CaptainTurbomuffin

You mean key mapping should be accessed from the game, not only from the main menu?

Poor you!! You have been playing for 2 years witouth noticing that you can rotate the map not only with the arrow keys but also with right-clicking? Before making this suggestion, have you tried that what you are going to suggest is whether already implemented? Or somehow you can't rotate the camera by right-clicking? Anyway, that selection stuff sounds great. Altough it couldn't be done by right clicking, it could be done by left clicking, as there's no action for dragging while left clicking. And the two orbits that are close to each other? That's a real problem, as well as placing a maevuer close to you, after entering the SoI of a planet. That's very buggy at me.

There's nothing you can't launch into orbit. Just don't forget to add struts and boosters. Anyway, I bet there are more than 100 people supporting the new aerodynamics for each man who wants the old aero back.

I have been watching the numbers in the editor. I tought those show the values with two decimal places. Now that I see that what's it like from map mode, I apologize for making that mistake, even in the video. As the screenshots show: With the cargo:22.05t; witouth:16.54 New efficiency:24.98866=24.99%=25% Also, the way you describe scoring is incredibly confusing. It suggests that launch mass should be multipied with 100. Either change it to (cargo mass/launch mass)*100 or to 100*cargo mass/launch mass. Anyway, great challange!

While making spaceplanes, you have to switch a lot between action group editor, and part placement modes. Some hotkeys would be helpful. Also, I still encounter the bug where an action group is only controlling one of two engines, while the blue selection suggests it controls both of them. It's a pain in the neck, something has to be done on this.

In my opinion, spaceplanes aren't dead, you just have to approach things from a different side. It's true that they were nerfed, but they only work in a different way. Previously, the more intakes you had, the better performance you had. Making SSTO-s was mostly a construction challange. Now, it's rather a piloting challange. Now, the faster you go, the more thrust you will have. To make effective spaceplanes, you have to learn to reach a high speed, and keep it. And now the horizontal acceleration phase is much longer. (Tip: I found out that accelerating a lot on the runway before taking off is vital) Also, you have to rebuild your old planes, in addition to learning to fly them properly with the new system. It was the same with me: all my old planes were ruined, and my new ones weren't working, despite spaceplanes are my main interest, and I had great skill of them. I had to go back right to the very basics, and I started studying the Aeris 4A again. I went through the painful and hard process of learning to make and fly SSTOs again, as I did for the first time. After numberless failures, now the spaceplanes I make work perfectly. I also applied for the challange mentioned before, with a plane that couldn't reach orbit in the previous versions. If you want to see it, here it is: Also, feel free to use the RAIPER engines, despite what you say, they are overpowered. NOTE: VTOL-s are truely dead.

Here is my entry. I hope it's not too late. Trying to be creative, instead of making something that focuses on efficieny, I tried to make a replica of the british Skylon spaceplane. I did everything to make it similar, while fitting the rules: using stock parts and minimal part clipping. Here's the craft (with MechJeb):https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0vvpkafadyyns6/Skylon.craft?dl=0 And a full-stock version witouth MechJeb:https://www.dropbox.com/s/xlp9mex0rnkrcoj/Skylon%20Stock.craft?dl=0 Air-breathing; single stage; replica. Takeoff mass: 22t Cargo mass:5.5t Efficiency:25% I made a video of it:

Updated:the Wiplash engine could remain as a middle-path, and a new ramjet could help hardcore engieneers:wink: - - - Updated - - - Updated: if a new pure ramjet was added, it could be a high-tech alternate to the RAIPER. - - - Updated - - - I don't mean lower thrust. I mean its thrust shouldn't depend on your speed. It should be (relatively) constant as a normal rocket engine. Currently, it has a thrust of 105 normally, and a thrust of 892 at mach3. It should have something like 180 at sea level and 200 in vacuum. (yeah, that would mean a buff compared to the rocket one) It's enough to look at its stats.

Also, you can see clouds from the inside view, even witouth EVE.

