Slam_Jones

So I'm curious, Slash, about how many folks you've convinced in this thread, and how many you've irritated? I mean, you seem to love math, so I'm curious what you come up with. Maybe you can finangle your slide rule in there somehow. That'll show us peons!

Well, I go for 390 ISP drives: KR-2L if I want tons of TWR LV-909 for lighter-weight ships Poodle as a middle-ground I've been planning a ship that will carry all three (KR-2L x1, Poodle x2, LV-909 x 8) and use action groups to switch between them as needed I've also considered the Toroidal Aerospike for atmospheric landers and transfers due to the high atmo ISP

Good ol' US of A

Not sure I'd like this if it was implemented. The saves can already get so bloated (I had a few saves that were nearly 1gB in size...) and I can imagine managing multiple agencies will only multiply that.

That's all well and good, but when did *I* tell folks to avoid it? I guess what I'm saying is, couldn't you have, you know, talked to the people this must be directed at, or, I dunno, put it in the threads where such suggestions are made? It just seems your point is getting pretty muddled here. It's almost like (not saying that you are, just that it seems it) you're just trying to say "Hey, I can do math! What's wrong with you?"

I'll put it this way: I hate math. I suck at it. Just terrible. If KSP required me to do math, well, it would stop being "that awesome space game" and turn into "that lame math game," and I wouldn't play it. Plain and simple. I enjoy video games. I do not enjoy math. Why mix the two?

Not sure why, but this image screams "MELTED COPPER" to me. Obviously(?) it's not, but I can't help think it. Something about that texture and the reflectiveness... I sure ain't a scientist tho \_(o.O)_/

Are you referring to the ring at the bottom of this station? (Not my pic, found it on Google, please don't yell at me ._. ) If so, I believe it has an "Emergency Escape Hatch" thingy on the outer ring that you can use to transfer them. NEVER use it to EVA them tho, as it seems to launch them, spinning very quickly away from the station If so, I'll try to get a better screeny tonight of it If not, please disregard this post

Thanks for the replies! My questions are basically answered, so I'll be changing the tag to "Answered." Feel free to keep discussing if you guys want, I love reading about stuff like this Sorry to hear that! Hope you feel better soon

Well, when you put it that way, it does seem rather reasonable

Regarding OP: Not to nit-pick (okay, well, maybe a bit) but how is using MechJeb a lesson? Seems more like a crutch to me :S Wouldn't you learn more by not using it?

Hello KSP'ers! So I was messing around on KSP the other day with this little guy (stock aero): It's powered by two Ion Engines, and I made as much of it as possible with "massless" parts So basically, I had KER open one time while flying it, and I realized that it was able to take off with a TWR of just 0.26(ish) I'm not very knowlegable about aerodynamics or physics or anything, but I would assume a TWR of 1.0 is required to lift off. This seems to be the case with rockets, but not with planes (due to lift generating extra energy?) My question is, consequently, two-fold: 1.) What is the lowest TWR anyone has taken off with? 2.) Is this still possible with "realistic" aero models? (NEAR, FAR, etc.)

Full throttle, Enable SAS, launch engines and clamps at the same time (if using them). 5 degrees west @ 1,000 m 45 degrees @ ~10,000 Level off (or about 5 - 10 degrees above level) when apoap @ ~80,000 I usually throttle down if my TWR starts exceeding 2.0 and I'm below 24,000

Did it used to have a different texture? Because I had 0 problem figuring out which side is which...

LOL launching soccer balls (or footballs I guess the rest of the world calls them) at the Mun... yeah I'm pretty sure I'm gonna try that mod 5thHorseman: that would be quite awesome as well, but might be a bit more complicated to put in the system. ah well. one day, maybe...

Wow, very impressive. I installed 6.4x for a few hours just to see the difference, and holy crap it's a helluva difference. How much dV did that thing have at launch?

At least the ejection seat works

All aboooooaaaaaarrrddd! Chugga-chugga-chugga-chugga For reals tho, looking forward to the patch

Favorite plane of all time has to be the F-16 Falcon The cockpit shape, the big air intake, everything strikes me just right

A small deployable "tracking beacon" that can survive high-speed impacts. It is automatically set as your vessel's target. Imagine: orbiting around the Mun, and you spot an anomaly you want to check out. You deploy a tracking beacon to that location. It is launched from you vessel, impacts on the Mun, and activates its beacon, which will remain active for X hours. During that time, you can track it on your navball as you maneuver, making for precision landings. Inspiration comes from the Hayabusa 2 (sp?)

Not sure if you've down-tuned your settings, but if you reduce Pixel Light Count (all the way down to 0 if you want) it tends to improve FPS, especially when terrain is in view. Shadows and shading become a little... weird... but for me, at least, it helps performance a ton, especially when terrain is in view.

Absolutely! I can upload the .craft file later tonight if you wanna work off of it

Well, at least the ejector seat works.

Example electric plane: Powered by two Ion engines, can take off at about 23 m/s. Other folks have made much better ones, even ones that can make LKO off just Ion power. Mine can't

I find that a lot of the more mellow DeadMau5 songs work quite wonderfully with KSP. Try putting on "Strobe" and cruising through space