Wanderfound

Schroedinger's cat isn't dead, it's just very deeply asleep. Cats ignore the laws of physics; indeterminacy is just a pillow.

That is a big deal. In all of the time I've been playing career mode, not once have I paid the slightest attention to which company was offering the contract. If the companies have no in-game effect, they may as well not exist.

Hairy moments include going up on 2 wheels after the tight left at turn 15, almost hitting the VAB after a bad exit from the next chicane, and nearly taking off at the VAB/SPH boundary line. Verdict: Great track! If you aren't on two wheels, you aren't turning tight enough. ;-) Kerbodyne entry should be in tomorrow.

As with many of the "difficulty" options: most of us aren't calling for a compulsory enforcement on all players. What we'd like is switchable difficulty toggles so that everone can play the game that they want to play. Wanna start with manned capsules? Cool, make sure that you haven't turned off the default "Apollo" switch. Wanna take a more realistic progression? Hit the "Goddard" toggle. All cool, everybody happy.

BTW: Some of you may be aware that Wanderfound isn't in the best of health. There is a possibility that I may disappear from these forums without notice. Hopefully, that isn't going to happen. But, just in case it does: Thank you. The people here have been one of the few things in my life over the last year that doesn't suck. Y'all have made the last few months a lot easier than they could have been.

Vernors are usually easier. It's worth it if you're doing crazy speeds (e.g. 200m/s on Minmus), but probably not otherwise.

Kill steering on the rear wheels, kill brakes on the front. As with spaceplanes, use reality for inspiration: there is a reason why cars don't steer from the rear.

Ah, spotted it now. Thanks.

Is there supposed to be something in the track file that makes direction and start point obvious? If so, I'm not seeing it. For now, I'm assuming that it's anti-clockwise starting from the Astronaut complex pedestrian crossing.

If you'd like to hear some spaceplane piloting tips direct from Wanderfound, check out the latest Kerbal Podcast: http://kerbalpodcast.libsyn.com/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/rosetta-mission-ready-for-landing-on-comet-1.2831273 To quote: "There isn't anywhere really on the surface that you'd say, 'that's an absolutely lovely flat area to land on.' Everything is challenging."

As mentioned: stability is related to size. If you want stable, then make your wheelbase as wide and as long as possible. If you're flipping under braking, disable the front brakes; if you're flipping under acceleration, disable the rear motors.

I was just thinking about a full-body (Ke Mans?) series. Mostly so I could use a spaceplane cockpit and race from IVA...

As a general rule, as low as possible. 70km on Kerbin, 8,000m at the Mun, just above the atmosphere at Duna, etc.

Hmmmn... Okay: this is a pre-existing entry to start with. If you're running a FAR/DRE leaderboard, I'll put together a single-intake version and see what I can do from a max-altitude dive. But, to set a baseline: Just a quick little something I threw together. Up. Supersonic in the vertical climb. Time to level off. Getting warm. And finally into the hypersonic. Top speed during the climb. That's the top, time for a bounce. Negligible thrust at this speed, the air is going through the intakes too fast for the turbojet to handle. Getting some speed up... Note the speeds in the previous two pics: the first is 1794.4m/s and Mach 5.67, while the second is 1792.0m/s and Mach 5.69. The first is faster in m/s, the second is faster in Mach. This is because Mach varies with altitude, while m/s does not. Which gives me an idea... Speed in m/s peaks here, at 1787.9m/s. Getting a bit on the toasty side. Peak mach, 5.77. Oops. This might hurt. Nup, all good. So: 1794.4m/s or Mach 5.77, your choice, albeit disqualified by the double intake.

As the others have said: hide 'em in the heatshield shadow. And make sure that you keep the capsule pointed exactly retrograde (it should do this itself with SAS off due to aerodynamic forces, unless you've added some asymmetric drag to it), so the plasma doesn't sneak around the edges.

So how long until the first race? Itching to go...

Basic jets, actually, stashed in a bomb bay. 100% stock parts. If you look at the Kerbodyne thread, you'll find examples of similar builds from small (single jet) to the big four-jet (plus one turbojet, two RAPIERs and two Aerospikes; slow it ain't) one shown upthread. And they'll all easily cruise to orbit and more, so I'm not too bothered about efficiency.

Well, if it's a spaceplane, you don't need chutes. Land it like it's supposed to. But if you must have chutes, then yes, they work just fine when deployed from a bay:

Incidentally, from the challenge threads: the current spaceplane runway-to-70x70orbit speed record stands at about three and a half minutes. Runway-to-orbit-to-runway is about fifteen minutes. Those are all genuine jet-powered winged spaceplanes, not finned missiles. See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94343-Spaceplane-Speed-Challenge-IV-Up-and-Down and http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90354-Spaceplane-speed-challenge-shortest-elapsed-time-from-runway-to-orbit

Saliugna ed onell se rodazilsesorea im!

Did somebody mention "slow"?

...and in a format that is totally inaccessible on mobile devices unless you're in a timezone to see it live. Could we at least get a post-facto mirror on Youtube? Another vote here for a dirt airfield and stockified prop planes. Some folks want to go direct to Apollo, some of us would rather start with the Wright Brothers and Bob Goddard. Why not let everyone play how they want to play? Where's the downside? All it would take is a handful of low-tech plane parts (relatively easy to make, given the existing stock aircraft bits to modify and the plethora of mods that have been there before) and assigning a corner of the KSC paddock as a launch site.

Whatever works for you is fine, but just as a demo: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lbnz9s8k9h7gwgb/Kerbodyne%20Benchmark%20StockAir.craft?dl=0 That's a non-airhogging stock aero plane designed to fly on a single turbo in the upper atmosphere. It won't get the periapsis very high on jets alone, but it doesn't need to. Flown right, it'll hit orbit with tanks half full.

...although it was an ironclad ram rather than a destroyer, IIRC. Destroyers didn't really become a thing until after the invention of the fast torpedo boat, and they didn't turn into the modern version (anti-air/anti-sub frigate) until some time after that.