Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'building'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP 2 Discussion
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • Breaking Ground Expansion
    • Breaking Ground Discussion
    • Breaking Ground Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL





Found 24 results

  1. 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 (???)'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.
  2. 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.
  3. How do you make a hypersonic jet, like an, 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.
  4. 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 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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!
  7. It's just super awesome villa to live on Laythe. There are supplies, rovers and VTOL in this super cool facility.
  8. Hello everyone, this is one of my first post so I'm sorry if I make an error. I make designs on the page, 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!
  9. 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?
  10. 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.
  11. Soviet Typical Architecture Work in Progress Panel House Project 1-335: Panel House Project 121-60-25: Panel House Project 1605:
  12. 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:
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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..
  18. 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
  19. 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:
  20. Because of a misunderstanding of the message I made this is now closing due to the lack of visitors. Sorry for the inconvinence!
  21. 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.
  22. 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!
  23. 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 .
  24. 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?