cantab

-5 (-)

-3 (-)

Arrived at Titanus, making a Tylo gravicapture into the system: [url]https://flic.kr/p/BkSELQ[/url] Took a picture of its rings backlit: [url]https://flic.kr/p/AqDAd3[/url] Orbited and landed on its innermost moon, Ete, and got this picture of almost the whole family: Tylo (the grey one), Kalus (the little red one by Titanus), Titanus (the ringed one) and Ete (below). Only outer moon Oree isn't visible: [url=https://flic.kr/p/BkSEnJ][img]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5695/23197384996_a024dcccb8_h.jpg[/img][/url] Snagged another Tylo gravity assist: [url]https://flic.kr/p/AqLxxt[/url] To make some low passes over Titanus and drop a probe into its atmosphere: [url]https://flic.kr/p/BkSDGq[/url] The probe blew up though. After a third Tylo flyby, I entered orbit round the big guy on my fourth encounter. I have a probe lander modified with extra fuel for it but will need some good flying to land intact.

[quote name='Rocket Farmer']I was just doing a wheesley test contract and noticed the same issue. Internal temperatures climbed whenever I pushed over about 330 m/s (about the speed of sound) the internals started hearing up faster than the external skin. This occurred at 3,000 m above sea level so being low isn't the answer. It probably is a hard cap allowing short term bursts of speed but not long-term cruising.[/QUOTE]I think you're right, actually. I remember hearing about the turbofans being rigged to overheat if you go too fast in them.

During my test launch I noticed what looked like the usual GC stutter - subtle, but it was there. So many mods involved though I can't point the finger at any one of them, if indeed it's not down to the stock game anyway. GC (Garbage Collection) pauses is something every Unity game has to deal with.

Right click the engine and it will tell you whether it lacks fuel or lacks air.

[quote name='kiwi1960']The pilot of the C5 said "Watch this..." and they did, for about 5 minutes, they saw nothing.... then the pilot got back to them and said "did you see that?" The Jet pilots said no... The answer they got shut them up for the rest of the flight... "Ladies, I got up, went to the head (toilet) and while there, thought of you having to hold it in.... then, I went to the kitchen, thought about getting a nice cold coke, but poured myself a coffee instead. I ate one of the cookies our engineers wife had made for us and then went back to the cockpit....."[/QUOTE]I've made KSP planes that will do that without MechJeb. Trim for level flight, turn on FAR's wing leveller, and I can walk away and know that I'll come back to the plane flying just fine. On topic, I recently tried MechJeb launch guidance for testing out some launchers. It will fly a more reproducible ascent than I do, but it's an ascent that really isn't *like* what I do, and for that reason I came away disliking MJ. I may try kOS, that will give me more control, and my generic ascent should be simple to program.

7/10 needs more pixels [url]https://youtu.be/Zuc62lLk6kQ?t=30m27s[/url] Rate the capsules.

Consider ion engines. Plentiful solar power and it's easy to get TONS of delta-V. My first and only Moho trip used ion engines and was a resounding success.

[quote name='AbacusWizard']Transfer windows are one of the few things about KSP-level space travel that still mystifies me. I understand the basic idea conceptually, and I've heard of porkchop plots; I just have no idea how to run the numbers, or even where to start. Can anyone recommend a good resource for figuring it out? (I don't mean a mod that will do it for me or a calendar of useful launch dates; I want to know how to calculate them myself.)[/QUOTE]I dunno about resources, but it's all in the timing. Find out the orbital radii of your start and destination planets. From there find out the semi-major axis of your transfer orbit. From there find out half its orbital period, that's how long your transfer takes. From there work out how far your destination will move in its orbit over that transfer time. From there work out the angles.

Throttling down does sound like the best option. I'd speculate you can go to 80-90% throttle and that will do the trick, any speed drop will be small.

A hole punch?

Update: So turns out the fix is [B]very[/B] simple. You just now need to use forward slashes ([B]/[/B]) not backslashes ([B]\[/B]) in the paths for the biome maps. Fixing those all up I loaded Boris fine with the mentioned KSP and Kopernicus versions.

So in KSP 1.0.5 and Kopernicus 0.5.2 this pack is almost completely broken. Only Wot loads up, the others all fail to appear. It's probably no coincidence that Wot's the gas giant, while all the others are solid bodies. Hopefully it's just a simple thing to change common to all the configs.

[quote name='Yemo']Everyone is free to resize their browser window to a width that suits them, no one is forced to have it full screen. Seriously give it a try with this very page. The text adjusts automatically. No one is forcing users at the moment to use the full width of their screen, but the new forum forces everyone not to use the full width of their screen...[/QUOTE]People do out of habit maximise their window though, and then complain that it's hard to read stuff. We might also have other tabs open that do make good use of the width. So I am in favour of not allowing the text to be over-wide. With "responsive design" the other space might be used for navigation.

Down to -1

Does anyone know what, if any, the last version of voxel-FAR that supported KSP 0.90 was? I think FAR 0.14.7 was the last proper release for KSP 0.90 but that was with the old part-by-part approach.

Stock aerodynamics ignores interaction between wings, so there's no reason a biplane shouldn't work. The usual rules apply - CoL somewhat behind CoM, the easiest design is with a separate rear tailplane and tailfin, and make sure the plane can pitch up while on the runway to get the lift to take off. As others mentioned if you're making a replica you'll have a job getting the weight up front. You'll need the engines up front - maybe try a couple of Junos. Most of the fuselage should be empty, keep the fuel up forward too. And if need be you can use ore tanks to hold ballast.

Use the rotate gizmo to turn the nosecones so they point backwards, clipped inside the tank. You'll get even better performance. Don't you just [I]love[/I] Squad's idea of aerodynamics?

No. It's a short answer and that's all there is to it. 1.0.5 still has the 4 GB cap for the official Windows and OSX versions of KSP, and it still has memory leaks that causes crashes after playing for a bit.

If the new forum retains the idea of an index number for threads, and the numbers stay the same, then a rewrite rule should handle it. However if the numbers change or are done away with altogether, it's more difficult. Whatever the technical details, breaking every deep link to the forum is A Bad Thing. You've got links on Curse for a start, which means the "official" mod site will have broken links to the "official" forums.

Heh. If it was me I'd just get some duct tape and be done with it :)

I've reservations about a WYSIWYG-only approach, but I guess it will have to be seen. I'm [i]very[/i] accustomed to typing those tags, to the point that I type them in places they [u]don't work[/u]. Not using the full width is perhaps a good thing. Text gets hard to read when it's too wide.

[quote name='DuoDex']Nope.[/QUOTE]Does IPS 4 have a "View Your Posts" feature? That's what I mainly use the "Subscription" here to emulate.

[quote name='Alshain']Meh, if you are going to change the theme, it should be dark like space. (Besides, black with white text is easier on the eyes)[/QUOTE]I for one am strongly against that. [quote name='DuoDex']Considering that this has been technically breaking of the rules since Day 1, I think it's high time it's deleted.[/QUOTE]The rules, though, will be regarded in light of how they are enforced. To do an abrupt about-face from being lax to being just about as heavy-handed as possible...it just seems capricious, arbitrary, dictatorial, and generally Not Very Nice to the community. A blanket lock-and-acrhive would be one thing, but mass deletes of posts that have either broken no rule, or if they have have been left alone for ages? But then I suppose what really counts is the view of the people who have actively posted in the threads that you are planning on nuking.