Jovus

Have you tried RSS? There are two main factors to the difficulty. The first is the inclinations; you don't know how convenient it is that KSC is in the plane of the ecliptic until it isn't. The second: liquid engines are in a vast majority of cases not in fact throttleable.

I assume you don't watch Scott Manley.

There's the Atmospheric Trajectories mod. I don't use it myself. I usually find with winged craft that taking a decent guess and then circling around the target if I overshoot works fine for me, but I haven't flown at Duna or Eve yet.

There's one big drawback to installing FAR that nobody's touched on here and I think is only fair to warn you about. If you get too into FAR, it might turn you into a closet aerodynamics nut. I went from "planes are those people-things in the sky, right?" and "Air is that thing that makes it hard to go to space!" to *grumble grumble* "I wish FAR supported wingtip vortices, and intra-craft part interactions (like closely-coupled canards deflecting airflow onto the wing) and inter-craft part interactions like robbing something of lift by flying too close, etc. etc." Previously, my definition of a good weekend was going on a hike with my wife. Now, my definition of a good weekend includes going to the Air and Space museum with my wife. You have been warned.

Discovered that Mono for Linux is bad at catching keystrokes in subwindows, so editing maneuver nodes in PreciseNode involves triggering action groups.

Now try it in RSS. Moon is hard.

Oh no. I fear you have hit closer to the truth than we realized. Minimus is not microline; it is the other cyan mineral, which explains why (when you use EVE) the deepest portions glow eerily. The dessert fixation started with a confusion over the use of the word 'wafer'. Do NOT drill on Minimus. The snacks are a lie.

Given that this is sort of replacing the Delta 4, I have to agree with you. Delta V is too good to pass up.

The universe must be finite, given current theories of universe creation. To wit: take the measure of one dimension of the universe as the furthest distance from point to point between two objects. At one time, all objects in the universe were constrained in a finite sphere. (Big Bang theory; doesn't matter how large the sphere is.) All objects have a finite velocity. (Increasing, sure, but at any given moment finite.) Therefore, for all times, the universe is finite in extension, since any infinity is always larger than any finity. (You can't 'move through' finitude to infinitude, e.g. you cannot count to infinity.) Under this definition, the universe is of a finite but indefinite size. Now, there are two possible other ways I can see to talk about the 'universe' that bring up the possibility of finity or infinity. The first is to talk about the possible extension of space - not 'outer space' as colloquially thought of, i.e. some kind of very extensive 'place', but of the mathematical concept of space. Space as such must necessarily be infinite. The second is to ask what 'kind of space' best describes the actions of the observed universe, i.e. what mathematical rules govern motion and what we can therefore say about the manifold along which motion takes place. This manifold might be either infinite or finite; I don't know. Personally I think the universe is highly unlikely to be a Hilbert space; I'd guess it's hyperbolic. (I don't know if this has been conclusively decided or not, sadly.) Funnily enough, any hyperbolic space can be represented by a finite transform.

Wait, wait, wait. Of all the things, all the horrible things done in that movie, that's the bit people are choosing to complain about?

I'm experiencing some severe torque when using the prop engines. Is this intentional? If so, is there some way to edit the config files to turn it off? (There's no way to make counter-rotating propellers that doesn't look bad.) Thanks.

Sorry, it seems I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about changing the throttle in flight. I'm talking about setting the thrust limiter in the VAB. When I do that, KER doesn't seem to change the TWR readouts. Or did you mean to tell me that setting the thrust limiters doesn't work on most liquid engines?

New RO user here, I just got RO set up today and it works like a dream. (I did a manual install, since CKAN is throwing terrible errors and hanging on Arch Linux.) There's just one thing I've noticed that's probably my fault, but I figured I'd ask: KER seems to be unable to detect when I set a thrust limiter in the VAB. Specifically, the TWR readout and range remains exactly the same regardless of whether I set the engine to have 100%, 40%, or any other percentage thrust. Has anyone else seen this issue? Is there something simple that I most likely overlooked and now look like an idiot on the forums? (I did a fairly extensive search for KER in this thread, but no luck.) Is this even the right place to post, or should I move it over to the KER thread? Thanks muchly for any help.

Thanks. Does RO also modify the stock engines and so forth? Or are the part packs actually necessary? (I recognize that using only stock, if supported, would result in a sub-par experience, but I'm trying to figure out how much to download.)

So I just got a new computer. One that can run KSP. One that can abuse KSP. And I finally want to take the plunge and try out RSS, because, let's face it, this is the apex of the KSP experience. I've read the instructional posts on the first pages of the RSS, RF, RP-0 and RO threads. I feel fairly comfortable with the process of installing all the necessary stuff to play in RSS, with one exception. How do I know what parts to use, and which will work? I see there are a number of recommended part packs. However, most of these seem to be aimed primarily at the stock experience; do they come with RSS configs or something? How do I know which ones I want to install? Will the stock parts work (i.e. have RSS configs written up for them already), or should I get rid of all of them and use only the parts from the part packs? I don't want my VAB to be overrun with an embarrassment of riches, but at the same time I also don't want to be missing vital bits to make the experience work. I've tried poking around in all the aformentioned threads further than just the first page, but they're big. Very big, and my search-fu is weak. I would be greatly appreciative of any help, and I apologize if I'm asking one of those newbie questions you get all the time from people who don't know better.

Generally I'm cutting thrust low enough in atmo that by the time I'm out of the regime where FAR models significant skin drag, I'm coasting to space anyway.

It worked. What did I do today? (Besides work, and budget, and cleaning....bleh.) I finally got to play KSP. I launched a rocket!

Booted up the game for the first time in months. On my finally-working new computer. Right now. I hope this works.

Yes. That's the easiest example.

Ippo wins.

I'm guessing you're seeing the classic rear-delta pitch instability at high speeds, among other things. Try setting those front canards to a deflection around 40 or 50, then set their AoA to -100% and then their pitch response to 50%. What this'll do is turn them from lifting canards to control canards - they'll remain parallel to the AoA most of the time, giving you much greater high AoA stability. As for not making it off the runway, I'd guess that has to do with wheel placement. (It's the usual suspect.) Either that, or you simply don't have enough pitch authority; in the latter case, replace those delta deluxe winglets on your horizontal stabilizer with some real wings. Or, for extra cool points, remove them entirely, and then make your rear pitch control into 'structural wings' that fill out the gap sections between the fuselage and your outrider fuel tanks.

Which doesn't make it an impossible shape in real life. If we replace the word 'gravity' with 'force', and then construct a system where an object is, say, on the end of a spring, this is a perfectly possible 'orbit'. Newton wasn't being silly when he developed the Principia. (Unless you ask him; he says he was.)

Sure. But that's because your brick wall is stalling pretty hard. If you instead put your wall at an angle of, say, 10 degrees, and then put your wings in the 'shadow' of the wall - by which I mean, if you shine a light straight along the horizontal, then put those wings in the shadowed portion - then they'll have some real aerodynamic effect. Though I can't tell you just from that description what it would be, because it depends on a lot of factors. Also, can we please stop using the term 'winglets' to mean 'small, possibly movable wings'? A winglet is a near-perpendicular wingtip extension designed to increase tip lift and decrease tip drag.

Tell that to chihuahuas and St. Bernards. Or canine venereal sarcoma. (Yes, I'm cheating; dogs are pretty heterozygous when it comes to domestic animals.) Also, this seems apropos:

Damn. How do they keep down the parasitic drag? Or do they just not worry about that because downforce around curves is more strongly coupled to race-times?