Noir

I got a dual engine setup to use only 0.02. Have you tried decreasing/increasing the prop pitch/authority limiter further? My torque is using 4.5 kN, and when I lower it the craft will pick up speed. But if I lower it to much, the engine with lose RPM. I am using FAR, and I don't think the new prop are playing nice with FAR, but the same logic should still apply in soup stock aero.

That makes complete sense, but unless my understanding of combustion engines is completely wrong, or I'm overthinking it, the new rotor engines don't make all that much sense realistically.

God damn your right. That's not how engines work. Fuel consumption should be based on RPM, not torque, at least with internal combustion engines. I -kinda- understand why the electric engines would, but not the fuel based ones. And torque should be based on RPM. Both RPM and torque should be based on how much fuel is being pushed into the motor. Decreasing the torque on an engine that is already at max RPM down to 1-5 kN brings the fuel usage down to 0.2, less than the 0.4 listed value... And that was with 2 engines... I don't know anymore.. Either do as Acvila said, or lower the torque once in flight and at max RPM.

Same, no sound at all. Same here. Also same. Really enjoying this update... Edit: Also, since the new motors don't appear in the stage list, you have to rely on the resource tab to keep track of your fuel, which isn't always great. Would be nice if all the robotics parts had a toggle-able opinion to display fuel/electricity in the stage list, similar to how the decouplers and fairings work.

With the exception of @Pds314, the green and yellow/gold swept wing design, and the Luft46-esque designs, all other entries appear to be based on either 1st or 4th generation fighter designs. I am slightly disappointed there is no Me-262 knockoff. I'm even more disappointed no one went for the good-ol' narwhal. I was going to submit a second entry, possibly with a 40mm or 75mm, but couldn't build anything that could compete with my main one entry. Plus my game's performance and the constant stutters were doing my head in. On an related but unrelated note: could we possibly have a "beauty contest" of some kind, were we vote for the best looking design?

Let's not forget the time Squad teamed up with NASA to bring us the NASA pack, and the Asteroid Day pack, for free. Pretty sure the Asteroid Day pack would be the first DLC, since it wasn't an update to the game, but a downloadable extra. I honestly couldn't even tell you what content has been added between 1.0 and now. I struggle to believe this game is out of early access and isn't in Beta any more. And the few updates after T2 took over was mainly updating parts visually. Not only that, but updates like the Delta V readout and bigger tanks were features Old-Squad never wanted to add to begin with. They are great to have, yes, but the Delta V readout is awkwardly hidden away behind the pitch/roll/yaw readout. It is not helped that the DLC was released after T2 bought KSP. If KSP was never bought, and the original Devs decided to release a DLC, I would be mostly fine with that, so long as the DLC had worthwhile content. Content such as robotics, propellers and so on have been free add-ons thanks to the community for years. And now Private Division is charging money for this content. They could have easily gone down the Cities Skylines route, offering this content in a free update along side the DLC, with the DLC's content being something that couldn't be offered as a community mod. While the Mission editor from Making History is mostly forgotten, at least it was something new and different, just poorly implemented. In recent update to Cities Skylines, they basically said, "you guys wanted this feature involving buses, so in the free patch you are getting it!". They did the same with one-way road arrows and a few others things. All of this were community made mods. A good chunk of content in Rimworld was once user made mods that the (single) Dev added in. Cities Skylines and Rimworld are two highly praised games by their community. If Squad worked along side the people who made Infernal Robotics, Ground Experiments, Airplanes Plus, etc., to add their content into the game officially and seamlessly as a community driven DLC, I would have no issue with that. That would be almost identical to what they did with the NASA Pack, PorkJet's work, and the B9 Space Centre. It would be very similar to what we are used to, and would show that T2/Private Division is willing to work with the community to make KSP the best it could be. KSP has always been praised for having a great community, but many people are still on edge about T2 owning KSP. Having the Devs work with the community directly, while also communicating with the fans like they used to, would help ease that edge. For 7+ years we have gotten used to free updates, with content being added that the community has wanted. Just like what Minecraft has been doing and still is doing. But than all of a sudden they add in content that fans have not only wanted for several years, but are now charging money for it. An easy solution would, as I already said, to adopt a model similar to what Cities Skylines uses. If the Devs were truly listing to the community, than the landing gear, rover wheels, performance, and many many bugs would be fixed. Yes, I know each update has bug fixes, but each content update just ends up adding more issues. But I know some users tend to make excuses for the Devs as to why these issues have not been fixed yet. The big thing I'd like to see in currently, is the Devs showing us upcoming updates in action, and not just a still image. I already knew they were coming, and honestly expected them to be added with a new DLC. But I also expected them to behave like actually engines, and not just like the robotic parts. You wouldn't go the Adobe forums since you are not using their product. If you wanted a feature from Photoshop that Gimp didn't have, you might go to the Gimp forums to suggest it though. I understand what you are trying to say, but you are talking about two completely different products, while I am talking about extra content within a single product. But again, I'm sick of discussing this, since most people aren't willing to have a legitimate discussion without just attacking those who disagree with the Devs or regular community members. The sub-Reddit is the same, for the record. The only reason I'm complaining about the DLCs is because I've seen other people do it, only to be shot down by certain community members who, honestly, have little respect towards other people's opinions. Some of us don't consider 4 user made mods rolled into a $20AUD DLC to be worth the money. KSP is one of my most played games, so naturally I am going to be very critical about it. Especially when I am constantly dealing with bugs, crashes, and save corruptions. And I have a lot of little issues with the game (such as the main menu being terrible) that it all adds up over time. I highly doubt any further meaningful discussion will take place here, and wouldn't object to a moderator just closing this thread down.

