Carsogen

While I really like how they split up tanks and engines, I still think that the way it is already is the best, though that might just be because I already have it memorized. Cas.

Hi all, I am planning a Moho mission (bit daunting ) and was wondering why the overheat effect of Moho's atmosphere was removed? Was it to make Moho easier/more fun, or something more along the lines of the Magic Boulder (never forget) where changing the game prevented it from staying? Thanks in advance Cas.

Yeah being based on mass is weird (fixed soon! ) but even so normal equation is: (drag coefficient of part) x velocity^2 x airdensity x mass. But for the intakes they've added a mechanic where drag coefficient of intakes increases to 2 with velocity, so their drag increases more than other parts leading to weird drag imbalances and flat spins. It just seems to me that the devs wouldn't add this if there wasn't something in real life to imitate. To me it seems like there would be a change at mach1 rather than a gradual shift. Thanks for the reply! Cas.

Hi everyone, Does anyone know why the drag multiplier of air intakes increases with velocity? (From about 0.2 to 2.0 I think, 0.3 when closed) They are the only part to do this so I was wondering if there is some effect that happens in real life that KSP is mimicking? Cheers, Cas.

So thats's what's in the snacks compartment! Cas.

*Launch clamp clang* *Ship drops* Cue explosions I know that feeling... Cas.

Hi all So the SpaceX Falcon9/Dragon launch to resupply the ISS and land the first stage on a barge (I assume many of you are already familiar) was just aborted at T-1:21 due to second stage actuator drift (technical talk). It got me thinking, what have you noticed on the launchpad (or after launch ) as a glaring issue in your rocket that has made you abort and/or crash? My best (worst) was probably putting attitude control devices (control surfaces/gimbal rockets) in front of the centre of mass and flipping over almost instantly . RIP surprised Kerbals. Cas.

Hi all, sorry about the vague-ity of the original post. The kind of tri-propellant rocket I was talking about was one that burns liquid fuel, oxidiser and oxygen from the atmosphere all at once (yes they are all propellants), or that uses intake air as working mass to increase thrust and efficiency as mentioned by Red Iron Crown (but doesn't burn it). The idea would be that the first can use only oxygen atmospheres (Kerbin/Laythe) and the second any atmosphere. I reckon that the ability to increase your efficiency in a non-burnable atmosphere would be a hugely cool thing in KSP . I'm getting off topic though because the main question was whether such an engine would be redundant in burnable atmo because we already have jets and RAPIER that we can stick on launchers etc. Cas.

Yeah exactly or something that just has a set ratio and doesn't change gradually or some version of this. Cas.

Sorry I guess I'm not quite using the right terminology what I mean is the kind of engine explained in the link in my prior comment, a rocket that uses both fuel and oxidiser but also gains oxygen to combust from the air, as opposed to the air augmented rocket which only accelerates the air but doesn't burn it. (Sorry on my phone so can't neaten up links) I guess they essentially do a similar job in KSP? Cas. - - - Updated - - - Yeah basically but like the Liquid Air Cycle Engine (link in my first comment) it would use all 3 at once as opposed to the RAPIER which switches between the two. Cas.

I think you misunderstood, I mean an engine that uses the three fuel sources AT THE SAME TIME, ie. Liquid fuel, Oxidiser and Intake Air like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_air_cycle_engine? Sorry should have specified Cas.

Note: This isn't a mod request or suggestion, merely a discussion on whether triple fuel rockets would be useful or redundant . Edit: Altered a bit to be more specific Would rockets that use liquid fuel, oxidiser and intake air AT THE SAME TIME be useful in KSP? For example, a Liquid Air Cycle Engine or Air Augmented Engine. In real life rocket lifters don't use jet engines and adding intake air would make them waayy more efficient, but in KSP I would just throw a jet engine or RAPIER on my launcher, removing the need for a triple fuel rocket. What do you think? Do the air breathing engines and RAPIER already do the job of a rocket engine that uses intake air in atmosphere to be more efficient? Cas.

Just to clarify my issues were also with the tier 2 pad and T45's Cas.

Yeah sorry I'll try and recreate it, check back soon Cas.

Hi all, since 0.90.0 came out I've been noticing that quite a few rockets end up glued to the launchpad (literally) even when I know that my TWR is much greater than 1. Tipping the rocket to the side a bit seems to unstick them but it's unreliable at best. Has anyone else noticed this glitch and have a solution? Note: Using launch clamps so that the ship doesn't touch the pad prevents the issue. Cas.

Yeah this always helps because while you timewarp it freezes them, and when you go back to boring old normal time all your rotation is stopped. Cas.

