selfish_meme

I just recently overclocked my i5 2500k from 3.3Ghz to 4.5Ghz, no other changes, went from about 15FPS on 200+ parts craft to 25-30 FPS

I might be flogging a dead horse, the Thud version is just too powerful at the moment and uses up fuel too quick. Looks much better though. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/3z2dQOK.png[/IMG]

Better picture [IMG]http://rdata.x10.mx/iss/images/vehicles/soyuz-u-stages.gif[/IMG] [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='Mad Rocket Scientist']Sorry, I'm always getting those confused. Yeah, I mean a third stage.[/QUOTE] I will throw one in, because it will help with orbit, it is still very cool. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] I'm going to have to do one of this little strut frameworks huh?

The second stage is the core stage, the Soyuz had a third stage, which this has, combined SM. [IMG]https://rocketsciencenews.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/soyuz1_2_3_transition_1.jpg[/IMG] But I could easily throw another stage in, would make getting to orbit easier.

Wow the Thud version has a TWR of 5.5! it streaks off the pad, pretty sure it can just make it to orbit, but it looks so much cooler doing it. Watch for Korolevs cross! It is so cool I want to release it. [URL="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8-nkDP75eETRm5JSWhtSkpFMnc"]Craft[/URL] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/nX7tIoH.png[/IMG]

[quote name='Tankbuster32']You could also use the new mk.55 models like so: [URL]http://i.imgur.com/nw6PuDZ.png[/URL][/QUOTE] That looks nice, I will try that. OK just finished up a rapier powered 1/3rd scale version to 75km orbit, 375ms left so you could raise that, it should dock and land, even has an LES. Abort 1 to use the LES (got to stage fairing for the LES to work). Action Group 2 to switch mode on the second stage Rapier once it gets below 180kn, and Action group 3 for Solar Panels. [URL="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8-nkDP75eETYmhYSlg3cnhlaE0"]Craft[/URL] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/LgOdHyL.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/njTnQxn.png[/IMG] Sorry about the ugly parachute, maybe 2 drogues would do the trick. Nope gotta stick with the ugly parachute, even 3 drogues are not enough

You didn't really describe what it does? I imagine it has chutes?

Been helping Sharkman Briton with his little Soyuz [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/KgWT2ch.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/XHMIlyN.png[/IMG] [COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] Trouble is it gave me many ideas for a complete redesign, I hope he doesn't mind how much I changed.

I wish we could reverse the hardpoints so they stayed attached to the wings when staged.

You should always stay on same version until you finish whatever it is you want to achieve, your looking for the best of both worlds and are sure to be disappointed. There are an average number of bugs in any software code you can't test for all of them, sometimes some bugs are not found for years. Also with this type of simulator/game there are sure to be physics changes as new systems are introduced and flaws are fixed. If you don't want that there is always quake. Also this was the biggest bug fix release ever. By the way best pun in a thread today "[COLOR=#333333]pain indias"[/COLOR]

[quote name='NathanKell']That is correct, they are, in effect, [I]nearly as efficient as the optimum bell for a given pressure, at any pressure[/I]. Which is precisely what KSP does, and apparently is enough to offend the "no! that means equal efficiency everywhere!!!" crowd. :][/QUOTE] I must admit my understanding was deficient, I expected a worse vacuum ISP when it is not, also a worse sea level ISP when it wasn't, I guess I expected a curvier curve ;) also greater weight, but it seems they really are all KSP makes them out to be (at least theoretically), the extra weight of the nozzle is compensated for by having greater inherent structural strength, meaning less trusses. There is a great site here that goes into experimental and theoretical aspects of aerospikes [url]http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/aerospike/compensation.shtml[/url]

The ftl-400 could be a structural fuselage for all the fuel it holds and the fuselage would save weight. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='sgt_flyer']Hint : you could use the rapier in rocket mode if you want 4 nozzles in a 1.25m package :) (or even two of them clipped together) Here's an old 0.23 version i made with those :) [url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/34125-Rocket-Builders-OKB-1-Russian-Rocket-Design-Firm-and-Repository?p=1040611&viewfull=1#post1040611[/url][/QUOTE] Listen to this guy, but maybe only the core it might be a bit overpowered otherwise [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] Might have left a mechjeb module on the craft [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] Replace the jet and four sparks with a rapier, should be much better

OK, this could be optimised some more but I am out of time, 75km orbit, have not tried re-entering yet [URL="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8-nkDP75eETUEhYSVZyZWpiNzg"]Craft File[/URL] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/KgWT2ch.png[/IMG] [IMGUR]ahXqY[/IMGUR]

