moogoob

Really? That would be helpful!

Landed a Nastybird on the runway at KSC. I'm proud of myself. I'm getting a hang of this "gliding" thing. Man, 1.0 is going to be a bit of an adjustment. Edit: almost forgot, made the Nastybird project completely recoverable. At least, if you have the end-game tech and 100 and some odd thousand space bucks. It turns out that two of the big 3-point-something meter tanks and one big engine cluster (the biggest stock one) can take a Nastybird straight to orbit in one stage with return fuel to spare. The booster just deorbits itself then floats down on 12 chutes and uses any fuel left to soften the landing.

And for strictly personal reasons as well, I can never remember the numbers that come after the decimal point. Which leads to me getting them wrong. Which annoys everyone.

Ike. Never bothered landing there. It's more of an obstacle to reaching Duna.

At least the spaceplane parts are numbered already. If tiny, UAV parts were introed they could be Mk. 0 (which is silly but I find it funny for some reason.)

Didn't it have something to do with the fact that: The EVAs were genetically grown, artificial angels made from the DNA of the mother of the pilots? Unless i missed something. EDIT: Well, tried to spoiler tag something. Does BBCODE not have spoiler tags?!?

One issue that bugs me from time to time is that there are several different names for the standard part diameters, and which makes discussion between people confusing. As you likely know, there are four sizes. On this forum, people tend to give their names in meters with a decimal point. IE, 0.6m, 1m, 2.5m, 3m. I probably got them wrong, and that's my biggest problem. If they were an even number I'd remember it. What about the other names? On the wiki, the sizes are called "Tiny", "Small", "Large" and "Huge". This is easier to remember, but still, what's bigger, tiny or small? (Hint, small). In-game, there are no indications that I can recall, other than taking the part out in the VAB and comparing it visually. (If I missed something please let me know) So, reason for bringing this up - why don't we have a standard? What might work better? I'm all for stripping the "meters" measurements of the values other than the ones column to give us Size 0, Size 1, Size 2 and Size 3. Would be quick to type, quick to say and tie in with their actual measurements somehow.

I think it was 90% fuel tank, 15% engine cluster and the only other two parts were a size-3 remote core and a nose cone. Reached escape velocity. Then I started learning of stuff like manouver nodes and navball markings and stopped trying to fly my missions like I was in Orbiter and my orbit inclinations and eccentricities improved significantly. This is sort of it, but after I started trying out boosters and radial attachment points.

Played with space shuttles. The Nastybird is coming along quite nicely! I have to say that the tailplane was a great addition.

Giant Mecha makes no sense to begin with, therefore we should probably just sit back and enjoy the ridiculousness of it. I suggest Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann, by the same studio that made Neon Genesis Evangelion. It's like a retelling of NGE on Prozac AND a whirlwind tour of the entirety of giant Robot anime in one season. In the last episode, one mech throws galaxies like throwing stars. If that doesn't get you to lighten up and learn to enjoy giant fighting robots, nothing will.

I would, but this lappy dates to 2009 so the video card kind of sucks, and it sucks worse when running on OS-X for some reason. Comparing frame rates in something like Team Fortress 2 I get a massive performance improvement when running in Windows versus OS X. EDIT: I used to use it in the past for lots of stuff - I've gotten my fair use out of it. Didn't install it for KSP, but nowadays it's mostly why I have it.

The Nastybird. (A rocket-to-space then glide-home shuttle. It's (much, much, much smaller) predecessor was called the "Angrybird".)

It's not too obtrusive.

My laptop on which I do most internet things is a mac dual booting OSX 10.9.2 (which I use 95% of the time) and Win 7(for KSP on the go). My gaming PC runs Win7 exclusively.

I'm considering writing a blog post on this very subject. Not KSP directly, but what makes a "Video game." My argument: Both. A "video game" is an electronic method of good old screwing around. You know, hammering stuff together, exploring forests, kicking a ball, playing sword-fighting with your siblings. In electronic form. SOME have narratives, some don't. Sim City is a video game. So is MS Flight Simulator or Orbiter. Just like a "game" could be kicking a ball against the side of a building. Both are fun and both exercise the same human instincts. Would this approach fall under Anthropology or Psychology?

The SpaceM Nastybird GL... performance space shuttle. Flies like a rocket, lands like a gliding brick. The other craft you see docked to the space station is its predecessor, a Nastybird Mk2, before wings. It was essentially a lifting-body & docking tech test platform. It was deemed that a controllable landing was of top priority, so the GL program was born.

Bugs in space - bugs on mars... Sandkings? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0667945/ EDIT: interestingly, based on a novel written by George RR Martin.

Built my first (successful) space shuttle, the SpaceM Nastybird GL Mk1. 2-stage, takes off like a rocket, lands like a gliding brick. Transports 4 plus pilot and copilot. Pics later! Made orbit (without any weird aerodynamic fidgeting, which plagues my spaceplane designs for some reason), docked with a space station and returned back to Kerbin, landing safely on its own landing gear. In one piece. I'm planning sequels and refinements.

I did some experimenting with that inline clampotron and didn't notice anything unusual (AKA those marks on the ball doohickeythingy were just as alien to me as usual), but that's probably because I just eyeball all my docking anyways. That's a solution until they fix it - just ignore the markings and trust your eyes. EDIT: "Luke, you switched off your targeting computer! What's wrong?" "Nothing. I'm all right." Hehe couldn't resist.

I disable fuel, engines and probe core power in dormant probes. Sometimes I'll use micro docking ports, otherwise i'll use decouplers. Don't have any good screenshots though as it's been a while since I did a multi-probe mission.

I agree with both of you who're talking about winglets - they are inefficient most of the time, but sometimes can be useful. I use them in two situations: 1. when I've got a completely solid first stage (my "Fool" class launchers) 2. when my centre of drag is too far forward which really only happens when doing something silly like trying to launch spaceplanes on the front of a rocket stack. Four to six steerable winglets on the bottom really help move the COD backwards and prevent my whole craft from going flippy-floppy at 6KM up.

What haven't I done? I haven't: -Ascended from Eve -Done a Tylo return, either (landed there though!) -Captured an asteroid (grumble) -Built a reliable SSTO spaceplane. Seriously, those things are hard.

My Interstellotron transfer stage has been with me since I first picked up the game in 0.23. Still a very simple, useful design. The lander probe on the front counts too - it's been everywhere but Ike, Vall and Dres. And the Interstellotron landed on Gilly! And a shot of take-off, just for fun:

Nope. Also, I have no mod parts other than what came with MJ so... However, I was briefly considering installing KW Rocketry and deleting everything but the fairings.

For some reason I thought this was going to be a Goat Simulator thread....