Camaron

Thank you. 1) ISRU is is chilling on the nose Also, the plane is as big as it is for maximum range AFTER a refuel at minumus, so a lot of the tank capacity is just empty cargo weight on the way up.I am well aware of the diminishing returns deal, but that's why these lessons on efficiency are so important to me. It's also why I use way too many wings to ramp up lift and reduce AOA - because they're also Liquid tanks so their mass isn't particularly wasted after leaving an atmosphere. 2) I know but it should be minor loss at a shallow angle and sometimes looks get in the way of function 3) It will be tricky to line up rows of wings at a slight custom angle but I will give it a try sometime 5) I got over clipping hangups a long time ago. My reasoning is basically that any sane aerospace engineer would have put things like the RTG internal to the ship, for example. 6) (Empty), this plane lands so easily i probably could do it blindfolded. The newer landing gears are surprisingly rugged. 7) I have found in several spaceplane designs now (Including this one) that the airbrakes survive fine and slow down the plane just enough to not blow to bits on the way down, in any case where the standard flat-belly approach isn't available. 8) Center of mass is roughly at the midline of the central liguid tank. With AeroGrav's help on the ingame drag simulation quirks, that may change significantly. 9) Simultaneously? Maybe not. Are two giants and some roof panels enough for a drill and converter?

Here it is, hopefully http://www.mediafire.com/file/zp38ytzxsdbh1yr/Diamondback+IV+cp18.craft

I love the functional simplicity of that one! Your Kerbotour Deluxe will acheive notable things and still cause less lag than unmodded minecraft!

So, ages ago before my Kerbal playtime came to a near-standstill due to heavy college work and life in general, I found a craft built and presented by Rune that caught my attention for some reason, and I vowed to make a larger edition based on similar design concepts. Now, 14 months later (I know because of screenshot file dates), I came back to that idea and rebuilt a version that actually accomplishes all it was meant to do. This craft carries 12 Kerbals and a full set of drilling hardware as well as a polar scanning probe on board, to space in one stage with enough D/V to happily land on minmus to refuel. Theoretically it should reach anything in the solar system after that refuel. I wonder if anyone can point out significant improvements to the design? Also I will admit there are a few things clipped into the body, like some SAS and a single generator. Meet the Diamondback IV (Album in the tiny link below this image) http://imgur.com/a/PTG6D http://imgur.com/a/QDGTQ

Ford. Built tough.

I built my first thing in over a year since the last time I played Kerbal Space Program. I essentially picked up where I left off, attempting to design an SSTO which can reach orbit with a decent number of passengers, (12 in this design), with enough DV to carry itself and its resource mining capabilities and scanning drone to minmus to refuel to grant itself the ability to reach any location in the solar system. A few hours ago I succeeded in completing a design which appears to accomplish this very well. I have not thoroughly tested what it can do, or even attempted re-entry and landing yet, but here, you can check it out anyway! Of course during screenshots, I realized I've already made an obvious mistake with non-retractable solar on the probe that is supposed to re-mount the ship between planets. Lol. http://imgur.com/a/aQFPy The forum has changed how it does things. Wouldn't mind if someone shot me a PM with the basics on how to put up an image.

Probably the same reason. Or maybe it DID try to update, screwed it up, and that was your result.

I realize I am way off topic, but what visual mods are those, Cupcake?

Dear god, you're unstoppable!

Nuh uh Mine's way better. It's basically one stranded Kerbal that I forgot to bring back to the ship but still. My Duna base can jump and speak and yearn for home. I'd like to see this other junker pull that off.