I think you either misread what I wrote, or don't understand what I am saying. If one product costs money, while another product does not, people will natural choose the free product. If the free product is in some way superior, such as offering more content, tasting better, easier to use, etc., people will have little reason to buy/use the product charging money. A simple example is newspapers. Very few people buy them these days, as there are free alternatives (such as the internet) that are easier to both access and use. I got both DLCs for free, having owned the game since 2012. For me, the DLC content is more convenient to use over mods. However, from the looks of things, Airplanes Plus will still have better helicopter engines compared to the DLC. I wouldn't have bothered with either DLC if I had to pay for it. But at the end of the day I personally am not interested in discussing any of this further. Some people aren't willing to listen to criticism/concerns, some are to hyped up to care. And that's fine. I just want the community to be respectful (I guess that's to much to ask) of other people's opinions, and not blind themselves with hype. Even if those opinions are somewhat negative towards Private Division/the Devs. But my comments on the original thread still stand.

People are allowed to discuss the value and cost of a product, especially when there are free (and often superior) alternatives. More importantly, people are allowed to be critical of said content, especially when that content costs money. Without being critical of content you end up with potential content such as The Barn. It would be nice if people could have these discussions without being told outright that their option is wrong. I have just noticed that the R121 looks to big function as a tail rotor, and I'm guessing the intend use is as a generic piston prop engine.

This. Old Squad was a very small indie dev, yet despite all it's flaws could still produce quality content (and bug fixes) for free. Now KSP is owned by one of the biggest gaming companies, yet is charging money for content that was either promised by old Squad or wanted by the community 5+ years ago. I still remember when Porkjet was hired to add his mod into the game...

I'll be submitting an entry as well. Didn't put in as much effort as I could have, in part due to performance issues, but it'll fall out of the sky just as graciously regardless. It's very loosely inspired by the Attacker jet fighter.

Yes, but the idea was to allow the craft to track something, such as another craft or a planet, without any user input. If you wanted to create a ground based telescope to look at Jool, which I've done before, you'd constantly have to readjust your aim due to Kerbin's rotation.

So I'm not sure what kind of applications this might be useful for, but I found you can make a "ball-turret" like structure by clipping together 2 unpowered rotor/servo motors, a reaction wheel, and a probe core. Place one servo to allow left and right movement, and the other for up and down. This allows for a complete (although awkward) 360 degree rotation, as if it was a free floating object. Using the target SAS lock, you can track other vehicles, such as flying ones. It might be useful for ground based telescopes. Last time I used a telescope mod, planets like Jool would leave the telescopes view before getting any decent photos. Or with BDArmory. I'm using the Restock mod, for anyone curious.