Using RAIPER engines is more effective than using ramjets+rockets after 1.0, wich is disturbing:mad:. Setting up and running a space plane with ramjets & rocket engines is a lot harder than using RAIPER engines, but also less efficient. I think it would be more appropriate to enjoy more efficiency from the harder setup, while also giving some need for unlocking RAPIER from the very end of the tech tree. In my view, the difference should be increased between ramjets and the CR-7 RAIPER Engine, so that they will have their advantages over each other. The J-X4 "Whiplash" is an engine that most people like, and modifying it so that combined with rockets, it's stronger than the RAPIER is not appropriate, as it's a lower-tech engine. Instead, I suggest a new, only ramjet/scramjet item, to be a high-tech alternate to the RAPIER, wich should have its new advantages too. Also, crafts with complex engines should be superior. Making those engines more realistic could solve the problem. Here are my ideas: A scramjet engine is a very simple type of jet engine, that is miserably unefficient and weak at low speeds, but efficient and strong at high speeds. The faster you go, the more thrust and Isp you have. Their performance, determined by your speed, is extreme, as you can reach incredibly high speeds with them, witouth the worry of overheating, while they produce no thrust at low speeds. They can operate at medium speeds, with a poor efficiency. They also consume a lot of fuel. With scramjet engines, you can reach incredible speeds, a vast majority of orbital speed, still in the atmosphere, but they consume much fuel. On the other hand, RAPIER engines are supposed to be SABRE engines, wich are ramjet-rocket hybrids. In the air-breathing mode, they are mostly different from a single ramjet in complexity, and that it can use the heat to power its pumps. They are not so good ramjets in air-breathing mode, but they are excellent rockets in rocket mode. However, in the game, they function as a super-strong, overpowered ramjet in air-breathing mode, and nearly the worst rocket in rocket mode. Either this should be changed, or add to the diversity of the game, by making it work with a whole new,different mechanism. I think they could be conventional rocket engines in air-breathing mode, relying on intake air. (If you look at it's texture, it has rocket thrusters, but no ramjets.) This would not only make them appropriate, the only VTOL choice, the game diverse, but it would help a lot those starters, who can't drive jet crafts to orbit. Also, they shouldn't stand the extreme conditions at high speeds, meaning that they have limited abilities in the atmosphere, due to the major overheating. Just like in real life. Even with spamming precoolers, you should hardly be able to reach the atmospheric performance of scramjets. On the other hand, RAPIER engines aren't such fuel-waster monsters like scramjets. So with the air-breathing mode of RAIPER engines, you could gain a lot less velocity in the atmosphere, as the faster you go the more heat you will have-->overheating-->lower performance, but you will be more efficient there. The engine itself is quite simple, so that it shouldn't cost 6000. However, precoolers should be more expensive, and should only cool down the air, instead of giving fuel, and plus air from nothing. Precoolers should be more expensive, also because they determine the atmospheric performance of RAPIER engines. The more precoolers you have, the more velocity you can get in the atmosphere. Also, precoolerless RAIPER engines could be used as an effective and cheap air-consuming lower-stage rocket booster, where there are safer conditions. This would also make its name fit it (<...> for Rockets). Conclusion: Additional heat of intakes: Air intakes apply an additional heat, to the engines. This heat is caused by the high-speed air. Higher mach number, more of this special heat. A lot stronger than heat caused by drag. It's a very strong extra heat, that can easily overheat your engines, if you go with a high mach number. Altough it's a lot of heat, adding precoolers can lower it. Precoolers only decrease this special heat, but more effectively, than radiators. The more precoolers you have, the higher speeds you can reach, witouth overheating. Precoolers no longer giving fuel and extra intake air, but lowering this heat of intakes. New scramjet: more speed-->more thrust and ISP; Low overheating by intakes, high Max. temperature; High fuel consumption, with the expection of high-speed usage; Tweaking fuel consumption can compensate the increased performance. Ability to reach very very high speeds in the atmosphere (maybe 1400-1700 m/s if properly utilised?); No thrust at low speeds. Tweaking minimal speed can compensate the increased performance. You could gain most of your orbital velocity in the atmosphere, so you will need less LFO, but due to the high fuel consumption, more LF. Reaching a reliably high atmospheric speed needs proper piloting skills for a proper horizontal acceleration, as well as a proper engieneering skill to build a craft that can stand the extreme conditions, and has enough TWR