Aegeas

[quote name='KasperVld']in particular the 'thou shallt not roleplay' rule[/QUOTE] You're breaking my immersion!

[IMG]http://media4.popsugar-assets.com/files/2015/08/17/831/n/1922398/2e4157aa_edit_img_cover_file_15775818_1439835509_Look-smileASNkm4.xxxlarge/i/Dad-Makes-Rocking-Star-Wars-Speeder-Bike-Daughter.gif[/IMG]

[quote name='Waxing_Kibbous']One of the few times I have used docking ports I somehow stuck it facing the wrong way- they don't seem to snap to parts in the VAB/SPH as others do, allowing them to be put on wrong. Maybe this is what is happening? What happened on my end was that I stuck 2 things with ports together in the VAB and couldn't separate them on Minmus because one was on wrong. Using a bit of violence I could eventually unattach them however haha.[/QUOTE] Don't know if this is the same thing but occasionally in a stack the top item gets attached to the bottom item and skips the middle item if the attachment node (big green sphere in the VAB) of the top item is bigger than the one of the middle item. For example occasionally I find that and engine gets attached to a fuel tank below rather than the top of the decoupler so when it tries to decouple the bottom stack gets stuck because the engine and tank below are still attached. If this is a similar problem the work around I have found for this is to use the 'root node' tool if that is even its name to go through the stack and one part at a time make it the root which tends to re-order the connections making sure you don't get the bug where a part 'skips' the part below and attaches to the part below that if that makes sense. Well this is just a VAB method to ensure all parts in a stack are parented correctly so wont help anything after launch. Just throwing it up as a method in case it relates to the docking problem. I'm thinking this could occur if the docking face of a docking port is attached to a stack part other than another docking port face.

Have a look at the cockpit on this plane Cupcake.... http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/138645-Reapers-Dutch-Designs-%28my-last-plane-before-1-0-5-i-think%29 Might be an option for a new dropship.

I've gone from listening to the triumphant German marching songs to somber Russian dirges. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go sit in a corner and cry... Hopefully 1.0.5 is going better for you guys. Something that might save you some heartache so you don't have to redesign your whole boat is to just adjust the fuel capacity of the lower fuel tanks by editing the craft file. I played around with this on previous versions of kerbal (not sure if it works the same in 1.0.5) but fuel its self seemed to be denser than water so the more you added to your craft eventually it would sink. There is no limit to how much fuel a tank can hold, and you could always lower the capacity of other tanks to preserve the same net fuel amount. Just find the resource section for the relevant tank and adjust it. A tip to easily find a desired tank is to adjust its fuel to an odd amount before saving it then search for that amount. RESOURCE { name = LiquidFuel amount = 100000 maxAmount = 100000 flowState = True isTweakable = True hideFlow = False flowMode = Both } Above is an example of a section in the craft file you will need to edit. Notice this tank will hold 100,000 liquid fuel. The craft is still 100% stock in that the dry weight of the tank is the same and the game calculates the extra mass of the increased amount of fuel. Also if you want edit a LOX tank to be only LF then a method I found that works is to set the amount and maxAmount of oxidizer to 0 and then set isTweakable to False.

Yes I was expecting it to toggle like it had before so thanks for the info I'll check it out.

I faked all of my Mün landings...

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/38768-1-0-3-Editor-Extensions-v2-12-23-June You can have any symmetry number you want if you use EE mod... some things are broken in it now like the verticle snap... but you can overcome this with the offset tool while snap is still on, its just not as quick and easy.

Maybe check the distances/orientation angles by opening up the craft file in a text editor and come up with a formula lol. I had half a thought to make a swing on the arch on the moon using an asteroid claw to attach it so seeing as yours are so well made and I'm lazy I'll give the suggestion to you ;-)

Post the craft file so people can check it for you...

In Soviet Russia drag produce strut!

-34 Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

This looks really cool MJ, one question though in the pics the fairing separation is neatly in 3 parts, is this from a mod or do you have a cool stock trick?

Just so I don't have to 'experiment and persist' too much as I'm new to making bearings... what are believed to be the best materials to make them with? I've seen the small nose wheel used a lot and I'm guessing that's because it has no suspension. Also has anyone played around with using the round probe core as a pivot point, I'm guessing this would be good for keeping it centered as wheels could be positioned at different angles around it, but I'm not sure on how well it's collision surface is... will be what I test next when I get some time... I still have a plane to test for rune first Just wondering if people can state what they believe are the best parts to save some R&D my end... cheers and thanks for the comments on the motor.

Ah wow, thanks for letting me know... I've fixed it now - - - Updated - - - I'll have to keep this in mind and as I've said its beta - I've done limited testing so far but it did manage to burn long enough for a duna intercept with out any 'bugs' causing it to fail. The multi dock is something that I've played around with in the past but it has no where near the strength of this type of setup - so I'll have to hope it doesn't develop these issues you speak of, and I guess there is always the save/reload thing... and if there is a spectacular failure well that could just make for a cool rescue mission. Thanks for the feed back!

Will this help at all in your clock mechanism? (I'm a bit ignorant on how they work) Using a narrow band scanner as a motor: _x2.craft I was trying a few things to see if I could use this for a stock animation of a space station ring, the bearings a bit sloppy but it works. Probably wont waste any more time on it though I'll just install a station mod but the concept may be helpful for boat builders as the rpm is slow but would be fast enough for stock props and paddle wheels.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/134874-Space-Station-Nuclear-Tug-set-%28WIP%29 This might be a little over powered but the tug should do the job for you. Just make sure on the craft you want to dock with it that you use the same combination of adapters between the large fuel tank and the docking port like what is on the end of the space station. The tug file already includes a launch vehicle so its ready to go.

