Tosh

I\'ve searched the word \'parachute\'... aww, snap. I didn\'t search \'Releases\' section

You\'re welcome)) You say \'ancient\'? I could not found this problem\'s discussion on the forum. :-[

Whoops. That\'s my mistake. It\'s \'O.K.A.D.\'

Wut?

Phew! Finally here\'s the solution: The size of semi-deployed parachute is calculated in assumption that scene\'s scale is 0.1. The game does not check that scale though! So the canopy must have the \'scale\' attribute equal to 0.1. What\'s to do? Increase canopy\'s size 10 times (along X, Y and Z), then in Blender choose Object->Apply->Scale to make Blender recalculate all the coordinates. Then set all the 3 scales to 0.1 (without applying). Let the topic stay here for those who might face the same problem. Screw that. I\'ve lost 4 freakin\' hours to get the solution. 4 freakin\' hours. Just to get around a [censored] bug in a [censored] game. >

Does anybody what does the size of semi-deployed parachute depend on? Whatever I do, I\'m getting these stick-like figures: While the standard parachute looks much wider when semi-deployed: Fully deployed canopy looks just fine: What I\'ve already tried: - searched the forum, - decreased the size of the canopy in Blender, canopy\'s diameter and height one at a time, - decreased number of polygons in the canopy, - changed parachute proportions, i.e. portion taken by wires as compared by canopy itself, - modified scale and semiDeployedDrag parameters in .CFG, - applied \'empty parent\' approach proposed by Technical Ben in http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=4538.msg52205#msg52205, - hit my head against the table and said \'screw this game!\' 3 times, still no use. Moreover, after I\'ve imported standard Mk16 Parachute into Blender and re-exported it again, it has began showin\' \'stick figures\' in semi-deployed state, exactly as my own \'chute. What\'s the fu catch? Any help would be highly appreciated

Makes sense. And seems he\'s got enough ammo))

Which one? 8)

I wasn\'t speaking of anything \'fundamental\'. We were comparing Shuttle with Buran, two similar machines with similar payload)). Shuttle looked more effective... until GroundHOG mentioned its engines needed to be completely rebuilt between flights.

Ooops... I didn\'t know that.

Remember an engine . Shuttle returned 1st stage liquid fuel engines while Energia\'s engines were lost. And I suppose that those LOX-LH2 monsters cost a helluva lot.

And actually they did. They failed to duplicate Shuttle even though they were told to do so (and to forget their original Spiral project!), and in spite of they had the blueprints (sorry guys but Soviet intelligence proved to be quite effective =P). Partially because engine constructors failed to create engines comparable with Shuttle ones, partially because USSR suffered a severe lack in SRB technology, partially \'cause Baikonur represents a less advantageous launch facility than KSC (I mean not the Kerbal Space Center ). As a result Energia-Buran system had only one reusable part -- Buran plane itself (compare with Shuttle system which expends only the fuel tank). Energia-Buran would be far less efficient than Shuttle if being operated under the same conditions. Well, of course Energia could make an interesting heavy-class rocket... if only it (along with its launch facilities, fuel plants and all the stuff) won\'t be that expensive. Some people even say it\'s Energia-Buran project that killed USSR.

In most of catastrophes there\'s a person that could do something but either didn\'t do or was not listened to . Nedelin catastrophe (78 fatalities) could easily be prevented if Nedelin was not in such a hurry to present a new rocket to government.

Shuttle has bigger crew than Soyuz. Both countries suffered two spaceflight catastrophes, but USA had more fatalities per each incident No manned moonshots in USSR at all (not counting an old hoax that Lunokhod was manned 8) ) Speaking seriously, I\'ve no data on launch catastrophes in USA. In USSR there have been several terrible explosions resulted in numerous fatalities (e.g. Nedelin catastrophe).

...to shoot some evil LCD displays and vile paper targets)) No offense meant, but I doubt this belt-fed is intended for self-defence)

No offense taken. People bitchin\' about \'greedy capitalist pigs\' are probably trying to emphasize a thing that \'we can do better than Europeans/Americans\'... while those things are presently not very easy to find . And that\'s quite sad, I should say.

I don\'t think Buran was any better than Shuttle. Shuttle had a lot more reusable parts, including main engines (which in case of Energia-Buran system were simply lost)... and even Shuttle didn\'t pay for itself. Korolev\'s R7/Vostok/Soyuz series is really a masterpiece. R7, the world\'s first ICBM, was first launched in 1957 -- and even now its descendants still remain cheap and reliable lifters (not counting recent Progress fail). But now it\'s 2011, and maybe it\'s time for something new? (And I remind that Angara\'s first launch is delayed again for 2013). But Proton? Meh... too toxic (and Kazakhstan people are not very much pleased by its fuel tanks falling from above). Europan and American heavy carriers look much more interesting. \'Conversion\' vehicles like Volna or Strela? Well... ICBM carrying a satellite instead of reentry vehicle, and nothing more than that. And speaking of N1 rocket with its 30 (!) first stage engines -- it was definitely a very Kerbal fail P.S. I\'m Russian.

They can. But even 30 m/s landing/takeoff speed cannot be considered as \'safe\'. Just hit one of tile borders (which are hardly visible from above) -- and you\'ll end up gluing your landing gear back to fuselage A matter of luck and nothing more. VTOLs seem more appropriate for this mission. Even a monster with 5 fuel tanks requires only 3 to 4 heavy RCS ports (of course C7 ones).

St. Petersburg, Russia

Even with \'cheaty\' C7 it may be quite a problem to land still heavy plane (still carrying fuel for suborbital flight!) in an arbitrary point. And to takeoff afterwards... in one piece.

\'I see ya on the dark side of the Mun!\', as inscribed on some old tire P.S. iamwearingpants, that\'s a nice one

Sorry, I\'m not likely to do smaller skids (at least not in the near future). Even those \'large\' ones sometimes fail to protect heavy plane\'s engine from a splashdown (and -- yes -- I prefer heavy planes ). But -- wait, what\'s that? Breakin\' News: Hostile Planes Spotted in the Skies of Kerbin? [table][tr][td] Codename: [/td][td] \'Drone\'[/td][/tr] [tr][td] Type: [/td][td] tactical reconnaissance UAV, aerial target[/td][/tr] [tr][td] Carrier: [/td][td] any C7 plane (?)[/td][/tr] [tr][td] Maximum speed: [/td][td] unknown (> 150 m/s)[/td][/tr] [tr][td] Service ceiling: [/td][td] unknown (> 2 000 m)[/td][/tr] [tr][td] Endurance: [/td][td] unknown (> 2 min)[/td][/tr] [tr][td] Length: [/td][td] 4 m[/td][/tr] [tr][td] Height: [/td][td] 1 m[/td][/tr] [tr][td] Wingspan: [/td][td] 6 m[/td][/tr] [tr][td] Weight: [/td][td] 600 kg[/td][/tr] [tr][td] Structure: [/td][td] fuselage, wings (2 pieces), fins (2 pieces), ejector rack[/td][/tr] [tr][td] Development stage: [/td][td] UV-mapping & texturing[/td][/tr][/table] Coming soon!

Kersica? 100 Km North-East of KSC. Here\'s the map:

That\'s exactly what Omnivore did in his \'Blinder\' project. Once again, go get it

Sir! Sorry for correcting you, but Wasp Missile is JellyCubes\' too. And all of \'em do not do no \'mass destruction\' =P