in all phases. If my ideas are implememnted, adjusting the Aeris 4A craft to be an optimal scramjet+rocket combo powered SSTO. Down in the tech tree. An alternate to the RAPIER. Planes with very complex propulsion (Basic jet+Scramjet+Rocket) are more efficient than RAIPER-powered ones. (But it's also hard to build and pilot them) Gimbal? Gimbal-less engines are even harder to use. Maybe play with gimbal & power gen for balancing. RAIPERs: Rocket-like air breathing mode (you won't gain huge thrusts at high speeds--> Lower thrust at high speeds, higher thrust at low speeds than the current values. Have them nearly identical.) Cheaper engines, more expensive precoolers You can gain less velocity in the atmosphere (maybe 800-1000m/s with 1 precooler and 1300-1500 with 3-4 precooler per engine if properly utilised?) than with ramjets, but you also need less LF for it--> More LFO; less LF Good efficiency in air-breathing mode. Tweaking the efficiency and TWR can compensate the change of performance. Orbiting is easy, as you only have to ascend, witouth the problematic horizontal acceleration phase. Of course, by spamming precoolers, you can have some of that one too. A stock sample craft. A Mk.2 cargo plane, using the new RAPIERs. You would need a lower atmospheric phase for RAIPER-powered planes. Scramjet powered planes have the opportunity of a longer atmospheric phase and horizontal acceleration, wich is known to be hard. In the hands of a skilled pilot, who could perform a better horizontal acceleration, spaceplanes with complex propulsion could be more efficient than the RAIPER powered ones. For taking-off with scramjets, because you need a minimal speed to operate, you should either assist with SRB-s, or use your rocket engines until you have enough speed, or add Basic Jet Engines. Using them would also solve the problem of mid-speed inefficiency, but on the other hand, that would mean you have to use 3 types of propulsion. So using complex propulsion should be harder to manage but also more efficient. I made a sample mod, including 2 new engines, based on the suggestion. These are not suggesting final values, just demonstrating how it would work. And that it would work. Giving exact and balanced values should be the job of squad. I balanced my engines with the spaceplane 'foremost'. You can download a package, conaining the 4 types of this plane here. This needs the mod that includes the new engines. You have to download it from here, to try the balanced planes, or for your own testing. If you Don't want to download or test anything, have a look at my results. My test: The task is to deliver a 3.7 ton Orbital Refreshing Point onto an orbit above 80.000 m, using variants of the plane Foremost. Each plane has the same ammout of fuel in them, that I measure in tanks (Mk.2 short fuselages). Each tank has the sam ammout of fuel in them, and the long adapter has the fuel of 2 tanks in it. There's no fuel in the small rocket fuel tanks at the engines, I just used them as radial attachment points. Each plane has the fuel of 5 tanks in them. I'll analyse the 3 main phases of orbiting: 1:Ascending to 10.000m wih the jet engines; 2:Using the jet engines to get as much speed as possible, while still in the upper atmosphere; 3: Orbit with the rocket mode. Type 1: regular ramjets, and an aerospike rocket. This is a basic plane, with 2 regular 'Whiplash' engines in it. It has 1 tank of jet fuel, and 4 tanks of rocket fuel in it. (Totally: 1120 LF and 880 Oxidizer) Phase1:Ascending to 10.000m. Regular take-off, and ascending. No issues. Because I have good TWR, and really large wings, I can ascend in a steep, 35° angle. 141 units of liquid fuel was consumed, as jet fuel. Phase2: Horizontal acceleration. I level off and start to gain speed, to gain even more thrust, and get as much speed as possible, before I flame-out due to the high atmospheric curves. (low thrust). At flame-out, I have a speed of 1200m/s, at an altitude of 22.800m, and with my apoapsis at 25.700m. 248 units of LF was consumed during the process. Phase3: Rocket mode. This flight was a close one. I right managed to do it, with 11 units of LF left, as jet fuel, and 9 units of rocket fuel (5 Ox; 4LF) Type 2: Regular RAPIERs. This RAPIER plane consumes a bit more jet, and a bit less rocket fuel. I wanted to have a tank with half jet, and half rocket fuel in it. Instead of further modding, I made a tank with half rocket fuel in it, and inserted a new tank with half jet fuel in it. In the end, it has the same ammout of fuel in it. It has 3.5 tanks of rocket fuel, and 1.5 tanks of jet fuel. (Totally: 770 Ox; 1230 LF) Phase1:Ascending to 10.000m. Ascending is a bit harder than type1. 