In soviet Russia you don't orbit rocket, it orbits you! Seriously if I dropped the first stage boosters I think a sub 100km orbit could be achieved, it's a little cheaty, just in time for the anniversary? [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/sb8HFmi.png[/IMG]

[quote name='pTrevTrevs']WIP Torpedo for a larger project... [url]http://i.imgur.com/HbzkjFW.png[/url] Works well, except that it didn't damage its target, and since there are only two elevators (to avoid Z-fighting) it doesn't have any roll authority. It can go underwater if needed, or cruise on the surface, and can do at least 16 m/s in the water. I would like it to go faster so maybe it can actually hurt ships, but I would either need more intakes or a bigger engine for that.[/QUOTE] Or you porpoise it out of the water just before it hits with separatons for boost

[quote name='NathanKell']Guess what guys: the aersopike ingame _does_ match theoretical aerospike performance. It removes [I]nozzle losses[/I]. It does not magic away [I]physical laws[/I], like when the atmosphere pushes back at you, you generate less thrust. Period. End. The aerospike is modeled, ingame, to have very nearly the chamber pressure of the Mammoth (and now the Vector). That means it has nearly as good sea level Isp as them. But it [I]also[/I] has nearly as good vacuum Isp as the Poodle. And it loses very little Isp, in comparative terms, at Eve's surface (5 atmospheres of pressure), something that can be said for no other engine.[/QUOTE] Isn't the whole schtick of the aerospike that atmospheric pressure is what makes it eficient so IRL they have to be going fast. (mach*) before their efficiency kicks in. From the way I understand it they are more efficient over a 'range' of atmospheres but can't compete with a tuned bell at individual atmospheres.

Does it work in 1.05?

Yeah I built it mainly to test landing and taking off from water, just happened to look nice too. Plus it's an island hopper, not a fighter jet, it's top speed is only 150ms. I found it's important to have very good balance, CoL and CoM need to be close so you can pitch out of the water, more wing than needed to get liftoff and stall speed down below 50ms, and having drooping wingtips like mine look cool but destabilise the craft, better off with straight wings. My SSSTO powers out of the water on thrust alone, when I tried replacing the rapiers with a single Goliath it couldn't get out of the water, though that engine was sufficient to take off and land fairly easily on the runway.

I've got this idea about opening and closing bays under the water, I noticed when I tried to put a ramp down in the water it affected my seaplanes floatation, but because it was very floaty I didn't pay much attention to it.

I think the major problem with it was good vacuum ISP, that's the most unrealistic thing and had it competing with poodles and other dedicated vacuum engines. 3x Terrier give the same vacuum thrust as the aerospike but weigh 1.5 compared to 1.0 and have 345 ISP compared to 340 in vacuum!

Every Kerbal playboy needs his own seaplane to fly dates to nearby deserted islands. And no one is more playboyish than our Kerbalnaughts. Introducing the S-EX 1 the last word in deserted island hopping. [B][SIZE=5][URL="http://kerbalx.com/SelfishMeme/S-EX-1"]Download[/URL][/SIZE][/B] now*** [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/smbjbb1.png[/IMG] [IMGUR]WGvRh[/IMGUR] [SIZE=1]***success with the opposite gender not garaunteed[/SIZE]

[quote name='Majorjim']What issues are you having Rune? I know the fairings very well, perhaps I can help. I am making a large fairing ET for my WIP shuttle. No issues so far.[/QUOTE] I don't know if this is Runes issue but there is currently a CoM issue with fairings, StockBugFix takes care of part of it but there is another part that won't get fixed till 1.1

Instead of posting the SSSTO (which while it works is not very practical or fun) let me show you my new experimental seaplane, the S-EX 1, I'll post the [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/139694-Seaplane-Experimental-S-EX-1"]forum link[/URL] in a minute. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/smbjbb1.png[/IMG]

If it goes to space as well is that also OK? Changed the image because I finally got my comp and install working at it's best, thought I would share the glory. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Q1kQW47.png[/IMG]

[quote name='peachoftree']Completely happy with my new Logitech Extreme 3d Pro in linux. As a side note, the Advanced fly-by wire mod makes joysticks configurable in game without having to go back and forth with the settings in game, as well as a really clear way to map everything out. It also lets you configure the throttle as an axis so it's got that going for it, which is nice.[/QUOTE] Can you use the Hat? I can't seem to get KSP to detect the hat buttons