Captain Vlad

[quote name='tranenturm']The monolith on Minimus triggers a world first. I over flew it at about 7,000 meters and saw the first come up. Never saw the monolith myself as it was shrouded in darkness.[/QUOTE] Inland Space Center gets you one. Flew out just to find out.

[quote name='BlueCanary']Maybe the engines being so close together is causing problems? If they were more seperated, maybe with some winglets added to the engine to radiate away heat, would that help?[/QUOTE] I've experienced heat problems with engines being mounted right next to each other, so this was what I was thinking too. I've never encountered it with the Wheesley, but I've never tried sustained high-altitude, high-speed flight with a triple-Wheesley before. [quote name='aluc24']Sure, they're next tier after Wheesleys, but usually new tier parts don't make older ones obsolete in KSP.[/quote] I still use the Wheesley's quite a bit. The thrust-reverser makes them VERY handy for rough-field landings.

[quote name='Redshift OTF']Where was this made? Kingston Town? XD I'll get my coat...[/QUOTE] I was wondering if the crew frequently enjoyed wine. Red, red wine.

[quote name='SpaceplaneAddict']I knew about the docking view, but those third person views seem new to me![/QUOTE] Anyone know how to switch between those? If possible?

Was about to say...the most important thing you'd need a mod for this on would be the wardrobe. And if you put Val on a moonbase she'd need a purple wig.

Rune's statement sums things up well, and I'm glad he tossed in some good words about Porkjet's work as I've loved most of it so far (other than the lack of hatch on the passenger compartment). The old Mk1 just had a more suitable look for the whole 'faster, farther, higher' type experimental aircraft that I feel inspire a lot of people's creations. I'd really love having it back in stock...or a new, similarly-designed one. Don't get rid of the new one, mind; it's very well done, just not really what I wanna put on something intended for space. Special note: While I dislike using the new Mk 1 for spacecraft, I can't say enough about the IVA. It's, IMO, the best one in the game. I'm not sure how Jeb sees out the Mk. 2 cockpit's windows...

[quote name='Legendary Emu']Considering that all known kerbals have the same surname we can deduce from that that kerbals either breed like rabbits, or Kerman is their clan. My headcanon is that Kerman is a clan of kerbals that was prophesied to travel beyond their homeworld, and they do it really well.[/QUOTE] The word 'well' seems...not quite right. I'd use 'spectacularly'...

That is...awesome.

[quote name='Red Iron Crown'] I've thought along those lines, too. It led to "make it power hungry enough that only fuel cells will suffice, mass-wise" to "why not cut out the middle man and just run the thing on LF+O?". :)[/QUOTE] In my head the fuel cells make more realistic sense in a non-oxygen environment, but I'm a bit of a submarine fan so of course it does. This goes completely opposite your opposition to heavy loads with unlimited range but larger electric props combined with the reactors some people are asking for would make it possible to go farther than the USAF did with the "nuclear powered bomber" concept. Bwahahaha. I get what you're saying about range-challenge, btw, though honestly I feel spamming that many propellers, batteries, RTGs/panels, making it fly controllably, etc. is just as much of a challenge as stretching out a single-engine plane's range. I'm not Whackjob, that stuff doesn't seem easy to me.;)

[quote name='Red Iron Crown'] Maybe I should turn this around and ask: What does an electric prop offer that an LF+O powered one does not, aside from infinite endurance?[/QUOTE] Turning it around was a good decision.:) Only things I can think of off the top of my head is A: the relative lack of very small LF-only tanks you might use to build micro aircraft. And that situation is better than it used to be thanks to the new tanks introduced in 1.05 and B: the fact that you [i]couldn't[/i] try stuff like solar-powered electric entirely-airborne circumnavigations. One thing though here is fuel efficiency; people have literally flown around Earth without landing in a propeller powered planes, and it seems like a positive to me if we could end up doing the same thing is KSP. But isn't that kind of range capability going to result in the same things you're worrying about regardless of the fuel source? If you're worried about spamming biome science (I acknowledge you didn't say that) with infinite range, wouldn't building a prop job with 'really really awesome range' result in the same thing? Maybe the trouble here is more RTGs than the concept of an electric propeller...

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']How? If one prop could lift, say, the requisite wings and 100kg of payload, then 10 props could lift the larger required wings plus 1000kg, and 100 props could lift th needed wings + 10,000kg, and so on. That's leaving aside that payload drag generally increases less than linearly with payload mass. Simply put, a prop that has more drag than thrust will not be at all useful, while one that has more thrust than drag can be spammed to lift arbitrarily heavy payloads limited only by part count.[/QUOTE] Sure, but the drag increases as your speed increases at a more pronounced rate if it works like an actual propeller. You might end up carrying something heavy, but you're going to end up much slower than a jet carrying the same load. And if you need full throttle all the way, you might be sucking up power so fast you won't go very far unless you're spamming RTGs too.

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']The problem with that is if it can lift a small payload then it can also lift a heavy one through spamming. Then we're balancing through part count, which I also consider undesirable.[/quote] You could conceivably balance less through part count and more through drag...so that adding more and more props becomes increasingly counter productive. Though returning to park count, you'd also need enough batteries to power each engine for as long as you intend it to operate as well as the propeller. [quote]An electric prop that worked [i]only[/i] in water would be fine by me, if a bit out of scope for what is nominally a space game.[/QUOTE] It's an exploration and building game. If the scope keeps being stretched the players and devs are doing it right. I personally would prefer a dual-purpose propeller. Seems more efficient, unless there was a notable aesthetic difference between the atmospheric propeller and the water one...more visual options are always good.

