Thunderbird

*sigh*

nice! =P also,what IS the vernier... just a SAS unit? i always avoided it not knowing what it was good for

/brag should be able to land and take off from any planet with Kerbin like gravity, maybe slightly stronger... next landing means capsule only

*clicks download* 8)

no,you just have to log in also Opera > Chrome as far as im concerned =P

almost every engine ingame tends to slide around whatever its attached to unless its held in place by struts

omnomnom..... im going to crash a sattelite on the mun in your honor

bump for awesomeness

Decouplers aready detach things below them, you mean the decoupler detaching FROM the thing below it? You might want to consider using explosive bolts instead of decouplers,they are visually much smaller and unobtrusive.....

exactly! =P besides,that engine is FREAKING INSANE!!!! ;D

just rename the file?

thats a cheat though,only edited part on mine is fuel crosfeed on the wingloads for the solar panels =P

Behold, the Farseer and its Enigma launch vehicle. Second incarnation of my interplanetary starship prototype. (Orange fuel tank and up is the Farseer section) In this variant its untested, but by all indications should work as intended... a little tight on fuel on way to orbit perhaps.... Thoughts? DISCLAIMER: work in progress

https://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/anti-satellite.jpg yup, they exist

strike fighter? fighter-bomber?

[nitpick] not a gunship [/nitpick] pretty kickass plane though =P and the last picture reminds me of the F-22 for some reason....

+1 to that get the donation/preorder system working before i run out of cash again!!!

seems redundant... all ships i have that are big enough have plenty of space on them to place them

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=2750.0 basically variable geometry fixed engine mounts, from what i seen of the in-development version, they can be bent into nearly any angle,even upside down if you stack a few of them

sweeeet might want to try mini-winglets on the rockets though,they fly much better with those http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=2205.msg20594#msg20594 triple symmetry usually is good enough on them to let it fly straight without getting inside your hull when attached im going to make my next gunship attempt when Blaze is released, i hate keeping it up with RCS even though it gives me more control... i want to make it capable of hovering for sustained periods

oh well... gimbals might still do it, it will just shake apart more often... =P

from what i saw yesterday on the livestream it looked as Blaze was a structural 'coupler' type module.... i wonder,would it be possible to make a 'winglet' type equivalent without too much work? i dont know how module types work,but POSSIBLY just changing the actual engine holder part to a winglet might get the job done and even make it somewhat ASAS compatible,allthough i shudder to think what would it do with high-thrust engines attached

im just waiting for Project Blaze to be finalized =P

sadly,its not... the orange tank and up is all dead weight until orbit... second stage is to get through uppermost layers of atmo and gain orbit path, it worked on the first one,doesnt work on the second one and the bastard is HEAVY.... i initially thought that the rocket is simply stalling and losing stability because of it edit: tested,its neither actually... the first stage only starts lifting the thing when its 80%+ when i teamed up the 2nd stage engine to 1st stage to test it, i had no change solution: the center of mass was too high actually.... the rocket was too top-heavy... i guess first version had shorter 1st stage tanks and that was it

just the 6x 1m engines on the long tanks in the first stage.... so basically.... MOAR BOOSTERS? crap,my FPS will go from 1 to 0.5 then.... it didnt move sideways though... just started tilting to the side as if it had a 20-ton weight attached to the side of it