Before I go on, let me just say: I love this game. I've put in probably 5,000 hours of playtime altogether. I'm glad to see that you put together a coherent list of concerns rather than just flaming on about various easily solved issues like some have. However, some of your issues come from trying to do something unrealistic, or getting upset that something that is exceptionally difficult is difficult. Taking a Rover back home with you. Pointing an engine and a heat shield in the same direction. You're trying to do a lot of things that simply shouldn't be done because they unnecessarily complicate things. As for your complaints on lousy parts, I'm with you 100%, and will even add a few complaints of my own. Most of the models are just plan bad and the textures are even worse. I have a considerable amount of experience in modeling and texturing for games, and it aggravates me how many models aren't even centered properly!!! Centering a model is modelling 101, guys. I know for a fact that whoever is making KSP's models has been doing so for 5 years now and the fact that he has only recently gotten to the point where I can call his work "mediocre" is disappointing to say the least. If I didn't have better things to do than remodel all of KSP for free, I would have done it a long time ago. I understand the problems that come from faulty floating-point rounding in modelling programs, but as a seasoned modeller, these issues should be figured out by now. Then we have the issue where a lot of the attachment points aren't quite right, leaving us to correct these novice modelling mistakes manually with the offset function. The assets from which we construct our ships are quite sub-par. Once upon a time I could excuse this, since the KSP team is a tiny Indie dev group and the people in it didn't have extensive experience. But.... it has now been around half a decade. The person building these assets should be an absolute pro by now.

Are we there yet?

It was phrased a little bit weird, but as far as layman's terms go, it was a decent descrition, though I can see how his choice of words could be confusing. We shouldn't keep arguing over it though, anyone interested should just google the details themselves.

Oh, well, whatever gets the job done, I guess.

But wasn't Unity 5's performance jump coming from multithreading?

I cant wait to put KSP 1.1 up against a Xeon E5 2695 V3 (or higher). Oh, the monstrosities I shall build... Given that I am a computer parts reseller, this will happen. My roommate will have KSP contend with his 3.3GHz 10-core. I traded him for his 4820K last year because it was an obscure ES processor with roughly the same value, but much harder to sell. He didn't object

Efficient crafts make me happy. That said, I visited every world in the solar system without ever knowing the Delta-V numbers, so I do know where you come from with this dislike for the widespread obsession with technical details.

Of course you can, but its such a small target. It's far, far easier to just use the maneuver nodes like a normal person. Personally I don't match the inclination of slanted orbits, I shoot my apoapsis up straight along the dotted line that marks the angle of incline. Then I expand the peri to get the intercept on the following orbit pass like a time-wasting master of inefficiency.

Got careless in Hard Mode. Killed Jeb, Killed Val. Well.......damn.

If you want to REALLY get serious about a performance load, here's my 1,500-part fuel station launcher. (No mods required - pure stock) https://www.mediafire.com/?4ca1cndyra1ro2c LAUNCH FROM RUNWAY

This is always tricky. The best you can really do is get solid bearings with nearby references like the planet's surface and the sun, and remember where your ship should be if you have to swap, because you will need to set your target again after switching. If you're on the dark side, this can be nearly impossible without lights. The dev team is talking about a full UI overhaul in 1.1 so there is a chance that this challenge has already been addressed. It's not a bug - its just a lack of foresight that can be very problematic at times. If you are just rescuing and not docking, it's a lot less difficult because you can simply light up your rescue craft, switch, EVA, and fly to the gleaming Kerbalese nearbly. Also, the round lights have enough range to illuminate another craft within the target icon's (sometimes) disappearance range of 500M. This doesn't seem to apply to docking targets. It's also worth considering that most cockpits and crew cabins have a "Lights on" mode that can definitely help keep things visible, and they don't require additional lights or additional power. I found this image to show some smart lighting. This craft was a breeze to dock, even on the darkside because the main portion illuminates both itself and the target.

Do what I do: overbuild so severely that you make it back home with two more stages of fuel.

You're not cool if you don't mod KSP to oblivion and then call it unstable.

You don't. The game has some additional mechanics that require a bit more computation than previous versions. Without internally nerfing things, its just going to run a little heavier than older versions. The good news, however, id that 1.1 is supposed to bring with it superior multi core support which should improve computational drag immensely. Always looking forward!

Maybe you could have one pod right near the ground, but when you prepare to launch, transfer crew to the real pod up top, and just leave the lower one on the ground. I dunno, my science comes from the Jool system or something, like its supposed to