Omnivore

This forum software has a bug that so far only Firefox detects - which causes the problem. Temporary solution is, use Internet Explorer or another browser, log in, and download.

Even if my system was up to running fraps I\'d probably not buy it and the free version of Debut video capture seems to be a bit too much for my system as well. So recently when I needed to capture a screenshot at a pretty precise point in time I was a bit stumped. I turned to AutoHotKey http://www.autohotkey.com/ and used the attached script to fire off F1 keystrokes to KSP at a rate of around 3 or 4 per second as long as the joystick trigger is depressed. Hope this is of use to someone.

I still haven\'t gotten around to texturing the gantry system and decided to wait until at least the experimental version of the next release is available before doing reverse tricouplers given their operational deficiencies. However, in the meantime, I did get around to making a rover wheel of all things lol. This should fill in that gap until some real artist decides to do one. Rover wheel available at bottom of first message: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=4267.msg48104#msg48104

Hmm well I used the same strut config as shown in your photos - still comes apart - even tried additional struts to control wing wobble. Eh well, I had in fact, tried an identical configuration to your last one as it was the obvious next step, prior to submitting the KX-19 results - but I was never able to get the self-destruct under control. I guess I underestimated your engineering talents, congrats.

Well I hate to have to admit defeat but I can\'t duplicate or exceed your results as the thrust exceeds the structural strength between the wing and fuselage even at higher altitudes whether I use your design or a modified KX-19. I wonder if I have the latest C7 files, perhaps C7 increased the structural strength of the wings? The KX-19 was at the structural strength borderline - it always self destructed the very instant fuel ran out as it couldn\'t withstand the deceleration. It also liked to come apart at low altitudes if you stepped on the gas.

UPDATE: New best run for KX-19: 1152.4 m/s @ 948m over KSC.

Announcing KX-19, merger of KX-15 and Dinky projects, clocking in at 1143.7 m/s at an altitude of 839m while overflying KSC. Second best run recorded 1142.3 m/s at an altitude of 873m. During the landing maneuver the KX-19 successfully tested the Mk V ablative undercarriage system. And finally came to a safe rest a short walk from the launch center.

Bah.. same exact approach I was working on lol, well congrats and back to the drawing board for me.

Ethics, personal honor, pride in one\'s own work, valuing creativity, meh I feel old today reading some of the above. 1087.7... ARE YOU MAD!!! lol Ok, after calming down, I realize the gloves are off, be warned, I\'m going to turn this: into an airplane... somehow... UPDATE: FYI, this approach does not work, usually results in . Oh and here, belatedly (a guy\'s gotta sleep sometime!) is the craft file for Dinky II:

Slight difficulty in landing during a challenge competition.

Ladies and gentlekerms, might I present Dinky II, small but mighty hitting 948.7 m/s while passing over KSC at an altitude of 962 meters. An earlier run netted a top speed of 940.0 m/s at 984m altitude, also over KSC. Landing the Dinky II continues to be a challenge for the crew, the crew survives, as does most of the rocket plane, but some parts are usually damaged quite beyond repair.

The new rule you propose is interesting, but I noticed in your screenshots that you seem to have dropped rule #2...

Designed this one for the \'fastest atmospheric plane\' challenge, it held the top spot for about two hours ;D Besides the high speed capability (over 700 m/s in low altitude level flight) it is also a very stable glider with a stall speed of under 40 m/s. For the contest it was allowable to mix SE and C7 parts (Silisko Edition 0.9 engine used). I expect the basic design would fly well with a lesser engine.

First let me say I resent the implication. However, in the interests of peace, harmony, and the enlightenment of the unenlightened... the design uses Silisko Edition and C7 parts only. Oh, by the way, it is a very stable glider and can make multiple high speed passes as well as land in each run. Craft file attached.

Have a new best run with same plane: 732.5 m/s @ 733m altitude.

First couple of runs with the Snark III: Best run - 704.1 m/s @ 520m altitude passing over launch area. Second run (had a better one but screenshot only caught coast): 641.2 m/s @ 572m altitude passing end of runway. And finally a couple screenshots of landing:

For arbitrary values, the fuel density isn\'t too far off (1.4 vs ~1 LOX/RP1) giving each unit of fuel a mass of 4.4kg. It\'s the engines that are off by a good measure, they mass far too much for their thrust output as well as for their volume and consume roughly half the amount of fuel they should for a given thrust output. It bears repeating though that this is a game simulation not a hard core realism simulation. Realistic values might take a good bit of the fun out of the game. Alpha is just a good a time as any to start looking at where improved realism impacts the challenge vs fun curve. To not experiment now is to basically give no input at all to HarvesteR & co... during alpha, when there might be a chance for the outcome of the experiments to influence future game direction. By identifying the areas of greatest departure from reality, there is some hope that they might either be addressed directly (by changes in vanilla) or be adjustable through being included into the game\'s difficulty settings.