Flight Test.... Flight Test.... Flight Test... You have to flight test and keep changing your wing positions until you have the desired balance between maneuverability vs stability. I've seen it discussed on these forums that the COL is really just a rough indication and to do it properly there would need to be a wind tunnel in the SPH because lift changes depending on air speed and atmospheric density etc. So COL is just a good starting point but to get it perfect you have to flight test and experiment. As was stated above: COL close to COM = maneuverability COL far behind COM = stability ("doesn't flip out when turning") Also while in the SPH empty it completely of fuel and see how much the COM moves around. Some badly designed planes will end up unstable as the fuel drains. The two best flight tests I can recommend are: 1 level flight - flat out until hitting terminal velocity - if the plane doesn't flip out or roll funny then you have a good balance of COL and control surface authority. 2 vertical stall - fly straight up until stall then turn engines off - see what the plane wants to do naturally, if it falls nose down that's good, if it falls tails first that's bad - a plane that wants to keep falling tail first in a free fall is prone to flipping at speed. Do these two test under two conditions, 1st fully fueled, 2nd empty of fuel. If the plane passes the two tests under both conditions you are on the way to making a good plane. Also read (as linked above) Basic Aircraft Design - Explained Simply, With Pictures its really good the blokes put a lot of effort into making it thorough but easy to understand. If you have a design that you are happy with the aesthetics but not happy the the flight performance then link the craft file and a lot of people here will be able to give suggestions as to what the cause is.

I didn't kerbal today but laughed at these that are kinda kerbal related, well in that they are space sci-fi related... Just Do It!

I did some testing with air intakes for ballast after realizing from your craft that fuel density effects beyonce (and from reading Fengist's Maritime Pack explanation that FlipNascar posted). Thought I had a method when I found that filling a closed intake with 2000 air made it sink, problem is you can't fill it back up again without I guess modding the intake part - they seem to have a limit based on intake rate vs leakage. Only thing you could use it for would be for for emergency ballast surfacing - when you open the intake the 2k air immediately exists and goes back to its normal intake amount, but I guess jettisoning ore would do the same thing without having to edit files.

I saw this swordfish on another post and meant to comment, looks great! - - - Updated - - - Downloaded... this is huge!

Today I've seen submarines and blimps... wonders never cease Have some rep Columbia! I had a bright idea today to use the spheres from 'whack a kerbal' as bearings for a spoked space station but sadly they don't persist through a save so that went no where Still have a few more crazy ideas for a rainy day though - they will have to wait for now. - - - Updated - - - My latest contraption: Its a method for docking engines to a large tank and still maintaining the normal connection strength that size 3 tanks/engines usually enjoy. Still a WIP so I thought I'd mention it here in case anyone wants to pick the bones and use the concept for something. Full explanation is here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/134874-Space-Station-Nuclear-Tug-set-%28WIP%29

My latest contraption: Its a method for docking engines to a large tank and still maintaining the normal connection strength that size 3 tanks/engines usually enjoy. Full explanation is here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/134874-Space-Station-Nuclear-Tug-set-%28WIP%29

Still a work in progress but thought I'd post as I wont be working on it for a while and the concept might help someone. I wanted to make a bunch of generic space stations to shunt to each planet for career mode contracts. Because I have an old laptop I wanted them as low part count as possible so I didn't want to have them include engines or extra fuel tanks for the trip out to each planet. I wanted to make a reusable tug to push them around seeing as career mode kind of infers making things that are reusable so as to save money. Problem I ran into is that docking ports are really spongy connections and as soon as you put any amount of thrust through that connection well good luck staying on your maneuver node. So I wanted to have a way to dock to a large tank and have the same sort of connection strength that big tanks and big engines usually enjoy. I developed a way to brace the docking connection and with my testing on the launch pad it will take the full thrust of a mammoth and not flex any more than a size 3 tank/engine connection would. This is what I came up with: [TABLE=width: 1100] [TR] [TD][/TD] [TD]The Problem I had was using landing gear alone the higher you make the tension the more chance you have of breaking legs. Grabbing units work very well but are extremely hard to get to align well and if you have them radially arranged it's hard to get them to all engage. So combining the two and relying on the physics warping of x4 accelerate I can get a perfectly aligned connection with all the grabbing units engaged. There needs to be sufficient reaction wheel torque or RCS thrust in the craft you are pushing so that it is not completely being steered from the tug but apart from that it can run on 100% thrust and stay perfectly on what ever node is assigned. [TUG - Action Groups] 4 middle radiators (6 total) 5 angled radiators (12 total) 6 tensioning gear (18 total) 7 docking lights (2 total) 8 arm grabbing units (6 total) 9 release/decouple grabbing units (6 total) [space Station - Action Groups] 1 start fuel cells (4 total) 2 stop fuel cells (4 total) 3 toggle gigantors (4 total) 0 toggle antenna (4 total) 7 docking lights (2 total)[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Craft files: I've included some basic launch vehicles that will get the Tug and the Station to a 125k circular orbit with about 3/4 fuel remaining so will need a top up from space planes etc. These are still beta so if anyone wants to test them out please let me know any bugs and I'll look into them. Also I've taken some liberty with assigning resources to adapter pieces on the space station so that the part count is lower and so that there are less things to click during refueling procedures. All the tanks on the tug have been converted to Liquid Oxygen keeping the amount standard as per mk2 tank sizes. The station will hold 14 Kerbals. beta_SS.craft beta_TUG.craft

The only time Jebediah was ever wrong was when he thought he was mistaken.