I've always thought of sandbox mode as what career will get to in the end. When you've unlocked all parts and have no need for science, exhausted all contracts and trained some ridiculous number of Kerbals so high that their children are level 5 pilots, it's basically a shortcut to all the stuff unlocked at the end of the game. For most games this would get boring very soon, but the beauty of KSP is that you can play FOREVER in sandbox and it's still an amazing and fun game. This is where I think the problem is with the current system: It makes sandbox NOT the end of the game, it changes it fundamentally. I think the fact that all Kerbals are automatically level 5 allows for sandbox to continue unhindered while if the SAS restrictions remain in place it would keep sandbox true to being the end game of career. Of course they still have a place, it would be crazy to not have stuff balanced and a challenge in place. If that weren't the case then why not just double the nuke's thrust and increase its vacuum Isp ABOVE its vacuum? I'm honestly surprised that people who prefer sandbox over career aren't really mad about this situation, it's a whole new feature that they've just been denied from using! If a new resource system (maybe if we say it enough it'll happen:P) was brought in and kept out of sandbox there would be rioting in the street! Cas.

I prefer to think of it as the pilot performing the stabilization rather than the ship. If I was put at the controls of a jumbo jet it would be MUCH less stable than if you gave it to my pilot friend I will say that the flaw in this is that there is still a button that says 'SAS' on the dashboard. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense but I guess there has to be some way of displaying SAS in cockpit view. Cas.

If you've ever noticed big fluctuations of AP and PE markers on long interplanetary flights when using RCS or reaction wheels, it's exactly the same thing, the forces applied affects the trajectory of your craft. In theory it shouldn't happen for reaction wheels and if your RCS is perfectly balanced but KSP isn't perfect. It's probably mostly due to computational inaccuracies because of finite precision of trajectory calculation. The reason that SAS causes it is because it keeps bumping around the marker it's trying to hit and so is constantly applying torque and causing shake. If you have a heavier craft or less reaction wheels it will decrease the issue. Also the effect is amplified if your AP and PE are at very similar altitudes, as small changes can switch them around. Hope this helped Cas.

Yeah I'll have to look in to whether in does that. Cas.

I don't remember ever sending up a probe and then realising it had no torque, but maybe by chance I never used any of the ones without. I also think it's better with more differentating probe cores than just size, but the potential to kill old save ships is still there. And couldn't cooling fans be used as reaction wheels?

I personally haven't tried it yet, but it seems to me that the new SAS tracking modes (prograde, normal etc.) could make it sooooo much easier to dock on orbit. Previously I found the easiest way was to line up both crafts North-South (in equatorial orbits these don't move like prograde/retrograde) and dock from there, but with auto direction tracking it could be possible to easily maintain orientation while maneuvering craft . I just wanted to talk about this because my first dock (I still remember it, spaceplane) was one of my greatest moments in early KSP . Anyone else agree? Cas.

I have to say I don't think I've ever heard two amazing things work together better than space and legos, which is possibly the reason why KSP is so loved by me and many others (and I assume you ). I see your point, there is something to be said for just throwing a command module on a rocket and it working as intended and as it always has, regardless of who or what is flying it. Simplicity is key, I agree. That is why I reckon at the very least Kerbals should have all pilot and engineer skills, but probe cores should have the limitations still applied. It's easy to interchange probe parts, and this would allow for challenges like "get to the moon with no SAS" would be possible now, by selecting a probe with no SAS and not taking a pilot.\ It seems to me that the best way to appease everyone is to have a setting in sandbox that turns the SAS restrictions for probes and Kerbals on and off, that way the people who just want to get on with it without worrying about piloting can do just that, and those that want the consistency and challenge to be universal across game modes are happy too . Cas.

I wasn't aware that they had removed SAS from probes but now looking at the part list on the wiki I see that yes, they have indeed done so. This also baffles me, if they are willing to implement this change/restriction on probe cores in sandbox, why not the rest of this new whiz-bang functionality that they have inexplicably left out? I personally like the idea of differentiating between the probe cores in ways other than size (torque capability included) and this is part of my belief that the whole SAS restriction system should be in sandbox, but I see your point as to it breaking ongoing missions (as mentioned above ). It seems as if the rest of the system has been left out to avoid this issue and yet the torque change still applies, which leads me to believe that back-compatibility may not be Squad's motivation on the issue. I can't for the life of me however think of any other motivation. I have actually just thought of another possible solution: have the restrictions still apply to probe cores, but allow Kerbals to do all other functions regardless of skill. This would allow all previous functionality (repack/repair/SAS) and still keep the depth and variation of the new system. This seems to me like it would work as the probes are honestly quite interchangeable, and this solution would provide maximum play-ability while still retaining the core of the new system. Cas.

Your job would be made much easier if it was a setting in the game (wink-wink poll *cough* ) If people really wanted they could change a setting (if it's put in) or mod the probes to perform all functions. And let's remember that the only time the new system detrimentally affects sandbox with relation to pre-beta is when using the Stayputnik or no pilot at all. All other probes and even new pilots have access to the traditional SAS functions. Thanks or your reply! Cas,