Venusgate

Like... pixel count?

[quote name='nightingale'] [COLOR=#333333][IMG]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png[/IMG] Originally Posted by [B]Venusgate[/B] [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php?p=2313532#post2313532"][IMG]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG][/URL][/COLOR] [COLOR=#333333][I]Thought about scaling the different programs: boost reward% by increasing requirement of contracts? Like "Land a 3+ crew module on mun within 20 days" = 1k%+ milestones?[/I][/COLOR] I'm confused by this. Are you talking about the Celestial Body Program strategies?[/QUOTE] Yes. For people who want to be more ambitious than getting a single kerbal to mun within 100 days (I'm fairly sure you could do it by the 2nd day if you grinded) Although I may be confused on how you are implementing them. Your Program strategies look like a hybrid between a completable contract, and indefinite strategies.

I want to believe....

Upper atmosphere doesn't affect lift as much as your CoM is behind the "middle" of your craft.

[quote name='Warzouz']Not if it need ten time more pollutant per travel. See "Rebound effect". [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_%28conservation%29[/URL] Anyway, it's green washing[/QUOTE] It doesn't need pollutant to travel, it needs electricity to travel. Your comparison is connected only by the current state of politics and earthbound technology that links pollutants to electricity.

I was just about to ask about the -500 rep thing, even though failing 100 days to get to mun seems a little ridiculous :P A -500 rep while being otherwise broke would pretty much be a game ender. I like the stagnated research though! Good counterpoint! Thought about scaling the different programs: boost reward% by increasing requirement of contracts? Like "Land a 3+ crew module on mun within 20 days" = 1k%+ milestones?

[quote name='Choctofliatrio']Speaking of haul contracts, am I the only one getting ridiculous contracts that would never be worth the time? Like hauling a Flea SRB up to 50,000 meters and going at 2,200 m/s[/QUOTE] Thats basically what you do de-orbitting every time. I think it would be a matter of worth the extra cost of putting a flea under your re-entry vehicle

[quote name='Warzouz']I like the green washing of that article : "this plane will be clean : H2 + LOx = water + energy" Please remind me from here H2 come from ? Ah, methane... And even if it came from electrolysing water, 85% of energy comes from fossil energy, mostly coal and gas. So basically this plane would run mostly on coal. :D[/QUOTE] This logical fallacy especially falls apart when talking about high altitude flight. Aircraft dump ridiculous amounts of non-capturable pollutants into the upper atmosphere. Developing the technology for an end product that will not take pollutants to where they do the most harm is more than a step in the right direction. The rest down here is just politics.

If you use the SCANSat Mod, it lets you put relatively large X's on planets in the map view. Nothing like that exists in stock though.

I was under the impression that they were also planning to implement full 64-bit support as well, so windows users wont be truck with 4gb ram cap.

Interesting. Commodities! XD

Heating was rebalanced, and integrated into the twopart skin/core heating. LONG burns with NERVAs will generate enough heat to need radiators. The more NERVAs you use, the more radiator you'll need.

Looks like clipping to me. You are also very stingy on your lifting surfaces. What do you think this is, a space shuttle?

Why yes, I have :) [imgur]Qk4l0[/imgur]

At the risk of rattling the KerbalSPACEProgram cage, seeing all these neat submarine craft, would it be unreasonable to have <5km draw on things like 2d kelp and schools and far off "shadows" of bigger fish/mammals?

[url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/38768-1-0-3-Editor-Extensions-v2-12-23-June[/url]

"It was THIIIIIIS big!" J/K :P Congrats! Exciting, isn't it! Just wait till you pull it off in darkness with your small battery in the double digits and dropping, and mono in singles :P

[quote name='TheCanadianVendingMachine']Uh, you can test heights on landing gear and that by setting them to down in the editor And then checking if it hits the ground[/QUOTE] You can't know if the weight of the craft is too much for the amount/class of struts you use. Additionally, a room with a "ground" would be nice for testing parachute speeds for given re-entry vehicles

I like this idea. I think it would not be seamless, because editor does not have physics applied to the .craft file yet, but certainly if you had a featureless, wall gridded wind tunnel instead of loading all of the universe, testing would be a bit less time consuming. The real question is, how high would you make it? Would you let it simulate low gravity conditions? Would there be a hot tub? And also, would you allow low/null altitude part testing contracts to be completed this way?

Over the past few days I've been playing with a new-to-me style of extra-kerbinestrial exploration. There are three phases, one, an atmospheric vessel (I wasnt far enough in the science tree to make a spaceplane that could bring up 14 tons of fuel, but that's the eventual goal) A nuclear powered transfer stage that hauls a 9t lander to one of the two moons, And a 3100m/s dV lander that leaves the transfer stage in orbit. Each one of the stages are optimized for their role, rather than having to make every stage flexible, and ofcourse, having to haul two NERVs up into 120x120 It makes my station useful too! :D [imgur]Qk4l0[/imgur]

Two things I can think of that have nothing to do with engine power: One, your "landed" state has the front wheel(s) lower than the rear wheel(s) (you never know, some people make tail draggers!) which means in your take-off state, the wings' Angle of Attack are below 0, fighting their uplift with some downward lift. Two, Not enough wings/control surfaces. Try building a plane with one juno, but like 80% wing and four control surfaces, not including a standard tailfin/elevators, just to play around with what TOO MUCH control/lift feel like :P

Basically, you're going to have to spend more time horizontal in the atmosphere. 1.0.5 atmo was spread out more instead of all scrunched up toward the bottom (Which is probably a good thin considering they made re-entry heating practically deadly) from 75x75, anything (and I mean commandpod+.625 chute) with an entry Pe below, say 15km, is going to be going too fast to deploy the chutes in time.

[quote name='Temstar'] It's a pretty big change, since we know that reaching orbit means you're halfway to anywhere slicing 1000m/s^2 off that requirement means everything else about the game is now a lot easier.[/QUOTE] "Easier" being a bit of an arbitrary term. Ascent profiles are more flight skill weighted than just design skill weighted (over what it used to be: the diff between 45@10k and a perfect ascent profile was like 300m/s, now it's more like make or break, if not 500m/s+) Also, since the most recent atmo update, you have to be cautious on your descent as well, even with el basic command pod and mk-16; the lower 10k isn't going to feather you like before.

Not gonna lie, I clicked on this having mentally prepared myself for another one of those Scott Manley grafts.... Looks great though! Maybe some more inbetweens?

I'm afraid if you want to dependably hold a certain altitude over the course of a long flight, you're going to need a mod plugin.