[quote name='Fluburtur'] I encountered another place where the bottom of the sea is not that deep (can't remember the word for it).[/quote] Shallow. Following this thread closely, as an old Silent Hunter fan.;)

Reentry may be toastier, but you can always cool off afterward in your new submarine.

I'll just...[url=http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/138884-KSC-Sensor-Test-Routine-Report-by-Bill-Kerman]leave this here...[/url]. I'm still mad!:huh:

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']Carrying any significant payload. Have a look at some of the real world electric prop-powered planes, especially the solar ones.[/QUOTE] As long as you're not defining 'payload' as 'the cockpit and wings', I see what you mean and agree that electric propellers really shouldn't be the best choice for a heavy lift aircraft...at least not in their present real-world form. For a one-or-two man Eve/Laythe/Duna excursion plane, though...I think they should be fully capable of that with decent performance (since some real-life electric planes do pretty well in that department). There is the oft-stated secondary use for them as boat/sub props, though, and I'd want them to consider their power and lift capability for that role, too. There's nothing at all outlandish about a sub using electric propulsion, after all.

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']I guess I think that potentially unlimited endurance flight removes a lot of the challenge of the game, and a realistic electric prop would be really underpowered for any really useful purpose. If a prop is to be added, I'd rather it be dual mode (LF+IntakeAir and LF+O) with high Isp and restrictive thrust curves.[/QUOTE] Could you define 'useful purpose'?

KAS/KIS. Hinges/Infernalistic devices. Electric props. Preferably of enough variety for many different planes/ships/helicopters. Gemini-style two man pod. Reactors are a neat idea. Lots of excellent ideas in these lists actually.

I accidentally sent up a Duna Rover that had solar panels...inside the fairing. Currently have another probe, with exposed panels, clawed to it to provide power. I've dubbed the thing Frankenstein. It's all going to Duna and if it works, I'll have a probe with a survey scanner in orbit and a rover on the surface. So the Claw has been good to me so far this patch, but note I said 'if it works'...

I've always wanted Kerbal emotes. Like be able to make them wave or salute or something.

Still use Hitchhikers for station parts. Partially for RP purposes, partially for aesthetic. Don't like the idea of making the other cabins non-vacuum or the Hitchhiker required, as that feels like it's a hit against KSP's 'do it how you want' factor. But buffing it a little bit would be welcome. Higher crash tolerance, some battery or even monoprop capacity (lifeboat capable?). Maybe more Kerbals, as the current jump is from it to the big Mk 3 cabin and it feels like there's nothing between the Hitchhiker and that. Honestly would love an IVA change for it. Some beds and such. Make it look more like living quarters.

Sure there is. But there's also qualitative differences between the new spaceplane parts and pretty much every rocket part in the game. Parts that frequently make their way onto spaceplanes, even (or vice versa). Therefore I don't see this as a good reason to exclude it given that it doesn't exactly change the state of KSP's entire parts catalogue. I think saying that continuing to include the original MK1 cockpit would "hurt the games overall quality" is somewhat...overstated. It's a building game. In general, the more options, even purely aesthetic ones, the better. Removing the old one, even while offering a replacement (I'm not saying the new Mk1 is ugly, just that it's got a totally different look that seems so civilian it's downright jarring -- if you wanna discuss that in detail we can do it in PMs as that's another aesthetic thing, IMO), removed an aesthetic option that some players preferred to no good benefit. A uniform 'look' for all parts is not necessarily desirable for a game when much of said game is designing vehicles to your individual needs and tastes. Especially since if you do not LIKE a part, you do not have to USE said part. I think you're overstating things. By a lot. Sure, there's always going to be people who'd love a cockpit tailored EXACTLY LIKE (insert favorite warbird or spacecraft's), but that's not always realistic. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a part that would hurt nothing to still be included in the game, that was already in the game, that should still be in the stock game. Well, except for the OP's two-place cockpit variant suggestion. That's pretty cool and as I pointed out earlier fills a player request I've heard many times and might make a very good compromise between people who love the old Mk I and those who can be warded off with its image as if it were a holy symbol and they a Hammer movie vampire.

I realize that's what you attempted to do. But what you actually did was list the reason the old cockpit should've been retained. It does look like a movie prop space ship. That's why it was cool. You disagree. I get that. You're quite plain about that and that's fine. But you're not going to win an aesthetic argument about it with someone who aesthetically prefers it as that is 100 percent subjective. I'm not going to convince you that the Learjet cockpit isn't as pleasing either, sure. But you say that fans of the old Mk. 1 should let it die. Why should they, when they feel Squad made a poor decision in this case? State your own opinion all you want. But cease telling others what to focus on in their posts.

Not sure how useful this advice will be, but I used to have all sorts of trouble with Mun landings until I started designing my rockets so that the stage that gets me to the Mun also has enough gas to orbit and do at least part of the landing. That preserves the landing stage's fuel supply for launch, re-orbit and return (or launch and direct ascent to escape, whichever you use). And if you're having trouble sticking your landings, try a wider landing leg footprint, if you've got the parts to do it. It did wonders for me. I've done the unmanned lifeboat thing before myself, after I screwed up a contract mission's landing and stranded both him and the guy I went to get. It's become my favored rescue method.

Exactly. Therefore a retexturing of the old part would be most welcome, given that it used an inherently more awesome design aesthetic to begin with.