Wanderfound

This ship: The red numbers (and the >0 AoA figure) in that analysis are telling you that the ship doesn't have enough lift to fly at that speed. But the speed is set to Mach 0.35 at sea level. What do the numbers look like at 5km/Mach 0.8 and 20km/Mach4?

Whatever file host suits. NuFAR is a major change; all your old ships will need tweaking.

Repost it in the craft forum (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/121176-Official-FAR-Craft-Repository) and I'll help you with it.

I've actually been getting good results from stock heating (no DRE) and FAR. Spaceplane reentries are safe if you're careful, suicidal if you're stupid. Feels about right. I haven't tested it much with pods, though.

Kerbodyne Baktrian. KSC -> interplanetary is back in fashion. Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/3oi9y8019kcokfl/Kerbodyne%20Baktrian.craft?dl=0

Okay; after the sad death of a dozen test pilots, I can confirm that aero failures aren't causing game or computer crashes on a nothing-but-FAR install. So, it's probably not a laptop problem, and it's not a just-FAR problem; either another mod is playing up or it's a general memory load thing that requires the additional strain of some other mods. https://www.dropbox.com/s/66kcmkb5mdzgd64/output_log.txt?dl=0 is an output log from my modded install, from a time when it crashed the game but not the whole computer. Toolbar Chatterer ContractPacks DistantObject Dynamic Controls Enhanced Navball FAR Firespitter Hyomoto IntakeBuildAid JSI KAX KerbalEngineer KerbalFlightData KerbalFlightIndicators MechJeb2 ModularFlightIntegrator Pilot Assistant Planetshine RCS Build Aid StockBugFix TAC-LS Kerbal Alarm Clock Waypoint Manager Module Manager The laptop is a Dell Latitude E6320 running Windows 7 with 8GB RAM.

I'll set up a nothing-but-FAR install, go fly like an idiot and try to cause some aero-disassembly-induced computer crashes. Most of the time it does that it goes down too fast to generate the normal crash reports, though; is ther any useful info I can salvage from those?

Exploring some different airframe options: Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/3cuz69o2g0enn4j/Kerbodyne%20Salvager.craft?dl=0 Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/5rhkmipz6oh24bm/Kerboracer%20II.craft?dl=0 Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/3oi9y8019kcokfl/Kerbodyne%20Baktrian.craft?dl=0

Too much fun not to share: Kerboracer II. Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/5rhkmipz6oh24bm/Kerboracer%20II.craft?dl=0

How do the wave-drag numbers look with wings forward vs back?

Kerbodyne Salvager. Fast and practical. Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/3cuz69o2g0enn4j/Kerbodyne%20Salvager.craft?dl=0

Thanks for the update, m4v; essential mod. I'm another who misses the dCoM offset figure, though.

What I think might work well is to give the player two sets of contract preferences to choose from: one is a checklist of what sorts of contracts they want to see, and the other is a checklist of which locations they want to go to. As the game progresses, the player could check/uncheck options appropriate to what they're interested in at the time. I'm unsure of whether it would be best to have these as completely free choices from the beginning, or to have a gameplay mechanic that progressively unlocks them, though. Perhaps it could add an element of strategy by giving the player a choice of focus in the early game, with contracts initially limited to that focus; maybe even unlock an appropriate tech node or two for free depending upon whether they select "tourism", "exploration", "commercial launch"', etc. Give extra crew pods to the tourists, solar and probe cores to the explorers, bigger initial rockets to the commercial lifters and so on. As well as adding a bit more replayability to career, it would allow people to do a pseudo-BTSM/SpaceX/NASA style recreation.

Click the FAR button, go to the transsonic design tab, click cross-section area curves.

Nukes at the smaller end of the scale: Kerbodyne Ranger N. Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/r1ksk1pdxgy10nk/Kerbodyne%20Ranger%20N.craft?dl=0

Kerbodyne Ranger N. Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/r1ksk1pdxgy10nk/Kerbodyne%20Ranger%20N.craft?dl=0

Seconded. The right-click menus are nothing but an artificial PITA. Polishing up action groups to allow things like switching command pods and pumping fuel wouldn't hurt, either.

It's the twenty-odd ramscoops that are slowing it down. Lose some drag and you could ditch half the engines. Looks nice, though.

Variation on the theme: Kerbodyne Astrotug N. Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/mafmdsidy74djvu/Kerbodyne%20Astrotug%20N.craft?dl=0

Here y'go: Kerbodyne Astrotug N. Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/mafmdsidy74djvu/Kerbodyne%20Astrotug%20N.craft?dl=0

Kerbodyne Astrotug N. Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/mafmdsidy74djvu/Kerbodyne%20Astrotug%20N.craft?dl=0

Yup, all good. Nicely done.

D'oh, missed that. Will amend the board.

Thanks for the entry, but that one's going to need a re-do on the right route. It looks like the pass you took allows for an easier/quicker turn. That's a well-flown and -built ship though; I've no doubt that you'll be topping the leaderboard (at least for a while) once you get a valid lap in.

Well, there's also the point that if you can build one of these, you can also build a cargo SSTO capable of lifting the train segments. If you were really attached to the idea of nukes, you could probably strap another pair of engines outside the lateral tanks; tuck them into the gap between the RAPIERs and put angled long nosecones on the front to blend them in to the structure. Put 'em on intercoolers to help control the heat. It wouldn't be quite as sporty on the way to orbit, though.