Jovus

I'm flabbergasted by the changes. FAR is turning more and more into a real-time aerodynamic simulation. With the new changes involving trans-sonic drag, do we have any word yet on modeling phenomena like wingtip drag or compression lift?

Tested with a Mk1-2 pod. When appropriate, used 2.5m heatshield and/or 2.5m parachute. All orbits are from LKO - around 80-90km. Reentry periapsis is about 8-12km, though it doesn't seem from limited testing to make a difference if you use a more sane periapsis like 30 or 25km. Pod flies fine - orienting blunt-side retrograde - at all orientations except for a fairly narrow angle centered on 'pointy end first'. Reaches around 100+m/s before hitting the ground. Ibid. Untested. How do you invert a parachute? (Just rotate it using the rotation tool?)

...and this was fun for you?

Lucky. I can't even get the launcher; it appears the Mono paths are broken. (I'm using Linux.)

I can confirm that at the very least the 2.5m shield also behaves strangely without physics significance.

Nice clean launch. A pleasure to watch.

Heat shields do not appear to be under the 'structural' or 'utility' tab (maybe I just missed them), but they can easily be found by filtering on resource - in fact, ablative is the first resource in the stack.

Confirmed that the problem is very likely due to the heat shield. I flew very nearly the same profile as before - Mk 1-2 capsule, reentry from 90km, pe set at 8km - but without the heatshield. The pod alone flies straight and true just like you'd expect.

I would guess that if you stuck some fins at the bottom your problems would go away.

This has not been my experience with a plain Mk 1-2 capsule + 2.5m heat shield with 2.5m chute on top and no other parts while coming down from a 79km x 72km LKO. I will do some more testing and confirm, however.

Tried stock aerodynamics. I appreciate it. (I mean that in a real way, not just 'cause we can turn it off - though that's awesome.) However, I'm just too FAR along to go back now.

Thank you, Sarbian, for at least in some way being part of the force that brought this to stock.

Better than me. I keep getting logged back out and directed to the homepage.

Wait, what? Screw this, I'm off to watch SpaceX!

I wouldn't at all be surprised if it were something like FAR - that is, as a very rough guideline, aim for a TWR of 1.2 - 1.6, and turn over ~5 degrees at around 75-125m/s, then follow prograde until you're around 30km up.

The title of this thread. Such a great unintentional troll. "Public service announcement: the server migration's over, KSP's updating now!" You might want to change it. Or not. It's hilarious.

Just for reference, the remainder percentage of 7 billion is about 5.7

Can we at least wait until we have the actual game in hand before we start telling Squad how terrible it is?

I'm really, really, really hoping KER works with KSP 1.0. I don't need no atmo calculations.

I would bet you $10 that with minimal changes (just for aerodynamics) I could get that thing down from orbit using FAR and DRE.

Thank you for this perfect illustration of my point.

Personally, I think it's a great idea just to replace the word 'ore' with the word 'water' and go at it. After all, H2 and O2 are already rocket fuel, and that's what ore is for, right? However, I don't think it's likely that SQUAD will make the change, and I can't blame them; going this route would be a tacit admission that LiquidFuel = liquid hydrogen, and that'd open up a whole can of worms they quite reasonably don't want to deal with. (I like the idea of realistic fuels, but I can't blame SQUAD in the least for not wanting to deal with mimicking realistic ISPs, fuel ratios and densities, and storage solutions.)

I finally give up on my current save due to the docking bug, swear a lot, and hope it won't be in the new version.

The next eclipse is the 28th of September 2015.

This seems the closest thread. Has there been any news on whether or not they're fixing the can't undock bug?