cantab

For what it's worth, my experience was that neither TAC nor Goodspeed really felt up to the job when I was dealing with large and complex ships with lots of fuel tanks. Though I suppose the stock system is even more limited.

Galactic Neighbourhood is the one that aims to support loads of other planet packs, not Kerbal Galaxy. Though either is good depending on what you want to do. I believe the nuclear pulse drives will completely trounce anything else for performance. Ion engines of some description (probably modded) for fine propulsion sounds like a good idea though. The main drawback to using ion engines for main propulsion is the long burns. It's not so bad when you want 5 or 10 km/s of delta-V, but if you've got 50 or 100 km/s and you're accelerating at 1 m/s/s that's hours and hours of continuous thrusting to use it all up. That said I had some success with an asparagus-staged nuclear-electric ship using Near Future parts, many versions ago; it packed 50 km/s or so with a 65 ton payload and maintained around 4-5 m/s/s acceleration. Of course it was pretty large. You'll probably want a mod to increase timewarp limits, unless you fancy leaving the game running and watching a movie or two while your ship cruises between the stars.

Maybe you shouldn't re-enter sideways in a relatively fragile rocket fuel tank? Try a different part, the spaceplane parts are more durable as I understand it.

58 (-)

The very fact that Squad are fending off bug reports for something they did on purpose makes it an issue.

nu-uh

Nope.

70 m/s is a nice slow takeoff speed though. If you can get it, great, but it's not uncommon for otherwise well-designed spaceplanes to need to reach 100 m/s or so for takeoff. Such speeds, while faster than typical airliners, actually aren't excessive - Concorde usually took off around 220 knots or 110 m/s for example. Landing can be slower because by then the plane is much lighter. I don't believe Concorde could have taken off fully-fuelled from a 2500 m runway, hence the interest in either reducing takeoff speed or increasing initial acceleration in KSP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihedral_(aeronautics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_dynamic_modes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_roll This might help. Some particular things to notice: Starting with level flight, if a small roll angle tends to steepen in one direction that's an unstable "spiral mode", or what you'd normally think of as instability in roll. This is caused by too little dihedral effect. Now a slightly unstable spiral mode that only slowly steepens the bank isn't a problem. If on the other hand a small roll angle tends to wobble back and forth, and becomes difficult to handle, that's probably "Dutch roll" and is caused by too much dihedral effect. Again a mild Dutch roll that dampens out isn't really an issue, it's a problem when it's unstable and gets bigger and bigger. Understanding which problem you have will obviously help. Besides the things you mentioned, vertical placement of the wings and the wing sweep can have an effect. I had one tailless, canardless delta spaceplane with problematic roll stability that I corrected by increasing the wing sweep a little, meaning the trailing edge was slightly swept back. That was in old FAR though.

56 (-)

On a walk through a forest I got something. I sat down on a bench to look for it. Then I turned around and took it home with me because I couldn't find it. What was it?

60 (-)

Not underpowered as such, but I feel the current demo does have a poor range of parts. Squad let the full game's tech tree dictate the demo's part selection, and it doesn't show the game in a good light to have to stack up tons of tiny tanks and have poor control because no engines gimbal.

Somewhat similar here, I think. I was taught a style of handwriting that I now think really isn't great, but it's too ingrained now. I'm not sure speed was a factor per se.On a related note, in Britain the term "cursive" is never used. It's just "handwriting" or sometimes "joined-up writing" and is considered the norm. I make a lot of handwritten notes for both my job and my own stuff, and it's always in joined-up. At university, nearly a decade ago now, all my lecture notes were by hand and the same went for pretty much everyone else in my classes; a lecture theatre full of laptops seems to be a very recent thing. Maybe it's subject-dependant too - in the sciences, writing equations on a computer is never as simple and easy as with pen and paper.

62 (-)

What goes up must come down. 64

Twitch streamer EJ_SA has made a tiltjet aircraft akin to the Osprey. By undocking the engine unit from the aircraft it can be pivoted around then redocked into place.He's almost surely not the only person either. Countless people have proven what's possible in stock KSP with a bit of engineering ingenuity.

64 (-) Come on down!

64 (-)

64 (-)

IIRC the nodes on the doughnut tank are set so that attaching a large enough flat part will clip the tank.

64 (-) Lost to the mists of time, I think

63 (-) You think?

Currently the jet engines have a centre of mass outside - well outside - themselves. That's the violation of basic physics and logic.

It'll be possible to expose the turbine if one likes, and doubtless some people will.WHAT IT DOES is makes jet engines MAKE SENSE and not VIOLATE BASIC PHYSICS like they do at the moment. The current behaviour LOOKS LIKE A BUG and has been REPORTED AS SUCH in forum threads before now.