Vector-5

I suggest you change the view to a bottom up perspective (looking at the bottom of the aircraft). Try to attach it that way. -Vec

Perhaps instead of power you could have an inverse relationship between speed and torque. It could work somewhat like what Crusher described about throttle dictating the 'gear' you are in. Also, another way to do this would be to have 3 settings: high torque, high speed, and mixed mode. High torque would be similar to gear 1-1 on a 21 gear bike. Mixed mode would be like 2-4, and high speed would be like 3-7. They could be toggleable through action groups & the right click menu. -Vec

But what if it rolled over or ran out of electricity? Would there be an if-then option for contingency planning? Other than that, this sounds like a pretty good idea. It could also teach a little bit about coding. Perhaps when you next got on, it could notify you of which plan your autonomous craft was on. Perhaps if a rover flipped over and broke its solar panels, it could then try to right itself and go into hibernation mode (brakes on, SAS torque off, etc). It could then notify you when you got to the space center view. You could then decide what to do next. -Vec

I find something very lacking in spaceplane design: flaps and airbrakes. The latter was mentioned on page 2, I think, but nobody has mentioned flaps so far. I believe there are 2 ways to go about this. The first option would be to create specialized parts which only work as flaps. The other option would be to add a toggleable feature to the existing control surfaces. Right now, it looks like control surfaces have about 20 degrees of movement in one direction. If this were implemented, we could have much more than that (60 degrees max is my suggestion). There would be a toggleable function in the right click menu, where there could be the option to go to no flaps (20 dg), half flaps (40 dg), and full flaps (60 dg). This could increase lift at slow speeds of around 100 m/s. Of course, 100 m/s is fast, but relatively slow to other speeds. This would make it somewhat easier to land spaceplanes which are a heavy and need a little boost to their lift at landing. -Vec

Darn. That would be pretty cool, though. Sorry for the misinformation.

Either way, I wouldn't suggest using the 'chutes for slowing down your aircraft. If they're not directly on the CoM, it will: a). Flip the nose up/down & stay on, causing way more drag than you need, or . Break off, while possibly rapidly disassembling your expensive spaceplane Now, if you need to bleed off speed, I suggest S-turning while you're still in the air. Just turn to one side and stay that way for a while. It extends your distance to the runway, allowing you to slow down more by air resistance. Also, doesn't FAR allow you to use your ailerons like flaps on a commercial airliner? I haven't been able to try FAR (potato computer), so I may be wrong. I think the flaps work to decrease your speed while increasing lift. Again, I'm probably wrong about the flaps It also sounds like you were touching the ground when you popped the chutes. Since KSP has wonky rules about parachutes, they can't touch the ground without disappearing. It's like this with rockets too. Look at your next atmospheric landing with parachutes. Right when the chutes touch the ground, they disappear. Same goes for spaceplanes. Hope this helps -Vec EDIT Ninja 'd by about 5 other posters. Perhaps I should read the whole second page before I post!

Golfing on the Mün Warmin up the cloning machines Checkig the snack traps (strikethrough) recruitment offices

I scored a 2.6, although that should be higher. Because of my Duna expedition craft's wonky clamp-o-trans, I couldn't dock the two halves together. *sigh* -Vec

I think this could be a good idea if the option was toggleable in the VAB or SPH. Sometimes defaulting to filling the seat with a kerb could be a bad idea. Say you launched a rover Apollo-style to the Mün. The rover will never come back to Kerbin, but will be left on the surface. If that seat is automatically filled, then your second kerbal (who traveled by rover to the Mün) will be left behind. Thus begins a tedious rescue mission to brig him back. So, I propose that the option to be filled should be available via right-click on the command chair. This could make the problem of including pods for rovers negligible, but could have negative repercussions not unlike the one I describe above. -Vec

My best guess is just that your lander is too heavy. Will you be decoupling any of the side tanks during descent? If not, just add some fuel to the main stack. Also, I couldn't see how fast you were going after your parachutes deployed (watching on iPhone), so that might be a problem. Also, if it is going to break the launch pad on Kerbin, you might be in trouble on Duna... -Vec

I usually follow the same convention, although 'normal' is replaced with 'FL'. That's just for speech, though. If i'm typing, I just refer to them by their names or diameters (FL-400, 1.25 m, etc.)

I agree on this. It would add a whole new level to the game, at least in career mode. I suggest that the quality control be made either through the R&D Department or the Admin Building. Perhaps a new kerb could be added in one of those buildings. However, I disagree with your example of random decouplers firing. As far as I know, decouplers use explosives to slice your rockets in half, so they would have to be handled carefully. Perhaps a better idea would be to have fuel tanks randomly start to leak. This could, of course, be prevented (to a certain extent) by quality control. -Vec

Building off of #s 2 & 3, I think it would be a good. idea if mapping would give science points over time. I believe that the amount of science should not be major, but enough to encourage mapping satellites once the player can travel between planets.

I'd assume it would be able to 'hide' your stock crafts, if only in a small folder or two. You could also move the .craft files from 'Ships'* to wherever else. There is always the option of deleting it, though. I'm no expert, but I assume that if you load up the screen the first time it wouldn't take too long, but every folder you open would then load in its contents. Once enough folders were open, your game might slow down a little. Again, I'm no expert, and I'm most likely wrong... If this appears after Slam Jones' post, well, we can just call it planned, eh? *The one outside your save file.

Hello all, Lately I have been developing standardized rockets for my missions where spaceplanes would be inappropriate to use. While developing them, I thought, "My craft list could get pretty cluttered once I get all of the rockets developed and certified." So, I propose SQUAD implements a system that can place crafts into folders at command. I also suggest that crafts can be moved in and out of folders at will. I believe this will get rid of some clutter, and allow for some more organization among shipbuilder's saves. Community, what are your thoughts? -Vec

I usually name my SSTOs after fish, where the bigger SSTOs are named after bigger fish. Normally they start out as 'Skunkworks '________' SSTO Prototype'. Then, once certified, I rename it 'Panther Corp. '_________' SSTO'. For example, the Panther Corp. 'Carp' SSTO is a Mk2 SSTO, with some cargo room. Since I have no idea how large a carp is compared to other fish, a renaming may be required.., Any Duna missions are named after Greek epics, like the 'Odyssey' Duna Expedition. Sattelites usually have generic names, such as KethSat, for a Kethane scanning one, ComSat for communications, etc. Since I usually don't dabble in the realm of other missions too much right now, that's all I have... -Vec

Welcome to the Forums! I can tell you myself that you'll have loads of fun here. Also, very nice ship! Looks better than just about anything that I can put together... -Vec

Or, slap a bicoupler onto the ends of the outermost cabins, and attach 2 docking ports to said bicoupler. If both ports are docked, then you know that the segments are aligned. -Vec

Got it. Thanks! -Vec

I probably should have done my research before!! My question is in the FAQ for new players. *facepalm* -Vec

Hello, all, I'm a bit new to the forums, and have a couple questions about the way it works. But first, some info about myself. I'm a "veteran" KSP-er who's been happily crashing since .21, as you can see by my bio. I consider myself an OK SSTO designer, although I'd enjoy learning some tips from the pros about how NOT to make an underpowered SSTO... Anyways, I have one question. Do you need to post a certain amount of posts to have a sig? I'm just asking for confirmation, because I heard a while back that you need 5 posts to have a sig. Thanks, Vec