@Brikoleur Forgot to mention, leaf spring in real life isn't the best type of suspension. It's normally used in older cars, pickups/utes, and trailers. Since it's very flat, it works well for vehicles with a back tray. From my own testing, any weight on top of the suspension will cause the wheels to freak out in Kerbal fashion. Adjusting the spring strength and dampening of the wheels can fix this, however, since stock wheels aren't the best, not much can be done. Using the leaf spring only in the front or back of the rover may help, emulating real life modern uses of the suspension. This suspension may work great for a light trophy truck, as it can take jumps really well. Might also be good at high speed off-roading with aircraft wheels. Although it'll need a wider wheel base. I've uploaded a copy onto KerbalX if anyone is interested. Hopefully someone can use this to design a better system. KerbalX Link

Not sure if this is what you are after, but I managed to create a makeshift leaf spring suspension. An alligator hinge is connected to a G-00 hinge, which is than repeated on the other side. On one of the G-00 hinges is a cubic strut which the wheel sits on. The G-00 hinge that the centre cubic strut is not connected to, is strutted together with a normal strut connector. This image may help. Keeping the motors turned on, but with a very low output, means the hinge will want to return to it's target angle, which in turn creates a suspension/springy like result. It's not a best, and the numbers need tweaking, but it works.

That clears up my confusion as to why the missions are somewhat oddly numbered. Speaking about STS-1b: if the fuel pod's orbit is below 1999km, there can only be a difference of 100m between the Ap and Pe? Example: Ap =80000m Pe = 80100m I'm not over thinking it or anything?

I've been sitting on this shuttle design for bit over a year now. Last week I had recorded and edited most of the video for STS-1a. The only thing left to do was record the booster separation and landing. So, instead of doing that, I had the bright idea to binge on Age of Empires 3 for a week straight. Because I haven't played that game enough over the past 10 years... Without further ado, here’s my go at STS-1a. In video form, because I didn’t feel like taking screenshots. Mods Used: Ferram Aerospace Research Kerbal Engineer Redux Realchute Smart Parts Surface Mounted Lights A mission breakdown/flavour text is found in the spoiler tab below. The orbiter is equipped with 2 jet engines for “insurance reasons”. However, they have only been used once during previous test flights, when I forgot that the shuttle was carrying cargo. Invicta is fully capable of taking off from the runway on its own power and can fly around happily like a normal aircraft at about 0.6 mach. I’ve been working on shuttles since 2013, and I’ve been toying with this design (mainly the wings) since 2015. And after a rather sizeable redesign a few months ago, I’ve finally reached a point where I’m happy. And for completion’s sack, here is an album of the same shuttle from a year ago. https://imgur.com/a/wOJMu And yes, there are decouples on the Nerv engines. And no, they don’t serve any practical purpose. If I've missed something, please let me know.

Thank you! Does that mean CommNet needs to be enabled?

Slap some wings on a brick and you're pretty much done. My BAD-T IV entry was influenced by my shuttle design. Thank you!

Been looking at this challenge for a few days now and I just wanted to confirm a few things about it. Firstly, FAR is allowed? Because I don't think I've seen anyone use FAR for any of their missions. Second, while the Orbiter has to have crew capacity, is it required to be piloted by a Kerbal, or can the piloting be done remotely/via probe core, with the Kerbals acting solely as passengers? I've seen -maybe- only one other person forgo a dedicated traditional cockpit.

What about a match up between you and @aleksey444, so it would be a battle between 1st and 2nd? The 2 top tire(r) aircraft.

The new icons look good. My only (minor) issue is that they don't display the distance like the old one does.

Also, Snowpiercer is meant to fire it's cannons in burst(?) mode (firing all 3 at once), but it looked like it was firing it in the other mode (whatever that's called). Not that it's a big deal, the guns aren't working the way I wanted them to anyway.

Good luck me... The Dummy is remarkably stable, making a pretty good gun platform.

Opps, I had mentioned that in my original write up, but forgot to add it back in. Yeah, I knew that wasn't the case when I was testing the craft, which was disappointing, but it makes sense to keep the AI as simple as possible.