selfish_meme

Girders or Radial Intakes as landing legs, hell even the mk3 passenger module has 50m/s

There was no Mobile Processing Lab before, so there is 100% more science now. The suspension is as good as I can get it, I only activate the front wheel steering so the turn is not as sharp and likely to tip the rover. It's top speed is above 20m/s, which is not what you should be doing across rough terrain. Edit: As an example you can go up and down the runway sides without slowing, but the steep second slope at the end of the runway you will need to slow down. - - - Updated - - - Well he made his own inflatable roof on 'one' of the rovers. This is meant as part of a 'pre-accident' pack. I just finished Pathfinder which will also be in the pack. - - - Updated - - - The ones from the Movie are more like the modern ones, but the original concept vehicles were different. There are a few different versions from different artists. - - - Updated - - - I was going off the pressurised rovers on this page. Obviously I made changes for practicality and for the use of stock parts and keeping the part count down.

As Sharpy said, mk3 cargo delivery to planet, see Runes base in a box. I am using it for the same thing Ares Mars Direct base delivery (no no I did not steal his designs at all ). 2 are enough twr for a nice delivery dunaside.

Let's try that again, now with real stock parts, 100% less on load explosions, almost 50% fewer parts, 100% more science!, 100% more solar power! and Authentic RTG for heating.

Hmmm, sorry about that, it seems Ven's Stock Revamp does make a difference, it's not just the same parts with better textures. It seems the stock Rover is a bomb waiting to go off on load. Hang in there I will be back with a new version soon, using really stock parts this time.

Way too many engines, if the Stock Payload Fraction challenge taught us anything it's that too many engines is bad. Nich is right that drag is king, my testing shows also that the pre-coolers are not worth it. You can get a 36.8t orange tank cargo to orbit quite easily with 4 Rapiers and a Whiplash, see my craft here . Use shock cone intakes (with small nose cones behind the rapiers), use less engines even if it takes longer to ascend, with Rapiers you need to hit 400m/s as fast as possible off the runway, then slowly ascend until you reach 10km where you should now exceed 1000m/s (reach it too soon and you risk overheating) and you should be pushing past 1200m/s by 20km. Never pitch above 20 degrees and usually keep it around 10 degrees until you leave atmosphere. - - - Updated - - - He's using only 1 intake and 2 pre-coolers for 2 engines, so the pre-coolers add enough air to feed a second engine off the one intake. I would still use 2 intakes and ditch the pre-coolers entirely, not sure without testing which would be more efficient.

I got my Whatney on You can get the craft from my thread in my sig. I have Ven's Stock revamp which is why it looks a bit different. All stock though with majorjim's suspension and upside down jets to provide a very comfortable ride.

Edit: Let's try that again, now with real stock parts, 100% less on load explosions, almost 50% fewer parts, 100% more science!, 100% more solar power! and Authentic RTG for heating. Drive across Duna! All your fellow Kerbals left you for dead on Duna? Drive across Duna in a Rover towing another Rover, reach the Duna Ascent Vehicle and get home safe. 9t on the pad 24.5m/s top speed Designed with active Suspension, and modified centre of gravity. It is not untippable but it is very well behaved for such a substantial beast. You have to actually try to tip it. Normal driving is easy. Warranty void if launched. Craft File

Don't text and fly

Check out the Tylo SSLTO challenge for lander ideas

Your problem will be the big heavy engine at the back. When balanced the craft will have fuel and oxidiser before and after the cargo bay. However the rocket draws fuel differently than the jets and pulls all the fuel from the front first. This moves the cg and you flip. One good way to help is to use swivels on the wings rather than a big heavy motor on the back. Also get RCSBuild aid mod so you can see where your dry cg is. Your center of lift need to be behind your wet and dry cg"s and ideally the wet and dry cg"s should be as close together as possible.

Not looking at the many threads before yours.

They are all now working on the unity update after finishing Kerbal Edu. Roverdude is a modder who does work for them especially on parts.

I said a better GPU won't make it run faster, all changing it to dx11 does is sort out a duplicate loading bug and save you memory. It won't let you load more parts because you use a different 3D Library, it will just give you more memory overhead. Unity has better Windows DX11 Optimisation but again thats not directly related to part counts. The thing that makes it chug is the single threaded physics calculations for lots of parts, not the GPU rendering said parts.

it's not but trying to find old bugs in a new engine before you have even got the game working in the new engine is fruitless.

Someones going to have to do a video, I can't even verify most of the entries because mechjeb can't even land them. My mechjeb also seems to get confused between retrograde and prograde when circularising. Aside, I could get almost there with nukes, but without the magic sauce of their landing process it just wouldn't work for me.

Your graphics card has nothing to do with part count and the game is graphically non taxing, its not like other games that are GPU bound, KSP is CPU bound, the only thing that will make it run faster is a faster CPU

the full science is the MPL, the Science Junior for a rover, too difficult? The scoring sounds about right, I will add it a bit later. - - - Updated - - - Nukes don't work, not even with just liquid, they just can't generate enough thrust

Also your not supposed to use noveau. Get a console prompt (ctrl-alt-f1 I think, check that) and install the proprietary nvidia drivers the GTX 970 is very new and support for it not great yet.

It would be great if someone made a video of an assisted and non-assisted suicide burn landing, there are no really good explanatory ones online, Scott did one ages ago but it's a bit out of date. Edit: I would but I'm not as good as the guys on the leaderboard.

The only irl practical use for them so far has been experiments with spaceplanes, where the high mass was not so much of a hindrance. I assume this was because they perform better over a range of atmospheric pressures. I read that they don't perform well without the pressure of at least mach 3 plus speeds. In game this would make sense if they were heavier and attained good maximum thrust at high speed/pressure which tailed off to their one atmosphere or slower performance level. So they would be good for SSTO's as the rocket stage (low drag), good for Eve takeoffs because of the pressure (also low drag), but not very good for landers where they would be heavy and going slow/be in a vacuum.

From what I read that sounds right, they should not have decreased the weight but increased the thrust especially at above mach 3 in atmosphere, then it would make a better SSTO engine while not competing with the Terrier for pure vacuum purposes. I agree the Terrier could do with a little Buff too. - - - Updated - - - Maybe they could add the Armadillo Aerospace engine being developed for Project Morpheus to the end of the tech tree, though it uses different fuel.

They should be called Vacuumspikes, one outperforms 2 Terriers by some 60 Thrust for the same weight and nearly the same ISP. They are seriously good Lander engines now, nearly all the craft in my Tylo challenge use them. I thought they were supposed to be good across a range of atmospheres not none.

Thats pretty amazing, it's gonna take some science (hint, hint) to beat that score.