Claw

This doesn't use MechJeb, but perhaps a couple pictures will help you out. It uses the method Cantab offered, ejecting from Kerbin's SOI on the asteroid's inbound track. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75759 Good luck, and welcome to the forums! Cheers, -Claw

If the above suggestions don't work, pictures would help us out a lot. You can take a picture by pressing F1. The picture will be in the KSP/Screenshots folder. Upload to a place like imgur.com (you don't have to make an account), and post the link here. Welcome to the forums! Cheers, -Claw

Hey guys, not to spoil the fun but I want to clear up some confusion about aero in KSP. I've actually outlined a lot of it at the link below (also stickied in this forum). http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/119108-Overhauls-for-1-0 However, the TLDR version relevant here is that lifting surfaces and control surfaces do not use the drag cube values to calculate drag. Drag for aero surfaces is calculated off of their lift rating, and lift rating is calculated based on physical part dimension. There may be some slight variance in lift/area, but it will be minimal. What that all means is that all the wing parts are equal in the sense that if you build a wing out of several parts that is the same size as a single wing part, you will have the same lift and drag rating. It is also true that radially mounted parts are subject to the windstream, even if hidden in a nosecone. You'll have to hide those things in a service bay or cargo bay when possible. Wings are a special case of this though, because they don't use the cube values, but a scaled product of their lift. Fuel in the wing does not affect their "wing" properties (lift or drag). Using them is better than adding extra side tanks, but is a matter of preference if you want to put the fuel in the fuselage or not. However, using them for fuel can reduced fuselage size, which also results in lower drag. Cheers, -Claw

If you are referring to the line in the resource tab, the max amount is pretty meaningless. Two things to watch for with intakes... -Make sure you have enough (as noted above) -If you have a lot of engines, keep an eye out for asymmetric thrust due to air starvation. If you get asymmetric flameout, add intakes, or remove and place intake, intake, engine; intake, intake, engine... Cheers, -Claw

I'm interested to hear how this turns out for a vessel this size. Although I susped with a craft that big, it might wobble and snap while trying to do the T-handle oscillation. Interesting design. Cheers, -Claw

I don't know what the temp is, but they can't take much when out in the air on their own. The thermo system will account for parts hidden behind other parts. If you have them enclosed in some sort of structure, they do a lot better. And if they are in a command chair, they do okay as well. I've launched several in chairs with a "wind breaker" in front of them, but I haven't recovered very many in just a chair. I suspect your bigger concern for Duna will be aerobraking (if you are planning that). Even in the chair though, make sure they are hidden behind something. You might need to try a couple "simulations." Good luck! Cheers, -Claw

Moved to the forums area. Good idea. Cheers, -Claw

Ah, nice job. I didn't have much luck with the Mk2 fuselage parts because it kept making my boat want to buck up and down. Although mine probably ended up a bit heavier, so I'm sure that didn't help. In either case, I love the way yours looks. Very cool! And good luck with the challenge. Cheers, ~Claw

Okay, Here is my entry for Master Mariner Circumnavigator, and I suppose Laythe as well. The crew, Julella and Obemy, were on another adventure... But they are my Elcano crew, so I scooped them up and sent them off to Jool. This trip reused the Cockroach (from my Kerbin circumnavigation) with no changes to the baseline boat itself. I did add some fuel, engines, and chutes for launch, interplanetary travel, and Laythe landing. All of those bits were jettisoned at key points in the trip, before the circumnavigation began. To keep the part counts down and craft sizes manageable, main elements were sent up separately. La Cucaracha needed to be refueled once established in LKO, and used a powered direct entry into Laythe (for fuel/size considerations). A crew recovery ship was sent on a bit slower path and arrived during one of La Cucaracha's refueling stops. Enjoy! (Oh, I forgot...It's all stock.) Cheers, ~Claw

Using the debug option will return some of the previous aero drag (emphasis on "some"), but the old wing lift calculations will not return. Also, I doubt anyone's done any testing on if that button even works right. In other words, it's not guaranteed to turn off all the new aero drag and turn on all the old aero drag. Cheers, ~Claw

Yes. It seems to always be with the small triangular wing pieces. I think the Type B might be the other one, but I can't remember for sure off the top of my head. Cheers, -Claw

The difference between the "old SAS" units was not the equivalent to "stability assist" vs. "no assist." It was actually that the basic SAS unit could only control torque (essentially for space flight), while the Advanced SAS unit was able to use torque and provide inputs to control surfaces (so more "in atmosphere"). That was changed to a system that separated the concepts of SAS and Torque. The part's themselves ceased to control SAS and only provided torque. The "control" function was combined/updated to a single system which controls all methods of maneuvering. Later, the Pilot RSAS abilities were added, giving the options beyond "stability assist." SAS (control) as we know it now is all within the control source (probes or kerbals), and torque is now all within the reaction wheels. I doubt the control function of SAS would be moved back to the torque modules, because they would basically become superpowered probe cores.

We have to keep the forumites on their toes as well.

