Wanderfound

Any chance of adding something like this image to the guide at https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/wiki/Notes-on-stability-derivatives ? I can't speak for anyone else, but I find it a lot easier to wrap my head around that stuff if I'm not distracted by constantly attempting to hold a visualisation of the direction of the assorted variables while I'm reading it.

Not actually sure if you're being serious here, but just in case you are: This is regarding the onboard guidance computer rather than ground-based simulators, but it should still make the general point. 21st century computing is very good.

As mentioned by others, a fresh sandbox save plus Hyperedit is probably the way to go. Why would you rather do them in the paddock? If a real KSP was testing this sort of stuff, they'd be doing it in a computerised Mun simulator (like a slightly flashier equivalent of sandbox KSP + Hyperedit) rather than creating helium-filled physical props or whatever.

BTW: as you may notice, I'm including screenshots of FAR aerodynamic analysis panels with my entries. Accompanying the images of the Dairyman, I'm trying to give a plain-English explanation of my (limited) understanding of what all that stuff means. I'm pretty much just attempting to translate the information at https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/wiki/Notes-on-stability-derivatives from Ferram's math-speak into lay language. This may be helpful for any new-to-FAR designers, especially if you use the original plus my attempted translation in conjunction. Keeping this image handy is also likely to make things easier:

Is it possible to do this in a highly limited way so that it applies to SP+ cargo bays but nothing else? My framerate is low enough already, but it would be nice to fix the "holographic cargo bay door" thing. Or would that only resolve half of the issue?

Heinlein was a massively overrated hack and an utterly vile person in general.

Ooh, nifty. An SP+ version of this would rock. At the moment, my pseudo-Concorde passengers are having to climb ladders onto the wings then scramble to the top of the fuselage from there.

Calculus, that thing that I did none of in high school and only passed in university because the whole class was taught so badly that my 30% fail got scaled up into a bare pass. Despite having HD averages in both of my majors (psych/neuro, history & philosophy of science). ...and make sure that Mechjeb isn't involved. Still not accounting for roll gimballing outside the dev build.

There was also a fair bit of aggro between the civilian and military test pilots, if you believe Chuck Yeager. The military pilots were paid a middle-class wage and flew whatever they were told to fly; the civilian pilots drew much higher salaries and would occasionally refuse assignments on safety grounds. Some jealousy was inevitable.

Thanks for the effort, but what I actually get from that download is an SSM folder that contains a Gamedata folder that contains another SSM folder that contains nothing. The source is there in the top level folder, but it looks like the compiled version is missing.

Well, some of us can; my mathematical abilities exponentially decay as soon as you get past shopping algebra. The temperature on the analysis panel is in C, not K, yes? It defaults to 20. (google google... http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Atmosphere ...oh, so that's what scale height means) If I'm understanding this right, I should just divide the density by 2.718 every time I go up 5,000m? So: 0m = 1.225 kg per cubic metre. 5,000m = 0.45 10,000m = 0.16 15,000m = 0.06 20,000m = 0.02 25,000m = 0.008 30,000m = 0.002 I've got no idea what's so special about 2.718, but that's okay; all I need is an approximate figure to plug into the analysis systems. Boil the cauldron, chant the spell, wait for the magic numbers to come out. Maths as usual. Thanks, Ferram.

Same here. Png's are pretty, sure, but jpegs are perfectly adequate unless you plan on projecting it onto a six-foot screen.

Thanks for the answer. That's a bit over my head, I'm afraid; bioscientist here, mathematics are not the language of my people. Basically, what I'm after is just something that will tell me what temperature and density values to plug into the data & stability derivatives window when I'm trying to predict high-altitude aerodynamics: i.e. "alright, it looks okay at sea level, will it still work at 25,000m?". Is there a simple way to know approximate density values for a few typical altitude bands (say, 5,000m increments from 20,000m to 40,000m)? If anyone could toss me a handful of ballpark figures, that'd be great; if not, I'll just have to continue relying on flight testing and the EVA Parachutes mod... (either that or send up Bob with a thermometer, barometer and notepad)

Another option could be to allow users to save & load a default action group list, then tweak as necessary. Virtually all of my craft have near-identical AG lists (e.g. primary engine, secondary engine, engine mode, intakes, flaps up, flaps down, docking and/or cargo, vectored thrust toggle). Allowing multiple default lists would be even better; there tends to be a typical AG pattern for cargo planes that is slightly different from the one for sportsplanes, etc. Everyone is obviously going to have their own preferences, but as it stands the action group part of the website may as well not exist for me. I'm just not willing to retype that list manually for every single design; much too much like work.

Works fine and loads instantly at that link. I'm currently viewing via iPad; the embedded Imgur albums in these forums are often slow loading and troublesome.

All good so far.

I'm seeing the first image in each album, but none beyond that. The captions are there, but the images seem to hang in eternal-loading state. Welcome to the contest, BTW.

BTW, as an example, this is a fairly typical action group list for a spaceplane: Action group key: 1: Toggle RAPIERS 2: Switch RAPIER modes 3: Toggle Aerospikes 4: Toggle intakes 5: Reduce flap deflection 6: Increase flap deflection 7: Engage docking mode 8: Open and illuminate cargo bay 9: Trigger spoilers 10: Toggle Vernors They nearly all use action groups exclusively in place of staging. Have a dig through http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86202-Better-SSTO-Spaceplane-Challenge-%280-23-5-0-24%29-Fin%21 if you want a broader sample.

I understand your point about wanting to avoid too many categories, although I do think "spaceplane" is a large and distinct enough group to have a stronger claim to a separate identity than many other things (satellite and station and base? And what's an LV if it isn't a lander?). There are a large proportion of KSPers who build and fly spaceplanes exclusively, and someone looking for a spaceplane usually isn't interested in finding a rocket and vice-versa. If you do want spaceplanes to go under "aircraft", you'll need to make that clear. Perhaps change "aircraft" to "winged" or "planes". A lot of spaceplane designers are going to see "aircraft" and go "no, this is a spacecraft...".

Microsoft was justifiably hateable twenty years ago, but these days they're substantially less evil than Google, Facebook or Apple. They're just a run-of-the-mill big tech company. Also: Facebook, Apple, and Google all got away with their monopolist power grabs because they don't have any 'S's in their names for critics to snarkily replace with '$'s.

May also be a bit slow for them, but if they like Minecraft vids they may already know him: Kurtjmac (AKA the guy behind Far Lands or Bust). Kid-safe and amusingly incompetent.

Echoing some of the others upthread; see the links in my sig.

Firstly, the obligatory, "yes, it would be good if this were made stock". Secondly, before anyone else gets in: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92324-0-24-2-Chatterer-v-0-6-0-Aug-29-2014

And multiple heats in varying locations. Minmus EVA jetpack obstacle course, anyone?

I've been reading everything James writes since ye olde Usenet days. Check out his Livejournal as well; he usually has plenty of interesting things to say on non-SF topics as well.