moogoob

Seems good for ballpark calculations on simple missions - it throws a lot of answers at you in a single click so time-wise seems pretty easy. But yeah - I can get to orbit with ~3500 m/s, it's budgeting me over 3900. :/ I'll try the "perfectionist" setting where it doesn't give you any extra fuel and just add that manually. Also - a trip from Kerbin to Eve adds over 100m/s in plane change - why not just match and intercept from whatever angle and just save yourself the fuel? Anyways, I've turned that one off - though I can see that feature being useful for (say) Pol-Bop transfers and so on. EDIT again: Though it's certainly worth considering plane changes in trips to Eeloo or Dres too - I've had missions out there fail because I planned an intercept when the planes were far out of alignment.

Repetitive things like LKO to Mun transfers can be fun with SRBs to do the transfer with. Not efficient, but fun. Galileo went to Jupiter with the Inertial Upper Stage, a solid orbital booster.

Limiting top thrust without one installed?

Most I've done is a Duna orbiter and lander probe in one launch (a la Cassini/Huygens), but certainly it's possible. A lot more planning, of course, but perfectly doable.

I think youtuber Jacksepticeye made one of these whirlygig things in a video he did once... either him or Nerdcubed. Though in that case I think the majority of lift WAS engine-based.. the one I made inspired by that video did use wings to some appreciable amount.

On that note, also don't forget lights, on your station if not on all docking craft. Docking in the dark is possible but not fun.

I launch just about everything using Mechjeb. Yeah I can do it myself, and probably better than MJ could. But the repeatability can't be beat when engineering something to get to space.

Grass landings in il-2 are quite spectacular. I think the main reason is that the physics treats grass and soil as a soft rather than hard surface - halting vertical speed though kicking up a copious amount of dirt rather than bouncing the airplane. Also, when I try it my wings tend to snap off - just like in KSP, but without the bouncing and tumbling.

While true, I think threads saying "I WAS pirating your game, but it was so good I just had to get over myself and give you guys my money!" are a very good thing.

I didn't use it when it DID have reaction wheels. *shrugs*

That'll keep me from using MechJeb's autoland, but the gravity is so low that hovering requires scant delta-v anyways. All it takes is a little finesse - I try to avoid them as is as I tend to do a little roleplaying in KSP.

I saw this once, in an anime called Gurren Lagann. Only with giant mecha. In space. As in a character, in a giant robot, which is in another giant robot, which is in ANOTHER MOON-SIZED giant robot. It worked for them.

As others have said, I use them for their aerodynamic properties in the Nastybird, where they serve their purpose well as internal orbital maneuvering (IE post-launch) fuel tank. I think if they held more fuel they might weigh too much.

The largest I've spaced in one launch is 160 tons. I'm sure I could launch bigger, but strangely I think smaller rockets are more fun to fly. Usually if I do a mass fuel launch it's a single size-3 biggest black-and-white tank with various docking ports, a probe core and solar cells. I've never needed more in one launch than that, though - mostly they're there to reload transports on their way to and from Kerbin's moons. When they're empty I just dock a rocket to them and deorbit.

Pol. It's hard to get to (thanks for the slingshot, Tylo!) but has very low gravity, a fun appearance, dramatic terrain and awesome, unique towering surface scatter. By far my favourite moon. Minmus and Mun(the) would be my second and third choices.

It might be that. I've done some shuttle designs with both Mk 2 and Mk 3 parts, and the Mk2 parts always glide better, and have less drag. It may have something to do with the Mk2 parts' body giving lift, or with the Mk3 parts being just plain big and stubby rather than sleek. With my (so far only experimental) Mk3 designs, I chalk "runway landings" as a best-case scenario, with parachute ditchings being the primary method of recovery.

I agree with this thread - many sounds are missing. What would be nice, too, is settings on how to handle sound propagation in a vacuum or non-sea-level atmosphere: Simple would have all sounds play as normal. Balanced would reduce volume of events outside the active craft based on how much atmosphere there is. On Duna, a nearby explosion would be dulled. On Eve, it would sound closer. Sounds from your current craft would sound as normal, with the assumption that this is what the crew is hearing. Realistic would be like in Orbiter Sound - from external views, all vehicle sound would reduce in volume as the craft ascends until finally silence in the upper atmosphere/orbit. You would still hear RCS jets/engine sounds/mechanical noises when in an IVA view. Sorry if this was already mentioned!

I've never been either a) brave enough or b) confident enough in Mechjeb's guidance to even try clicking on that option. Heck, I don't trust it fully to land on the mun (it once landed Bob 12km away from his target due to a sloppy plane change burn) and I use Mechjeb all the time.

The new 1.1 orbit graphics seem to have a fading colour to them like in Universe Sandbox 2, so it should be easier to tell the direction of orbit.

As Snark said, it could be your craft. KSP does a LOT of physics calculations, and the more parts on your craft the more calculations your CPU has to do to keep up. As Unity can't use more than one core, this very often ends up being what's reducing your frame rates. For example, I recently upgraded my video card and saw zero performance improvement in KSP, which would have disappointed me if I'd bought it for that purpose. The 1.1 patch which should be coming soon should provide some boost in this regard as it's supposed to have CPU multi-threading of some sort.

Rocket. I've been playing around with VTHL shuttles quite a bit and find them enjoyable, but for sheer payload rockets are way easier.

I've noticed that my avatar photo from the old forums is looking a little low-res, so I'd like to re-output my vector file at an appropriate resolution. What is the maximum OR most appealing resolution for these images? And just to verify - are PNGs ok? I can't stand JPEG artifacts in my output vector art. EDIT: Worked something out on my own through trial and error, but still curious to see if anyone knows the defaults. Support for SVG files as avatars would really save a lot of trouble resizing.

Planes as fins, nice!

Went temporarily mad and forgot how to post Imgur albums.:P Here goes again, posted without commentary because I think Bob's rescue is funnier that way: Also, posted a new download to the craft exchange: The Nastybird 4 Family of Shuttles

A Zoom Boom? Nice! Heck, I once spent a bunch of time making off-road vehicles to chart a course to the east coast. Those mountain ranges won.