Jovus

Did I mention I didn't pack landing legs? They wouldn't fit if I wanted to get the whole probe assembly inside a 2.5m fairing.

No people or rockets either. Just 90 minutes of lovingly panned shots of space, with maybe some Earth or Moon to liven it up once in a while.

Landed unmanned probes on both Duna and Ike (leaving behind the transfer stage, with implementation, on a polar Duna orbit to act as a comm relay and a resource scanner). For the first time ever. Aside, aerobraking on Duna is tricksy, especially in FAR. You have to go low enough you might smash into a mountain!

Wanderfound, I beat your time with the Benchmark. I clock in at 23:24, despite waving off twice. The plan was to take the plane up, circularize, and then burn retrograde until I could actually reverse direction and drop back into the atmosphere like a rock. That didn't quite work out. As noted, I also messed this up in several ways. I imagine if you had a perfect flight with the Benchmark you could probably get a time around 15 minutes. Not that I'm going to try; this plane-flying newbie is proud to have landed at all. Oh, and I'm using FAR and DREC, so toasty warm matters.

Is that an aurora australis on Kerbin?

Wanderfound, you have a gift for making planes. Is there any chance you could do a small FAR-centric tutorial for those of us who have gotten past the basics (CoL/CoM, gross wing configurations, etc.) but who still haven't quite 'gotten it'? I'm thinking of things like the FAR stability derivatives and broad information on how different configurations affect them, CoM stabilizing tricks, and the like. It would be very greatly appreciated.

I had a really good time with the Benchmark on the way up (circa 3 minutes) but then KSP crashed. I'll get on it again some time soon.

Maiden flight of the Anthropopheron I, a light crew transport spaceplane, to finally man my orbital station: This is my first fully successful spaceplane. I've one other that can technically get to space, but it doesn't have enough dv for anything useful once it gets there.

Is there such a thing yet built? I've read many basic aircraft design threads, many of which were very good as starting points. However, I've not seen anything specifically addressing the questions of "here is this partial derivative on the FAR static stability analysis, and if it's red, here's what you're looking to fix and some ways to fix it." Right now I'm doing things by sloppy imitation and trial and error, but since I don't even know what I'm looking for, it is becoming frustrating.

And with your spirit. With a handle like that, are you at least High Church? (No, you don't have to answer in public. However, if you'd like some light theological discussion, feel free to PM me.)

I'd be really happy with a model that looks as like stock as you can get it. For that matter, I'd be happy with a model that has whatever aesthetic improvements you like. Would you mind if I included said model in my post with the LV-N switchable config? I'd give you full credit for it, of course.

OK, thanks for checking it out! If you're willing to share, I'd be happy to use the new model you made for the LV-N for my own personal use. That is, assuming I've understood you properly and you did move the thrustTransform via Blender.

Instead of switching to NEAR, you can turn off aerodynamic dissassemblies in FAR by going to Gamedata\FerramAerospaceResearch\Plugins\PluginData\FerramAerospaceResearch/config.xml and changing allowStructuralFailures from 'True' to 'False'

I don't know, but changing that setting doesn't change the effect displacement for the LFB (I've tried, just as a test) and there's an open bug report about fxOffset not working

Using fxOffset with ModuleEnginesFX doesn't work. As an alternative, does anyone know the transforms for PREFAB_PARTICLE? I would prefer to use that anyway, since it would allow me to use the various prefabricated effects released by Squad (and I could use localOffset).

