BudgetHedgehog

Yeah, I was a bit disappointed when I read this. If you're heading to Duna for the first time and you're being offered nothing but Eve or Kerbin contracts, it seems unfair to be punished for wanting to do stuff relevant to what you're actually doing. Especially seeing as the contracts are regenerated every few days with no penalty as well. Just seems a bit unnecessary :/

Let me know what you're after, I'm sure I could come up with stuff, I'd love to have a try Also, this looks sounds amazing! A real advancement on ShipEffects, I love that engine sound changes based on throttle. What do you plan on adding with ModuleHeatDSFX though? I can't think of anything that gives off sound when hot...

1, Build the orbiter (make sure it's stable when fuel is empty and travelling at re-entry speeds). If you want realism, don't have any LFO on it, have monoprop and use monoprop engines as the OMS. Attach engines to the back too. 2, Attach external tank (ET) to the bottom. 3, Attach 2 x SRBs to the sides of the ET attached in step 2 4, Align CoT with CoM. This is the hardest step - , not only do you have to choose the right SSMEs (usually Skippers and/or Mainsails), you'll have to tweak the thrust levels of the SRBs and the angle of the SSMEs to make a stable launch, but also make sure that when the SRBs are decoupled, the SSMEs will be able to cope with the offset thrust as well as making sure the whole thing has a launch TWR of >1. You can do this by either having SSMEs with large gimbal range, or by tweaking the thrust of the outermost engine in flight (the more the SRBs burn, the more SSME thrust has to be angled downward and not off center. When the SRBs decouple, you need to tweak it back up to cope with the huge offset CoM which will then, with an empty ET, move back towards the orbiter, requiring less thrust on the outer engine). If your SSMEs have a large gimbal range, you can be a bit less precise with CoT/CoM alignment. The KER mod shows thrust torque per stage, use the heck out of that. In general, think about how the CoM moves at all stages throughout the flight (full SRBs and ET with payload, mostly full ET and nearly empty SRBs (with high TWR) with payload, mostly full ET and no SRBs with payload, nearly empty ET with payload, no ET with payload, no monopropellant without payload, etc etc) and adjust engines (and their angle) and thrust levels until you've got a good compromise on all situations. Also, yes, Shuttles are more of a novelty than a viable payload launch system, both IRL and in KSP. You're pretty much always better off using disposable launchers, especially if they reply on cheap SRBs as the main source of thrust (say, Kickback core with liquid fuel second stage to finalise and circularise orbit).

Yep, and from the looks of it, it does look to be satisfactory. But until I can play with it (with all my mods as well), I have a cynical outlook. It's just who I am.

Will it ruin the fun if I say that docking ports are stageable in stock now? I saw it on the Twitch streams. Yes, Other OWKSP, yes it will..

You're waiting for a train..

2.26 in Scott Manleys video shows and explains this well: EDIT: Forum dev people: pleas realise that it's almost 2016 and youtube URLs are shortened and also make it so URLs that point to a time work, kthxbai

Ok, back to the topic at hand: Yes, more gimbal would be nice. Buuuuuut only if stock aero models aerodynamics as well as FAR does (which includes a patch to increase engine gimbal). Real life engines have a large gimbal, but KSP air isn't real life air so it doesn't need as much.. it'd helpful, sure, but then, so would removing drag or making reaction wheels even more unrealistic.. So yeah, I'm all in favour of moar gimbal, but it'd need the atmosphere to also slide towards realism because otherwise, it's just making things easier.

Oh my, that looks amazing! Gimme gimme gimme!

Thanks for the condescending reply, but I've read the thread. I know plenty of examples and am an aviation enthusiast IRL. If you read my reply properly, it had nothing to do with what reality is like and everything to do with the fact that procedural engine design isn't a part of core KSP. Besides, air intakes are already separate to the engines (and air can already flow through solid fuel tanks and structural parts), so I'm not sure I see your point with that example

Modular design is part of core KSP, modular engine design isn't. You don't have to attach turbopumps or nozzles to rocket engines, you get a whole complete engine (even get something that should be part of the fuel tank thrown in too). Why should jets be any different?

Ohh, I see. Thanks for clarifying. Now you me mention it, it does look a little sparse.. But I wouldn't read too much into it, 1.0.5 is still a tiny update - if we go by version numbers, it's no different than 1.0.1->1.0.2->1.0.3->1.0.4 and anyway, what are we really getting here? A few thermal and physics fixes and tweaks, a few new parts.. that's about it, from memory. It's no surprise there aren't a lot of streamers, there isn't a lot of new content. Now, 1.1 though, that'll be a different kettle of fish, I'd expect quite a few more streamers for that one.