174 units of LF was consumed, as jet fuel. Phase2: Horizontal acceleration. RAPIERS are much better ramjets than the ramjets. I managed to get 1400m/s with them, at an altitude of 25.800m, and with my apoapsis at 32.300m, while I used up 380 jet fuel. Flame-out due to low thrust. Phase3: Rocket mode. As my jet stage was stronger, I had to use up less LFO (rocket fuel) for orbiting. In the end, I had 46 units of jet fel left, and 40 units of rocket fuel left (22 Ox; 18 LF) Type 3: Scramjets, and an aerospike rocket. My pure scramjets were meant to be engines for high altitude, high speed flight. When I increased their atmospheric curves, to optimize them at high speeds, they become so powerful, that even by crippling their other stats, they could do the job. As most people will compare them to the Whiplash engines, I decided to leave their atmospheric curves nearly identical, and play with all other stats, such as ISP, thrust, and vel.curves. As thism plane has stronger jet stage, it has more LF, and less LFO. It has 3 tanks of rocket fuel, and 2 tanks of jet fuel. (Totally: 660 Ox; and 1340 LF) Phase1:Ascending to 10.000m. As I press space, my engines go boom, as these scramjets can only operate at higher speeds. So I already have to use my rocket engine, to accelerate the plane to a proper speed. I had less rocket fuel, and I have to use from it, even before leaving the runway. My scramjets start working (but still, on a limited performance) from 90 m/s. When I reach that speed, they start working, and I can finally turn off my rocket engine. At these low speeds, my scramjets have a very low performance. That's why I right have to start accelerating after taking off, to gain enough thrust for the ascending. I still have a low thrust, and I can only ascend in a lower, 25°angle. Not only I have problems with low thrust, my ISP is low too, so I consume much fuel. (I should have low ISP at low speeds, and higher ISP at higher speeds, but I couldn't mod that. Instead, there's lower ISP at lower altitudes, where you mostly fly with lower speeds, and higher ISP at higher altitudes, where you mostly fly with higher speeds) During this ascend, 301 units of LF was consumed as jet fuel, and 163 units of rocket fuel during taking-off. (85 Ox; 78 LF) Phase2: Horizontal acceleration. As I start to accelerate, I get so high thrust that I start getting low on intake air, and I have to lower my thrust. After that, I can achieve very high speeds in the atmosphere. At these high speeds, overheating becomes a great problem. As I have no radiators, my plane overheats dangerously, but in the end, nothing explodes. As I have nearly identical atmospheric curves with the Whiplash engine, I can only get even higher by momentum. Engine flame-out due to low thrust, at 32.800m, with the speed of 1619 m/s, and with my apoapsis at 55.500m. 422 units of jet fuel was consumed. Phase3: Rocket mode. As I had such a strong atmospheric stage, I need less LFO to finish orbiting. But I had less at the beginning. Anyway, finished orbiting with 79.5 units of jet fuel left, and 165.5 units of rocket fuel left. (91 Ox; 74.5 LF). Of course, it could have been stronger, If I had a Basic Jet Engine stage. Type 4: My new RAPIERs One thing to note: I couldn't mod the intakes' heat, so instead, I pretend that my engines are being destroyed at higher mach numbers, and that my precooler only cools the air, allowing me to fly at higher mach numbers. I have 1 precooler per engine, and it's totally disabled and blocked. I pretend that it's abled for me to fly below 3.5 mach. I won't go over that with my jet stage. And because this plane has a lower jet, and stronger rocket stage, I use half-tanks, again, to have 4.5 tanks of rocket fuel, and 0.5 tank of jet fuel. (Totally: 990 Ox, and 1010 LF) Phase1:Ascending to 10.000m. These rocket-like jets have a good TWR here, so not only I have a good ISP, I can ascend in that steep angle again, and I can do it with reduced thrust, so I use even less fuel again. 74 LF cunsumed. Phase2: Horizontal acceleration. It's a very simple manouver, a lot more simple than the others. I just simply put my plane in a 25-30° angle, and pro-ceed until I flame out. When I am about to exceed 3.5 Mach, I lower my thrust. It's similar to planes before KSP1.0. I can climb to 35.000m, until I flame-out, due to the lack of intake air. I have a speed of 1140m/s there, with my apoapsis at 38.300m. 154 units of LF was consumed, as jet fuel. (I frogot to take screenshot here, so I use the original RAPIER one's) Of course, it could have been stronger, if I used more precoolers, resulting a higher mach limit. Phase3: Rocket mode. As I needed less jet fuel, I can have more rocket fuel here. Not only the rocket phase's longer, but the jet phase also works like a rocket. It's friendly for those dozens of people, who excel with rockets, but suck when it comes to planes. And for everyone else, who wants to fly easy spaceplanes. LF left:26 Ox. left:67.6. (frogot screenshot again) So, new RAPIER planes are easier to fly, but have a little lower performance than scramjet-powered planes. On the other hand, altough scramjet planes are a bit more efficient, they are a lot harder to drive. The REAL difference comes with the upgraded variants. Upgraded ramjet-planes recieve a basic jet engine stage, meaning that they become even more complex and hard to build. Upgraded RAPIER planes recieve additional preccolers, but they become even more costly. So, if you upgrade these to have even more performance, you can either choose complexity and cheaper-ness, or simplicity and higher costs. Awaiting replies.