Endersmens is correct. It will come in time. Contribute to the community or build some neat stuff to share. Cheers, ~Claw

I believe Kerbas_ad_astra is correct. I think RealChutes has it's own modules, which my StockPlus doesn't interface with. There used to be some incompatibility, which I think is fixed. However, they don't work together since RealChute swaps out the stock modules. StickyLaunchPadFix was left out intentionally because it isn't working at the moment. ModuleDockingNodeFix was not left out intentionally, so that's a mistake on my part, and is probably just as much explains the few posts up bug report of NREs... Thanks, and I'd better get on that update. Sorry kerbonauts... Cheers, ~Claw

Right you are. I have fixed this and will post an update soon . Thanks! -Claw

If the concern is "will converting to 64-bit break my save," then I would say at face value, no. 64-bit itself isn't cause for breaking a save. The bigger concern is if Unity 5 has any of the strange instability in 64-bit that Unity 4 has. That's a whole different problem thogh. If 64-bit is stable, then I don't expect 64-bit KSP v1.1 to break saves any more than 32-bit KSP v1.1. And as sal said, Squad tries not to cause things that break saves when it can be helped. Then when it's expected, they "usually" give a heads up (such as breaking .craft files when Space Plane Plus was integrated.) Cheers, -Claw

It looks nice, and I'll welcome it...but I personally didn't think the "old" (already redone) cockpit needed updating. There are a lot of other parts that I think needed updating before another reskin of the Mk1 cockpit. Cheers, -Claw

Sometimes these two symmetry options will cause a change, but usually not. I think it has more effect when the root part is rotated, but can't recall for sure off hand. Cheers, -Claw

Turning black in flight is definitely desired. I took the report to mean "when I change ablator in the editor, it turns black." In which case, I don't believe that is intended, but just unfinished. Cheers, -Claw

I feel I should clear up a few things about how aero works within the game, and how it compares to reality. Yes. It's totally possible and actually incredibly easy to do. Because of multiple reasons, but the one that's relevant is that the OP doesn't want to use the piece as a wing, but as a structural element. This is still a video game, so that logic is in the realm of the possible. Also, if I took a wing in real life and attached it flat against a fuselage, it would function wholly differently than when it's attached as a classical wing. Well, drag from lift is produced internal to the lift module (and based on the lift rating vice the part shape like everything else). However, there is also a drag model setting which needs to be flipped if you're going to turn off (delete) the lift module. Beware that a wing acting as a "flat plate" structural element will generate more drag than a wing acting as a wing (in KSP), because of the shape (the wing models are fairly thick). Also, a nose cone made out of wings will NOT occlude parts behind it in the same way as a nose cone piece. You are correct in some areas, but flipped in a few others. Small Cessna aircraft (all that I know of anyway) use cambered airfoils. This means that they do produce lift at zero angle of attack. All wing pieces in KSP are symmetric airfoils. That means they do not create lift at zero angle of attack. From a gameplay standpoint, this is primarily for practical considerations. If the wing components did create lift at zero angle of attack, that would be really bad for rocket design. Also, cambered airfoils can also generate lift at negative angles of attack. Although there will be some negative angle of attack where lift is zero. That's not entirely true. Symmetric airfoils are essentially very aerodynamic flat plates. A "wing" does not require camber to generate lift. Just because a flat body can generate lift doesn't mean that it's a wing. So no, I don't think my hand is a wing. But if I ram it at the right angle into an airflow fast enough, it's going to generate lift (and a lot of drag). That lift is the product of deflecting air downward in the same manner as for a symmetric airfoil. Cheers, ~Claw

Yep. I think this one isn't a bug so much as an incomplete feature. Fortunately it's just cosmetic. Cheers, ~Claw

Yes, there are a few. Usually the ones where people are actually having fun, such as the GIC thread. I also enjoy seeing other people's designs and lately have been getting into the "mission reports" threads. Though I suppose those aren't "antics." Also, there are the occasional troll posts that can be semi funny, though I suppose we aren't supposed to admit to that. Cheers, ~Claw

To some extent, although modified installs can become unbearably difficult to sift through. Not always though, since it was a modded launch clamp that helped me figure out the launch clamp problem. In this particular case, I'm aware that cargo bay overheating is not fixed. It turns out the overheat bug affecting parts inside cargo bays is different than the one affecting parts outside of cargo bays. So I've managed to fix the latter, but not the former. And the link I posted a couple posts up turns out to include a stock cargo bay bug. So I definitely appreciate the offer, but I think I have a stock example of what you are referring to. Hopefully I can manage a fix for the cargo bay, at which time I will be hoping for people such as yourself to come back and give that a test with FAR. You can go ahead and post it. I'm not sure if I'll have time to get to building up a developmental RT install before dealing with the cargo bay overheating, but having it posted will allow me to get back to it if/when I have time. Thanks again guys! ~Claw

Thanks for the craft file. The cargo bay portion of the overheat bug is definitely a separate issue and, as such, is not fixed in the current release. Thanks again. I can replicate this bug now, so hopefully I can fix it soon when I get some time. Cheers, -Claw