it live on twitch, invite your friends to come see, and it will be split into 4 parts and the final craft cant be more than 1200 parts if its more than 1200 parts then im gona ask someone else (with a better pc) to fly the craft anyways i hope we can get into a group chat and build the station of our dreams.
  14. How do you make a hypersonic jet, like an https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft), fly level at high altitude and speed? Whether it’s flying with SAS on or off (only control surfaces, no RCS or torque), when its pitch is level it wants to keep climbing until the engines flame out from lack of air, and speed drops.
  15. Hello to keep this mod alive I have updated it and plan to maintain it. This mod aims to provide simple rocket building capability to stock parts. Download GIT Hub Release https://github.com/EricKerman/SimpleConstruction/releases Requires: Module Manager, Interstellar Fuel Switch Core (both not distributed with the mod) Special thanks to: @maculator, @taniwha, @Eleusis La Arwall, @Badsector, @cy-one and @RealGecko for their contributions. @MatterBeam for creating this cool mod. Disclaimers: This mod contains @taniwha's Launchpad.dll and textures from his Extraplanetary Launchpads. License: MIT
  16. Anybody know how to delete parts on xbox? When i remove parts form a craft on my xbox i have to just set them aside instead of deleting them, it gets messy and unorganized.
  17. The Symmetry Glitch Description: In this topic I will explain a method for multiplying symmetry numbers that allows you to use a practically infinite range of symmetry numbers. The symmetry glitch involves how the game handles symmetry numbers, say you place a part with symmetry, such boosters on a rocket with 4 way symmetry, and you try to attach fins to those boosters with 2 way symmetry, upon doing so the game will automatically jump the symmetry number up to 4. This phenomenon is utilized in the glitch. By placing daughter parts on a parent part with symmetry, and then placing that parent part on a grand parent part with symmetry, the daughter parts are placed with multiple layers of symmetry, often creating far more than the maximum of 8 normally allowed. If you try to place a new part on the daughter parts, the symmetry number will jump up to however many daughter parts there are. This new part can then be placed on the grandparent part , and the abnormally high symmetry value will remain.(or any other part as long as it too is not attached with symmetry, as that will cause the symmetry number to jump to that value) From this information you can imagine the potential range of symmetry numbers: 3 x 6 = 18, 8 x 8 =64, 6 x 8 = 48, etc. Pressing the symmetry number will reset it back to 1 regardless of whatever symmetry value you currently have. However ctrl+x still reduces the symmetry number by 1. Meaning, if you started with 64 way symmetry you could press ctrl+x to get a symmetry value of 63, or 62, 61, 60, etc, all the way down until you get to 8. With the inclusion of a great-grandparent part you could even stack this effect on top of itself, and you can keep going from there. Though be warned, it's easy to crash your game by accidentally going way to high, taking this effect above symmetry numbers of 1000 is not recommended. This is a great tool for anyone who doesn't want to use too many building mods. Though for all it's greatness, you still can't do 5 or 7 way symmetry with it. Procedure: Here I will give a step by step procedure for those who are still having trouble. I will demonstrate how to do 64 way symmetry, although the procedure is the same for any symmetry number -1: Start with a grand parent part, this part will have all of the other parts attached to. This can be anything as long is you can radially attach parts to it, though I recommend that it be something large. You could also simply use the body of whatever craft you may be using this glitch on for this purpose. -2: Attach a parent part anywhere on the grandparent part. It doesn't really matter where as long as you only attach a single part. this part can be anything as long as you can radially attach parts to it, but I personally prefer to use Oscar tanks. -3: Attach a daughter part to the parent part with 8 way symmetry. this part can be anything as long as you can radially attach parts to it. Here again I prefer to use more Oscar Tanks. -4: Detach the parent part and reattach it to the grandparent part with 8 way symmetry. This will result in a total of 64 of the daughter parts -5: Attach a part to the daughter part, it could be anything but in this instance it is yet another Oscar Tank. It should be noted that you don't actually have to place this new part, as long as you mouse over the daughter parts the glitch will trigger. -6: Now place this new part on to the grandparent part, be careful not to mouse over the parent part or any other part on the craft that is placed with symmetry, as described above that will revert the glitch. At this point you can remove the parent and daughter parts, as they have served their purpose. And Voila! You have a part attached with 64 way symmetry, as described above you can reduce the symmetry value in increments of 1 to whatever you'd like. You can also attach any other parts and they will attach correctly with no further glitchy-ness. The game can even handle things like decouplers and engines attached this way. ASK QUESTIONS! If you are need of any further help or have other questions feel free to ask. This glitch can be done and used in various different ways, and I find it to be quite useful. I discovered this glitch around a year ago by accident and have been using it frequently ever since. It can be quite useful when making things like base 10 mechanisms or large circular designs. Have fun poking the kraken with this great building tool!
