Frank_G

Playing stock KSP is getting more fun from update to update and the list of features that feel missing gets shorter also. One should never forget, that KSP is currently under heavy development and that lots of things are still missing... "There is a mod for that" is the phrase for many situations these days, just because KSP has a caring and agile community of modders, that help with their awesome work in the progress and beyond. Saddly some of the good and useful mods will probably die out, when the functionality they offer will make it into the final game. "There is a mod for that" is nothing to blame SQUAD for, but a phrase that shows, how the modder community is keeping the flag waving, by making KSP feel more complete right now. Thank you for that!

I tried some sci fi designs with spaceplane plus, that look not like any other design with that mod... i still find the standalone cockpit adds too much of its own to any design, so i tried the inline one. However i like the mod a lot. Still one of the best part mods around.

Yes, for me too. And it is one of those few mods, that dont look misplaced or feel unfitting from its features. Very nice, we will see this to become stock real soon. I see my mod list shrinking again

I posted a similar idea to this in a fairings discussion a while ago, where payload should be handled as a single piece as long as the fairings are closed. I totally second this suggestion.

I second that. But all at once could get messy, once you use complex staging setups. So at best, the line shows up, when you hover over the part with the mouse, or select multiple parts with shift click.

Have a nice hot cup of tea or two and enjoy the space view - and doing slight course corrections from time to time. Quite relaxing.

Found this on facebook recently. Enjoy

A good way to start designing a launcher is to keep in mind, that the launchers mass will be about 5 - 10 times heavier than the payload. Unless you have the SLS parts think more in direction of 10 times. That will give you an efficient launcher. Mainsails are your friends for sure. I try to keep my launchers visually as close to a rocket as possible, so consider a transfer stage on top of a main center stage and 2 or 4 side mounted boosters. That should do the trick. Personally i dont like asparagus setups mentioned by Red Iron Crown, but they are really efficient. So find your style, then built it.

The solution is simple.... You are not using the fairings, you are using the fuselage parts, located under the structural and not the aero tag. Fuselage parts have no decoupler, as they are used to hide stuff away.

Today i advanced a little through the tech tree, getting all the parts i need for a decent large scale space station in .24.2 career. This makes my current station obsolete, so i refitted it with new landing craft, rearranged the modules and docked a nuclear tug to it. Instead of decommissioning the station i will send it on a trip to Duna. The station as it was before: The station with rearranged modules,Duna emergency landing capsules and tug awaiting transfer in 95 Kerbin days. I will send a lander together with the station to Duna, to establish an unkerbaled post on the ground. It will have a fuel depot and a rover for basic LZ exploration, delivering the necessary data for the kerbaled base lander that will follow, when the next launch window opens. So far, transporting the station, landing the unkerbaled rover and depot will cost arround 800 k of funds. Mission report and more pictures will follow.

Very nice video and a lovely choice of music. This seems to be a rather small spaceplane, considering the craft you usually design.

When looking at the last two Dev notes, this seems to get some attention in .25. There is talk of re-modeling, re-designing and texture stuff too, if i am not mistaken. I think our guys at SQUAD are pretty much aware of what needs to be done. Lets give them some time to prove it.

I must say, i really hate this new old feature... Forgetting to set throttle to 0 could totally ruin the launch of a spaceplane or rockets with a more complex launch staging. I liked it, how it was in the last 4 versions of KSP. A way to reset this would be nice to know.

To be honest, it would be pretty much stupid to waste 16.5k of polygons on an ingame kerbal. They are usually taking only very little screen space and are quite good looking right now. And i bet, the current model uses even less then the former cinematic models 6.5k polygons. For example the team fortress characters use between 6 and 10k of polygons and they need it, because they use far more screen presence than a kerbal. Better spend some polys on equipment and tools, that kerbals could carry into the field. Spending less time on the cinematics would be nice, if the output of ingame stuff would increase that way. But one should not forget, that one group of devs advancing faster than the others could destabilize the asset creation and lead to hours of work spent in stuff, that wont be needed later, leaving the customer with the same update progression and no cinematic and the modelers frustrated...

Welcome to the forums! And now go rescue poor Hadming Kerman... He will gladly join your space program and serve best to his abilites, regardless off what mission you will send him on. There is a nice thread around, where early rescue crafts are discussed, if you need any help. Or just ask! [edit] the thread is located here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86740-Showcase-Show-Us-Your-Rescue-Designs%21-0-24?highlight=Rescue

I took those two cockpit IVA views as placeholders so far... I bet something cooler will be in store for the final game. And if you cant wait... There are two very nice and stockalike mods for cool interiors of both cockpits available here on the forums and on kurseforge.

Indeed... When Jool rises on the horizon, its time to get a hot cup of tea, lean back and enjoy the majestic view.

I like the joolian system with all the moons. Very challenging destination with lots of space to explore and explode.

This craft looks like some airhogging engine spam thingie from KSP... http://www.gizmag.com/vv-plane-vtol-cargo-ducted-fans/33296/ There are lots of interesting and unusual concepts popping up these days. We live in interesting times.

Wow the first true Duna äh Mars anomaly catched on picture... Now where are the moon arcs?

I have never been past Jool, nor did i have visited Bop and Pol yet. Also i have never been to the inner planets, except an unmanned mission to Eve back in .21. I am planning a grand tour through the kerbol system, landing on all planets and moons in a single run, including refueling depots in some orbits and a parked lander for Eve. But its a long way, till i will go on that mission.

Congratulations on finishing your epic quest, Wooks. I really liked to follow your series on YouTube. Always relaxing with a cup of tea to get my head clear from work. Now who circumnavigates Laythe in a boat made out of a class c asteroid.

I think as long as a craft goes by aerodynamic and aesthetic design, the number of intakes isnt relevant. I usually use between one and four intakes per engine. Four mostly, when it is a single engine craft, where you can use the new intake parts in very good looking configurations. I consider Air hogging as using clipped intakes, using cubic struts to place intakes all over the plane, placing redicoulus numbers behind each other, stack them or hide loads of em inside your plane. From my experience i can tell, that using 2.5 ram intakes per turbo jet is enough to build a nice working space plane. FAR makes it easier, or get NEAR if you want the physics model a little less complex. I go with NEAR as i dont enjoy playing under the complex physics model.

Build a small RCS surface craft for your next mission, so you could rely on that instead of the low fuel amounts in the jetpack. And you could leave Bob where he is and pick him up with the spacecraft. Just a thought.

I am with you here 100%. There is nothing more tense than descending through a tense cloud soup... Especially on Eve, where the clouds could go down to the surface... Wind and rain would be nice, but as you said, it should be an option.