That won't work. So If I watch another player warping, I'll see my crafts moving with normal speed, and the warper player's crafts moving very quickly. The only problem is that multiplayer is only fun if you can destroy the other's creations, and you could avoid every attack by time warping. Example: Your battlecruiser approaches the rival's space station, "Full fire, all weapons!!" but the other player simply warps away before his station is hit. Also, how about buying additional space centres? You could have more.

Use a plane with a small wing, and assist with SRB-s while taking off (Kerbal solution): Build planes with big wings, and blast off their edge when you want less drag

I think career mode could be more fun with these changes. 1.:Constructions&Satellite missions of pre-made objects Adding probe missions, space station, and planetary base construction was excellent, as they are part of an ideal space program, and it also makes the game diverse, but they aren't like the majestic ones people do in sandbox mode. That's because in career mode, everyone tries to cut back on these missions, and they just build minimal stations, bases, and probes that only meet the minimal requiements. At least, in harder modes, I think Pre-made satellites should be delivered to the specified destinations. (maybe fuel packed in them as a last stage, to assist) Space stations and planetary bases should be constructed of pre-made modules. So you could be hired to do things. The cost of pre-made stuff would not be included in the vehicle's cost. Constructions wouldn't be owned by the player, who was just hired to deliver them. The payment should be depending on the mass, number, size, and destination of these constructions. Non-editable pre made stuff could be temporarily saved as a subassembly. Build awesome things for profit. 2.: Servicing these Getting paid for replacing crew, supplying rescoures (and the future life support systems), and delivering new experiments (maybe in containers like the ore container, but with science stuffs in them) to these bases, wich are not owned by you. And of course recovering the old crew, and the processed experiment results. This would also create more use for smaller spaceplanes/shuttles, increase the need of an effective delivery vehicle. I would like to see these in the career mode of the core game.

