ShadowZone

Hey guys... I've been at it again... So since somebody asked me on YouTube to build the "Normandy" from Mass Effect... I just did that. Honestly, It's a little off scale (not big enough), but it works. Got all three decks laid out, got a working cargo bay complete with MAKO and it also has remote mining rigs for refueling. Ore tanks and refinery unit are beneath the outer hull panels. Problem is: Trying to play with a 1700 part ship kind of sucks, to be honest... But without further ado, here is the Normandy: Download craft file: http://www./download/owlrhw097xi1ojk/SSV_Normandy.craft Download MAKO only: http://www./download/7au03gxyb1ztbxy/MAKO.craft Use at your own discretion Action groups: 1 - toggle engines of support craft + solar panels of mining rigs 2 - toggle drills 3 - toggle aft cargo bay 4 - open cargo bay door 5 - undock MAKO 6 - start LFO conversion 7 - stopp LFO conversion 8 - toggle docking port shields 9 - start fuel cells (Normandy) 0 - stop fuel cells (Normandy)

I am sorry, but I cannot let the "unrealistic" argument count. Squad themselves have very clearly stated that KSP is a game first and not a simulator. And if a game allows certain options stock then it is by definition not cheating. If you don't want to play that way because it doesn't fit your playstyle, please go on and do that. I'll be over here slapping LF tanks on my LV-N vehicles Why don't we need more LF tank options? Jets and spaceplanes could use the variaty of LF only adapter parts. Regarding fuel density: both LF and O are 5kg per "unit" and only have different amounts because engines need more O than LF so tanks can drain evenly. Now that's something I regard as highly unrealistic. Real life RP-1 has 0.81 g/cm³ while LO2 has 1.41 g/cm3. But I don't worry about this, cause I just want stuff to fly into space and look awesome

I am sorry but I have to disagree. If the game defines "LV-N uses the same LF as any other engine" then it's not cheating using pure LF tanks. And regarding small: The Mk3 short tank weighs 14,29 tons, more than entire airplanes and carries either 1125/1375 LFO or 2500 LF. So why would you regard it as cheating using such tanks? And if there are two variants of the Mk3 "block" tanks and the Mk2 straight tanks, why aren't there the same variants for the adapter parts? It is just illogical. If the devs wanted to restrict the LV-N to LFO tanks without O, then they should have made such a restriction. For instance "needs 1 unit of O to ignite but doesn't consume it" would be a very straightforward but not too complicated from a gameplay standpoint. But such a rule is not in effect, so I stand by my statement: either introduce such a restriction or give us more LF tank options.

1.0.3 has to fix the memory leaks and this bug: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/118776-Master-Thread-Cannot-Activate-While-Stowed! otherwise I will write an angry forum post. that will show them! /s Edit regarding memory leak: The game starts at aroung 2,7 GB of RAM, but during gameplay (especially when launching multiple times in close succession) the usage shoots up to 3,5 GB of RAM. Soon after, a crash is bound to happen. This is especially tiresome when trying to use my >1500 part vehicles.

The biggest problem with this situation: you NEED struts if you use the stock fairings, since the fairing bases' nodes are so weak that rockets keep falling apart under minimal amounts of stress.

but then the pure LF tanks are the odd ones out. if you argue that you should use LFO tanks without O in combination with a LV-N, then it should not be possible to use the LV-N with pure LF tanks. I could really live with the "LFO tanks only, but no O" restriction, but not with the "yeah, you can use pure LF tanks, but no we don't give you any" situation as it remains.

Now that they are back, have you heard from them regarding this bug?

you can watch it here: Althugh it's a great explanation, I have a point of contention: The problem is not the way the engine works now but the options players have how to implement it. Why? There are not enough variants of liquid fuel only tanks in the game. Take the Mk3 line of parts: Instead of 2500 units of LF the standard Mk3 tank parts offer only 1125 units of LF. So the efficiency of the Nuke is reduced as soon as you need to use other tanks than the pure LF parts. And if you want to give your ships some curves (as I like to do) you need the adapter parts - and those are only available as LFO. I regard this as an oversight that could be easily remedied by the developers. The way things are in stock, you get less dV per part or regarding the size of the vessel. If we stick with the short Mk3 tank, the LF only variant gets >10.000 dV with one nuke, the LFO variante with oxidizer emptied gets us barely >6000. That is a HUGE difference! If you increase the amount of engines, the ratio gets even worse. So yes, the Nuke is now less desirable to use. But in my opinion this could be fixed with tweakable tanks (at least with the Mk3 and/or adapter parts) or more LF tank parts. I just did the math: I have a 245 ton interplanetary exploration vessel (with multiple landers and probes). It clocks in at around 2000 dV with the parts as they are. If those LFO tanks I had to use had pure LF variants, vehicle mass would increase to 290 tons, but dV would rise above 3000. So once again: the problem isn't the behavior of the LV-N, it is the options players have how they can use it. The vehicle is still more efficient with nukes than with any other chemical rocket. However, it could still be a lot better if the developers would give us more tank options for LF only.

that was some great detective work, thanks for sharing your findings!

Working on my Normandy replica. Structural and engine performance tests. Next: Finishing the hull.

I violated the "circle rule"... but at least I got my Kerbal back to orbit

Thanks Does this mean I completed the challenge within the set rules or is my mission still in evaluation?

Ah well... I tried Glad you liked the mission!

Yeah me too. I even try to avoid using RTGs. Just because

As was already said: more boosters This was my Jool-5 mission craft, the Joolishka. It was built in 0.90 so it wouldnt work as well with 1.02 due to the heat thing. But you can see what you can get into orbit

I am using the Flea as a big Sepatron myself. But I put fairings around them. Looks a bit better

I second the 64bit. But I would also like to see some stock clouds and don't want to have to rely on mods. With the "launch smoke" effects now realized I see this as the next step up in graphical improvements. Integrate Outer Planets Mod. Improve overall GFX/SND quality (maybe possible with Unity 5?). Some kind of story or something would be nice.

Yep, that's Infernal Robotics Full Mod List: Kerbal Engineer Redux MechJeb Kerbal Alarm Clock Stage Recovery Flight Manager Outer Planets (I save those for a gigantic career mission I have laid out) Infernal Robotics Tweakscale (I use if mainly for IR) Kronal Vessel Viewer Docking Alignment Indicator HyperEdit and as soon as they are updated: B9 and Kerbal Attachment System

Yeah that is correct, 10 tons of ore turn into 10 tons of LFO, so it's really not that much of a difference what you haul into orbit.

It would be awesome if there was a stock way to partially deploy fairings, since the fairing is already consisting of connected procedural parts. But for starters I just would be glad if that "cannot activate while stowed" bug disappears soon.

Since I am currently laying out my plans for a refuel station on and around Minmus, I would like to know your opinion on something: Would you rather refine the ore on the ground and ferry fuel to space or would you just have a refinery on the surface and refine the ore in orbit as needed. I see the merits of both, but I am currently leaning towards an orbital refinery. What's your playstyle?

So I found out you can create for instance an interstage fairing consisting of two parts. I order to do that you first have to create an interstage fairing, launch the vehicle, revert to VAB, remove everything on top of the fairing (the fairing stays) then build on top of the things inside the fairing, put another fairing on top and connect it (with the trick of offsetting stuff in between). It's a bit hard for me to explain, that's why I made a video:

This is a beautiful story. Good on you that you found the courage to turn your life around! Makes me question my career decisions myself...

So... basically we have to "thank" Scott Manley for the atmo changes? *cracksknuckles* /jk

Gotta love the Doc! Love those launch effects as well. They give me hope for stock clouds.