Yeah, even though I used the stock LFE and SRB as an example, I\'d not mod them - no need to make yet another \'total conversion\' especially since the goal sounds like compatibility *and* more realism. For the users of the mod the stock tanks would probably become useful for upper stage - pretty much as they are now with most users of common mods, and, of course, the stock engines just wouldn\'t be used by the player looking for the increased realism/challenge. UPDATE: GAH!!! Thought thrust units were equivalent to mass units... they\'re not.. closer to 1:9.81 if not exactly. Ok, with the updated information, scaling by the F1, the stock LV-T30 should mass 0.556, produce thrust = 424, and have a fuel consumption of 38 (approximation based on derived density and thrust to mass ratios of F1 engine). One last final edit (I promise!!): Since some other parts (eg: couplers/decouplers) are quite likely overly massive, the fuel consumption given above could be reduced a bit to compensate. A \'halfway\' solution between vanilla and as real as we can get, would give us a stock LV-T30 of say mass = 1.0, thrust = 300, fuel consumption = 16. Not sure where the best point would be and haven\'t considered SRBs in this at all.

I\'ve been bouncing this around in my head lately, thought I\'d share a few factoids I ran across: [li]Stock engines are in the ballpark of realism where thrust to weight ratio is concerned (close to Saturn\'s F1).[/li] [li]Stock engines have a thrust to mass ratio of roughly 1/10th that of real rocket engines such as Saturn\'s F1.[/li] [li]Stock engines are about 5 to 7 3.6 times heavier by volume than real LFE\'s like the F1.[/li] [li]Kerbin fuel is miraculously powerful, yielding roughly 8.5 times the energy of LOX/RP1 fuel mix by weight.[/li] [li]Kerbin fuel is a bit weak, being 15% less powerful by weight than LOX/RP1 fuel mix in the F1 ratio.[/li] [li]Kerbin fuel is around 40% heavier by volume than LOX/RP1 in the F1 ratio.[/li] [li]The Saturn\'s F1 engine consumed roughly 30% of its own weight in fuel per second.[/li] Balanced against this is that the game seems to run into some real problems with heavy rockets, they become very fragile, wobbly, and rubbery. EDIT/UPDATE: My original analysis was off due to thinking thrust units == mass units... they aren\'t - more like 1:10 ratio. [DELETED EMBARRASSINGLY WRONG PARAGRAPHS]

Size of part has nothing to do with it, it\'s all about the level of detail and uvmapping of faces to textures. A low level of detail cylinder could be done with both few vertices/faces and a very small texture map. How many pixels do you need to represent a solid color mapped to a triangle? The higher the level of mesh detail, the more vertices, and the more unique sets of faces to map into the texture which requires more texture real estate. The higher the resolution required on a particular face or set of faces the more texture real estate required. Whether the detail is in the mesh or the texture it still is a good indicator of how big a texture map you\'re going to need. Higher detail equals larger texture size.

Depends on both model complexity and level of detail. Most liquid fuel tank models I\'ve seen really don\'t need any more than 256x256. Attached is an example of a high level of detail LFT model (roughly 1750 vertices), the texture size is 512x512. In my opinion 1024x1024 is overkill in the majority of cases.

The trial part is the hardest, my errors come naturally. Speaking of which... I\'m currently working on a complex object, one built up of separate meshes and dupes and rotations of those meshes. I\'m wondering how important it is to delete surfaces that end up being interior ones? In other words, about how many vertices in a part before it starts becoming really important to strip every last cotton picking hidden one? Along with that, is there any tool in Blender that would let me select all the faces that intersect or fall within a given volume (or mesh)? Also, any way to merge uvmaps from meshes that you forgot to map before duping but are essentially just rotated dupes?

I\'m in the process of consolidating the OKAD line of products into this thread, just added the brand new tricouplers. I\'m going to try and keep related pieces together, but one offs like the secondary engine mount will go into their own mini-package. All packages will use the OKAD->Parts->partname folder layout for compatibility with GME. Please let me know if you run across any bugs or oddities with any of the OKAD parts, thanks!

Pure stock vanilla, 98 kerbal tons: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=3789.msg42715#msg42715 Was awhile back during the 0.12.x versions and the stutter was so bad as to be a showstopper.

Try using another browser like Internet Explorer, there\'s a bug in this forum\'s software that Firefox chokes on. @luigibro606 & Tiberion: thanks @supertoaster98: running into a problem with the mini-rcst tank idea - it\'d need special rcs to be made and very carefully placed. Still working on the idea - it\'s almost like I need a rcs that\'s also an rcst.