Heh, my dad says the same thing.. I'm just not expecting grand things and I suspect it won't work out for me the way it's been described in the devnotes (last time I tried to make a boat, it reach a blistering 12m/s with a jet engine on the back, then fell apart and got completely obliterated after 30 seconds. Buoyancy had nothing to do with that, which is why I'm not expecting 'boats and seaplanes' to be completely viable for me).

How? That schedule covers most of literally everyone's days and you don't have to watch them all.. I doubt one Twitcher will cover a feature no-one else will so I doubt you'll be missing out on much if you miss one and tbh, most, if not all, of those streamers are based in the US which A, corresponds to a large majority of KSP players and B, is near the timezone of Mexico itself.. Unless I misunderstand what you're saying (which is possible), but I don't see anything out the ordinary there..

Well, we all know how Squad likes to implement real world physics into KSP, judging by the aerodynamics.. I suspect the implementation will fall quite short of what hydrodynamicists consider real world physics. Bear in mind that stock 1.0.4 KSP aero doesn't model radial occlusion (only stack based), it doesn't care how aerodynamic a fairing is and that rotating a nosecone 180 degrees has the same effect as if you hadn't rotated it (i.e. flat side = pointy side, as far as aerodynamics are concerned).. I'm not saying it'll be rubbish, I'm just saying that keeping in mind the previous physics overhaul, it's probably wise to not expect things to act as you think they should. Also, yes, no-one apart from Squad can truly say what they think of it, because no-one apart from Squad has had a chance to play with it. Everyone, including me, is basing their opinions off of what Squad has said it'll be, which may or may not turn out to be not what they expected it to be. Do you see?

It's.. not quite as simple as that. Besides adding RCS and docking ports to your craft that you wouldn't normally add (and increasing the part count and overall weight), a plane designed with a centre fuselage of X length will not perform the same way if X was changed to Y. The CoL and CoM will move, possibly making it unstable, it's extra hassle as well.. if you can show me an experiment where it's easier and more efficient to use that method vs simply opening a cargo bay, I will agree with this. Until then, I will continue to take those orange-sides to orbit with a spaceplane in a Mk3 cargo bay because it's less parts, less work and less bendiness. (well, I won't because I don't, but if I did, I would. I'm not a spaceplane kinda guy) EDIT: I do use FAR which probably changes things somewhat, more in the favour of cargo bays than planes in two parts.

Sure, if you look at just numbers, those seem at a net disadvantage. But look at the big picture - show me a Service Bay that can hold a Rockomax tank, show me a stackable size 1 cargo bay, show me a size 3 part that can hold 16 kerbals.. The Mk2 and Mk3 parts have advantages that no other size 2 or 3 parts have. Yeah, you could put 16 lander cans on a craft, but then you'd be using 16 parts instead of 1 (by the way, the Mk2 crew compartment has the lowest weight to kerbal capacity ratio, beating the much larger Hitchhiker). If you need to carry a big cargo to orbit in a spaceplane, the Mk3 cargo bay is ideal, you're never going to fit it into anything smaller (yes, you could put it in a fairing on a 2.5m stack, that's why I said "in a spaceplane". I'll assume you want your spaceplane to remain plane shaped after deploying the cargo so fairings on a plane are not feasible). Also, IIRC, the Mk3 fuel tanks have the best dry mass ratio of any other tanks.

On the official forums, PorkJet said it won't have collision.

This part of the model that makes it flush against the stack rather than rounded.

I like them - they don't add much (or anything) to gameplay, but the CoM now looks right. 0 negatives and 1 positive makes it ok in my book Also, I'm surprised at the negativity towards them. I'm 99.9% certain they'll reappear as a mod, what's the problem? Also also, I'm still in favour of using ModuleJettison in the same way as the new Goliath 2.5m jet - when radially attached, part of the model isn't there. When stack attached, that hidden part is revealed. EDIT: 90 degree gimbal is ridiculous. 90 degree vectored thrust is fine, but it's using a different method than gimballing. Not to mention that no engine has been produced that has both.

Pretends the planet/moon is X% smaller than it actually is, giving you connection even though the LoS is technically below the horizon (or only just occluded). Just a bit of leeway, that's all.

Then nothing happens, because you need to hold to quickload. This is why they're different, to stop you accidentally immediately reloading a save.

Ahh, of course! Duh doy.. nice one!

Daym, I dunno.. Piper Seneca? How far should I be looking? Mid-wing twin turboprop with a cruciform tail? With engine bodies as big as the fuselage? I give up..

Latest dev build here, in full.