I'm probably asking something that already has been asked. I've tried for about an hour to RTFM, but I couldn't find anything. (I'm probably blind.) I'm modifying the LV-N to use ModuleEngineFX instead of ModuleEngines, because I want to must MultiModeEngines. It all works wonderfully, except for one bit: when I assign an mu file under MODULE_MULTI_PARTICLE for the engine exhaust, it overlaps the engine bell and ignores fxOffset entirely. Does anyone know a workaround? I know people are still releasing engines, but how do you solve this problem? I've tried using PREFAB_PARTICLE instead (which would actually be preferable, since the LV-N's stock effect is a prefab) but for some reason I can't get the exhaust to actually transform properly - I've tried both thrustPoint and thrustTransform. (Plus, I seem not to understand localOffset properly, but I digress.) To look at the config file itself, you can click // LV-N (stock) @PART[nuclearEngine] { !MODULE[ModuleEngines] { } MODULE { name = MultiModeEngine primaryEngineID = LFO secondaryEngineID = H2 } EFFECTS { empty{ } burn_hydrogen { AUDIO { channel = Ship clip = sound_rocket_hard volume = 0.0 0.0 volume = 1.0 1.0 pitch = 0.0 0.2 pitch = 1.0 1.0 loop = true } PREFAB_PARTICLE { prefabName = fx_smokeTrail_light transformName = smokePoint emission = 0.0 0.0 emission = 0.05 0.0 emission = 0.075 0.25 emission = 1.0 1.25 speed = 0.0 0.25 speed = 1.0 1.0 localOffset = 0, 0, 1 } MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE { modelName = Squad/FX/shockExhaust_blue transformName = thrustTransform emission = 0.0 0.0 emission = 0.05 0.0 emission = 0.75 0.25 emission = 1.0 1.25 speed = 0.0 1.98 speed = 1.0 1.22 } } burn_lfo { AUDIO { channel = Ship clip = sound_rocket_hard volume = 0.0 0.0 volume = 1.0 1.0 pitch = 0.0 0.2 pitch = 1.0 1.0 loop = true } PREFAB_PARTICLE { prefabName = fx_smokeTrail_light transformName = smokePoint emission = 0.0 0.0 emission = 0.05 0.0 emission = 0.075 0.25 emission = 1.0 1.25 speed = 0.0 0.25 speed = 1.0 1.0 localOffset = 0, 0, 1 } MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE { modelName = Squad/FX/ks1_Exhaust transformName = thrustTransform emission = 0.0 0.0 emission = 0.05 0.0 emission = 0.75 0.25 emission = 1.0 1.25 speed = 0.0 0.5 speed = 1.0 1.2 } } engage { AUDIO { channel = Ship clip = sound_vent_medium volume = 1.0 pitch = 2.0 loop = false } } disengage { AUDIO { channel = Ship clip = sound_vent_soft volume = 1.0 pitch = 2.0 loop = false } } flameout { AUDIO { channel = Ship clip = sound_explosion_low volume = 1.0 pitch = 2.0 loop = false } } } MODULE { name = ModuleEnginesFX engineID = LFO runningEffectName = empty directThrottleEffectName = burn_lfo thrustVectorTransformName = thrustTransform exhaustDamage = True ignitionThreshold = 0.01 minThrust = 0 maxThrust = 60 heatProduction = 600 fxOffset = 0, 0, 0.25 PROPELLANT { name = LiquidFuel ratio = 0.9 DrawGauge = True } PROPELLANT { name = Oxidizer ratio = 1.1 } atmosphereCurve { key = 0 800 key = 1 220 } } MODULE { name = ModuleEnginesFX engineID = H2 runningEffectName = empty directThrottleEffectName = burn_hydrogen thrustVectorTransformName = thrustTransform exhaustDamage = True ignitionThreshold = 0.01 minThrust = 0 maxThrust = 50 heatProduction = 660 fxOffset = 0, 0, 0.25 PROPELLANT { name = LiquidHydrogen ratio = 1.0 DrawGauge = True } atmosphereCurve { key = 0 880 key = 1 120 } } }// MM Configs for changing the stock LV-N to switch between LiquidHydrogen and LFO

Extra points if you actually build a space station, then force him to EVA over to it as the first visitor to make sure everything works.

I dunno. I think the most egregious part of Gravity was, "We're coming up on the ISS, so I'm going to use the last of my EVA pack to go faster and smash us into it." It's not like they couldn't have found an excuse to make that work - like mentioning that they're slightly inclined so they'll miss it if he doesn't do a correction - but no.

That's kinda the point, though, innit? Dealing with them and still pulling off crazy stunts?

One thing I haven't seen specifically mentioned is the middle path, as I like to think of it. You send one ship - thus saving on the travel drive redundancies - but that ship is composed primarily of small probes (manned or otherwise) with just enough dv to get around the system when you get there. (This involves decouplers or docking ports.) It's different from the idea of a mothership in that the pieces aren't necessarily intended to come back together afterward. I personally favor this approach because it allows me to send a flotilla while not having to worry about making five different transfer burns and having the drive assembly for each.

Wow. That's quite the impressive G-load, either way. The seismic accelerometer part and the gravioli detector don't discount Kerbin's gravity, but (or at least I should like to think) the navball and the F3 report do.

For those of you who think FAR doesn't let you launch crazy rockets, I give you this:<iframe class="imgur-album" src="//imgur.com/a/ZsbI8/embed" frameborder="0" height="550" width="100%"></iframe>

I'm actually myself having serious problems with this; even with all the struts my plane wants to lose all its bits. Don't think I've given up! I just don't have anything interesting to post yet.

True, but it sounds better than "The Ames 20-G centrifuge that I can't find the nickname for Challenge."

Have you considered the possibility of going directlly from your equatorial landing spot to the pole, and then back, and only then launching to orbit? I don't know if your lander will have that capability, but it might overall take less delta v than the plane change (while, admittedly, requiring you to frontload all the fuel into the lander.) Beyond that, you might also investigate the idea of not just using Ike for an assist, but actually entering a highly elliptical orbit around Ike to change your inclination there. (It might take less dv due to the patched conic gravity model.)