What I would like is a 'realistic' option for career mode, where unrandom contracts would make your space program realistic. Courrently, you can get a ridiculously high ammout of credits comparing to science points, as I experience. Contracts force you to build unstable and unlogical rockets such as testing SRBs on escape tarjectories, or lower-stage nuclear engines, or wheels on lander capsules, but I think 'stupid' rockets like that are the style of this game. My idea is a hard, realistic game mode where you get nearly the same ammout of credits for each successful explorer (science earner) mission (going to other planets) as a support, making it easy to get to an orbit, and get science there, and after 2-3 launches to orbit, wich for you could get paid, (maybe have a rendezvous contract there?) you can manage it for a larger mission to the Mün/Minmus, and get lots of science. Than, with lots of science and less credits, you have enough parts for several fine-print mod like credit-earner missions (wich for you would not get the support/mission payment) like 'Dock this modul to my space station' and 'Rescure X;Y ( from a broken ship maybe)' but mostly orbit pre-made satellites/ships, wich are useless for you, but you could get paid, and manage the crew replacement, and life support updates of others' space stations for money. After a few rocket launches for others, you could have enough money for your larger own projects, wich with, you could get some more science for new parts (For example, manned Minmus mission, unmanned Duna rover, ect.) or your own space station(s), capable of earning science, or crdits, slowly, with special modules: A space station lab, wich would slowly produce science, or credits from lots of electricity ( you would need a few solar arrays), continously replaced crew (after 1/2 years, they would stop working effectively), and from manually replaced experiments/<something indrustal activity here> ( You would have an experiment-container item, something like a fuel tank, wich in, you transport up several experiments, and return those wich were completed. Revovering a container with completed experimens/produced materials gives you the science/credit.). Labs would do these very slowly, but when you are flying at full time warp to other planets, stopping to refresh your station would give pleasant science/credits. For long-term planning. Long planetary missions would need special life support and larger ships, so you would need to get that money first. Summarization: You get science from exploration missions, and you need a few credit-earner missions to get the money for science missions. If you have some shuttles/planes, you will get money faster and need less of these. Going further means more science, wich from you unlock better/bigger parts, and from better/bigger parts, you get even more money from credit-earner missions, and from even more money, you can go even further, and get even more science, and... ...expand like this. The small money support ables a good start, and could adjust the difficulity. In a mode like I described, I'd really feel I'm managing my own space program. I hope you liked it.

Can I have a question? Will I be able to reach higher speeds with jet stages of my spaceplanes while having this mod? Or I mean will it make spaceplanes effectiver?

Agreed, but what you mean under 'other company?' something wich is not the R&D? just launch payloads to orbit, or connect'em to space stations, and get paid. After doing it a few times, you will have enough founds for a bigger project, such as Jool. Using shuttles and spaceplanes will come handy for things like this. And than have the giant rocket to Jool, and the torrent of research points. rom that have better tanks, better shuttles and spaceplanes, and orbit more and heavier payloads, or even take them to places like Duna. Than have an even bigger rocket to don't know, maybe to Eve. Would you like a hardmode like that?

how about this?

Yes, we need more missions that can be done by spamming the same vehicle. For example, NASA's STS had 135 flights. In KSP, for my 6 missions done around Kerbin orbit, I used 6 different vehicles. Of course this is good, the game is about building rockets. But in a harder mode, where you couldn't earn so much money so easily, you'd need much more missions, and if re-entry heat is added, every well-desgined shuttle or spaceplane would mean a good profit. So yes, I would like a harder mode, where your most effective vehicle would mean the main money source.

As you might have red, many players are not statisfied with the Mk.3 fuelsages, and gave many suggestions to make them better, including high-gimbal engines for shuttle constructions like the STS. But wouldn't that be too overpowered? I think the optimal solution would be an engine-angler adapter for Mk.3 fuelsages, that'd angle the engines to have the Center Of Thrust looking towards the Center of mass. Why this would be good is that there'd be no overpoweredly high gimbal, and you could use all engines (maybe not 3.75 ones, but the others).

I just want to know is it possible to destroy planets with a glitch or something in the courrent version? How I tried it is crashing a 167 part, 1312 tons rocket with unbreakable parts, part joints, and infinite fuel, onto Minmus ( 'cause Kerbin's atmosphere slowed me down ) with the speed of 55.626 m/s, but what happened is that I crashed and blew up despite unbreakability (at -100 m). Because I hate minmus so much can you help me destroy it?

but still, in other games, in in-game, you both have 'quit to menu' and 'quit to windows' functions. That is what could help KSP in this.

HOw you like this? The thrust controller would help you for better effectivity, with no balancer thrust vector components wasted. I'd love to use shuttles like that.

I've suggested the same thing already:sticktongue:. What is that means? maybe that it is a good ida or that starters here would like that?

Aircraft fuelsages

I want to make shuttles! So yes the better Mk.3 parts and later some career-re-entry heat to not able rocket orbiter stages be recovered ( that makes shuttles useless)