FleshJeb

I have a Laythe cargo and utility SSTO Seaplane I've been working on. It's designed to island-hop with rovers and science gear, do refueling runs from a miner to other craft, and bring Kerbals and cargo to and from Laythe orbit (40 tons or so). In short, an all-around workhorse. 6 Rapiers, 2 Nervs, and 2 reversed Wheesleys.

@MattCoast Mods should go under something like: "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData"

The Phoenix lander on Mars in 2008 and the Huygens mission to Titan in 2005 both captured descent sounds.

https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/1.2 "Now always use g0 = 9.80665 and G (big G) = 6.67408e-11 for gravitational constants."

Building on what other folks have said in this thread, we can invert the topic: SpaceX and ULA are functionally sportsball teams. Joe Sixpack's needs are served by being entertained. Fortunately he's frequently entertained by whatever he's told is entertaining. Get him to pay attention to the 10,000 m/s sportsballs, and the rest of us might get somewhere.

EDIT: Nevermind, I need to read better. Anyone want to talk about geoengineering and/or energy production? I've been reading...

I don't know about the operating system, but I've run it on worse.

B-a-a-a-a-a-a-nned for being a goat.

Whoever runs InSight's Twitter account has a PhD in double-entendres.

"Insight, play Despacito."

Banned for doubting the Horrible Santa Hat Brigade

I'm here to complain that there is no meta-complaints thread, where we can complain about other people complaining. Also, I had a very rough day at work. No details shall be given.

I watched the video. Yes, it looks like it might be a bug. It could be the terrain detail setting. Ordinarily, I'd be very happy to spend 30-60 min of my own time trying to help you solve this problem, but I've known and respected the other people in this thread for years. After your commentary upthread [snip], I don't care. Good luck.

You have to turn off Part Pressure Limits in the settings.

I'm slightly disappointed that I didn't think of that. Why weren't you in my head three hours ago?!? Although, it would have been a much harder joke to sell visually (and it would have taken me longer than 60 sec). At least this way, it's unambiguous. Clarity trumps raw comedy value.

OK, Fine.

I entered in the 500 manually by clicking, that took a while. I had to stop at 200 sepatrons placed, because my potato computer was gagging: Forgot autostrut: Remembered autostrut:

The settings window lets you go up to 99x symmetry, at least, if not more.

Just for everyone's edification, the relevant lines from physics.cfg are: buoyancyMinCrashMult = 0.1 // The downwards component of velocity is used, not the whole velocity, when seeing if a part is destoryed when splashing down. However, that component will be clamped to no lower a portion of total velocity than this value buoyancyCrashToleranceMult = 1.2 // Multiplier to crash tolerance used when checking if a part is destroyed on splashdown

So happy, found out from fark.com thread. OK, which of you nerds are commenting about KSP over there...

CorrectCoL mod. I’d link but I’m on mobile

I think the fundamental problem right now is that wheels/legs seem to be OK at damping velocity but not acceleration (or maybe bump and jerk). I think the existence of landing-leg cannons are proof of this. The physics easing on load can only mitigate this so much if parts can't respond in a realistic way. Parked mode is likewise a kludge, but it may be a useful one. If it's not possible to alter the wheel/leg behavior sufficiently, maybe not loading craft in IS a reasonable answer. However, it comes with a whole host of other potential problems that I don't even want to list right now. My suggestion for a "parked mode" wouldn't suspend loading a craft into physics, but merely have it placed on invisible launch clamps. Of course, things on launch clamps can bend and flex in destructive ways, so it would take a bit of fiddling, but it might be a workable answer.

Very nicely designed and executed. It was a real pleasure to watch. What was the non-stock song? It was perfect. If I had any minor constructive criticisms: I think you would have gotten more range out of a more glider-like plane, but the one you used CERTAINLY got the job done. Quality of life stuff: Your nuke tug looked like it would have benefited from some autostrutting. Turn up the friction and the braking on your plane landing gear--It looked like it tried to run away a few times. (although slippery ones ARE safer to land). Turn down the gimbal range on the Vectors.

Is it many of them, where some of them don't appear to work in flight? Increase "Pixel Light Count" in the settings.

@KSK My apologies, I flew off the handle. (Not an uncommon occurrence) I also need sleep. I will edit. I've done a fair amount of reading on failure modes in the past. Also highly pertinent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model Having just re-read that, I see that it highlights CRM (which is fundamentally a "cultural" choice) as "additional layers of cheese". The assumption being that the safety standards are even rational. Which we know (per Feynman) was decidedly not the case with the Challenger O-rings. (As you acknowledged in your edit). Even if the standards are darn good, they're just another layer of cheese--There always exists the potential for unforeseen holes. Part of a strong workplace culture is that if somebody DOES have a nagging concern about a problem that hasn't bitten the company YET, they have an avenue to bring it up where they'll be actually listened to. In my professional life as a surveyor I have two concerns that sit at the top of my mind all day long: Reducing or mitigating errors and blunders in measurement. Reducing the odds of my coworkers getting injured or killed. I'll admit that we've had plenty of failures and near misses in those two departments. But, we talk about them, we stop and listen when someone has a "funny feeling", and we learn how to plug the holes.