Technical Ben

This one has "wings" and is STTO and return... does it count? I called it the "Kracken" for obvious reasons. Ok ok, it's not a space "plane", but I could not find the STTO rocket thread and am rubbish as STTO planes.

Love it! I toyed with the idea back before wheels were added. But found the legs bounced too much, and landing gear were too wobbly. Great you found a way to make them. Wish I'd never abandoned the idea now. Like your method of construction too. If you like, I could work on a rocket building tower, possibly... I'm thinking of using a tipper type design to "lift" side ways assembled rockets (with your base crawlers) to a vertical position.

The Moon. [i'm pedantic like that. ]

Fraps had crashed, so I don't have a recording, but this was one poor kerbal the other day (seems ragdol + save/load is not good for your health).

AFAIK it is rendered.

With enough quick save scumming (reloading abuse ), you can even do this: That's what you get though for saving after you hit the aerobreaking and miss your destination. So save before, not after. Unless you also have a craft able to act as an emergency "boost".

Thanks wasmic! There is also a Wings3D tutorial someone made if your using that software. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irUNsihVYyY

You could follow the tutorial I posted.

IMO, "KISS" = "KEEP IS SIMPLE SUNSHINE" Forget mods for this first iteration. Get it working, get it bug free. Then worry about different mods to different clients/users.

I doubt the Rasp Pi could handle the streaming. I have one, and it's not the most powerful processor, though it's a neat little gadget to play around with. I'm planning on making it a portable pi as soon as I get a prtable display and a mini keyboard.

Wait. That story has one vital floor... rain does not fall in teardrops!

The probes use power. Just being on a ship with a probe with use some power. Those without panels or RTGs are "limited time use".

The perfect option would be to be able to put a structure/tank and just select "make battery, make fuel tank, make structural, make strut" etc.

I've attempted a low orbit fuel depot, mid orbit (between mun and Kerbin) and a very high orbit station (past Minmus). As rendezvous is slower (due to rounding errors) for such distances, I've decided it's only worth it for novelty, and not for practicality. Might set up some supplies in Kerbol orbit... but not sure how easy these will be to get to. I do this SO often too. I end up with extra parts that come in handy too if Jeb or Bob (dare let anyone else fly! ) ever break something off.

We should land an asteroid on a human...

Here is a video example if it is of any help:

If the engine works, I'll get it for that. Many games companies promise the "world". I've learnt to buy/invest in the current build only, and not expect more. The only recent ones I've been burnt on were Blockade Runner (Star Made is free and has more features already. :/ ) and Kinetic Void (glacial progress, and somewhat an unknown). But anything that lets me build and/or destroy craft like that is worth it. Even if I have to use Cheat Engine to get past the game engine restrictions.

Space Engineers.

PS, don't watch Silent Running as a kid. I did, sad and pointless ending. If I was on a space ship, I'd show those robots who is boss.

From my experience, struts working that way add little extra strength. They stop wobble, but you still tend to have a top heavy rocket crash down on the stages below. Launching my double orange tank to orbit delivery system uses both docking ports and struts, and even then it's delicate. Also, very few statements can be given that cannot be questioned.

It was very very interesting. Also, I know know why my game "jitters", it's "frame shifting". I'll allow the jitter if it allows for the awesome game. Loved the details on how you first made the game and the info behind the technical hurdles. And if Einstein is right, that's exactly how THIS universe works.

Here is the video: The conclusion? Docking ports look nicer and tend to be smoother for flight. Struts are stronger and take more "abuse". Use both for the best result in strength.

Theory, yes. In practice, I find using struts for support to be less stable than connected parts. I meant I use alternative designs, such as asparagus staging, instead of a branched tree down to single rocket type staging ( Like -<=>- as in your image). Have you tried the above setup with docking ports? With docking ports you use 4 less parts (no struts) and it's rather stable. Under timewarp it wobbles, but that's more KSP than the design. I'll upload a comparison video to Youtube. Struts are more stable under timewarp. Ports use less parts (and look nicer IMO ).

It's not really ideal. It would be susceptible to wobble. So far I've kept to using asparagus staging, or docking nodes for reconnecting. Else I construct in orbit (for interplanetary +/ landing craft).

There seems to be a limit on what length of rocket you can make. That and the power/weight or thrust/weight ratio. This ship is perfectly balanced, but wobbles and tumbles like mad. The only option I can think of is shortening it, and keeping the COG closer to the rockets? I'll be trying shorter designs and will try and post the results. Other than that, most of my stations are made at destination... out of spare bits of junk. Although, the lower example in the picture flies perfectly. So I think weight plays a lot in control.