  18. It's just super awesome villa to live on Laythe. There are supplies, rovers and VTOL in this super cool facility.
  19. Hello everyone, this is one of my first post so I'm sorry if I make an error. I make designs on the page kerbalx.com, I've been doing it for a while. Recently, I discovered the Infernal Robotics mod and it was just what I needed for my latest design, foldable wings. In that mod, there are hinges that are the part I need for this, and this is where my problem starts. When I make a hinge, I mount the wing on it, and I set it up, it works perfectly, the wing moves to its configured position without problems. But when I put 2 hinges, the madness begins. In the editor work perfectly, both wings open outwardly unfolding correctly, but once inside the game the hinges go crazy, the 2 are just leaving the axes causing graphic and structural problems in the ship, do not move as in the editor and they end up breaking. I need help with this, to know if someone has happened to him, or if it is a problem with the configuration of the mod. I have to say, I have sought help and the only advice I found was 'disable Auto-Struts' (Advanced Tweakables) but I already did it and the problem is still there. Does anyone know why this happens? Before anything thanks to everyone!
  20. So I built this: The "S-95 "Decent" Torodial Nuclear Interplanetary Transport": And I launched it: And tried to get out of Kerbin atmosphere: But it spun out of control: And I dunno what happened: Help me?
  21. When I make engine clusters for the sake of a higher TWR, I usually don't use the built-in adapters. Usually, I will take a radially-attachable nosecone and put it on 3-4x symmetry, then put the engines on the bottom. I then use the displacement tool to push them together in the center to look like and engine cluster. I do this for three reasons: 1) I think the partially visible nosecone looks better than the adapters 2) the nosecones don't make it less aerodynamic (as far as I know) and 3) I can't figure out a way to attach anything below the adapters (like if it were an upper stage and I need a decoupler below, I would have to now have several stacks of fuel tanks because of the inability to put a decoupler in the middle), and the above mentioned method leaves the node on the bottom of the fuel tank stack open. I usually place a girder or two on this node until they just stick out below my engines, then put a decoupler on the end of that. This way I can have a central stack below this for a lower stage. The issue with this is that it is unshrouded and the two sections of rocket are joined by a thin girder. Does anyone have a more effective way of doing this that still looks okay, or is this the best possible solution? Thanks for any input.
  22. Soviet Typical Architecture Work in Progress Panel House Project 1-335: Panel House Project 121-60-25: Panel House Project 1605:
  23. Dev Program - K1 (Designing and flying Rockets for the Kernow Space Exploration Agency) Greetings fellow forumites. My name is Robert J Powell and I have recently gotten back into KSP after an absence of a little over a year. Recently I posted a few teasers in the what did you do in KSP today thread promising that I would not only post the mission I had run but continue forward and produce more. The result of that is this thread. I intend to move the thread forward one program at a time, generally having one program per post although more complex programs will probably be spread across several posts. Best estimate for updates based on my proof of concept (in this post) would be 1 per week, with the possibility of more when I am on annual leave from my job. More complex designs may require more time, although in the case of a launch not happening in a week, i will try to post a mini development update in the interim. I expect to spend anywhere from 5-20 hours in the VAB designing my rockets with another 4-8 hours allocated for simulation giving a total development time of 9-28 hours. It will then take about 2-3 days to edit the images together into the format I have chosen and to write the AAR (After Action Report). The entire program will be run in what I have termed 'career lite' mode in that i will be using the Career mode for the play through but editing the save file as I deem necessary to modify science or funds etc within a set of parameters (tbd) from here on out known as 'the rules'. I will also be adding my own modified engines into the game as and when needed which will follow a very specific set of rules as laid out below. Long Dart Munar-I (KSEA proof of concept build and journey) Without further ado, I present to you, my fellow forumites, the LDM-I rocket. Sadly this rocket uses a few 'cheat' engines as I designed and flew the rocket before coming up with the rules above. All further rockets in the play through will use only engines available as stock or through the mods I have installed and those I modify. All modified engines will be listed as they are developed and used in the program. The Design: The Flight:
  24. I'm playing a Career mode game with no mods (except MechJeb), and this is the largest rocket I've been able to build. It works well for traveling within the Kerbin system so far, but I want to start going to other planets, but it clearly lacks enough Delta-V to do so (only 7500 m/s). I only have all the 90-Science nodes of the tech tree researched, plus Heavier Rocketry and Command Modules. I would like to increase its Delta-V to (hopefully) 10000 m/s, but am unable to do so. Adding more boosters renders its TWR too small to lift itself. Any ideas? Picture here
  25. Please Create an aircraft that uses stock parts. The only mods allowed are for additional launch sites or graphics enhancements. the idea is to create an unenhanced (let me mention the debug menu is only allowed if you wish to use object thrower) aircraft capable of reaching speeds above Mach 3. If on a PC install please include link to KerbalX. EDIT: With jet engines and it must be crewed with some way for all kerbals to live and at least 1/2 the parts recovered.
  • Create New...