Val

Yes, it got fixed in 1.0.

When I need to use more than one wing I do like that. One wing piece that is the root, and all others attached to that. As if the extra parts were control surfaces. But that usually also limits me to attaching a maximum of 3 pieces on rectangular roots, and 2 pieces on triangular root. Keeping it limited like that, I can usually avoid using struts. (Shameless plug) The Chibi Skylon in my sig is built that way. Even wing strakes, I attach that way. Though, that requires using the rotation and offset gizmos, to orient it correctly. If I'm building a really big airplane, 250 t or more. Then I'll use multiple discrete wing assemblies along the length of the fuselage. (more shameless plugs) The downside is, that this technique doesn't lend itself to building those big beautiful deltawings or blended body and wing designs.

Agreed! This is what bugs me, too. I've learnt to deal with the steering to a degree. I can return to the runway if I land off it, but I can't turn onto a taxiway. And to solve the lighting I clip a small gear, that is removed from Gear Action group, into the bay of bigger ones.How it attaches to other parts don't bug me at all. I always attach gear directly to the fuselage, for extra stability. So I always need to offset them anyway, to make them sit right.

If you mount the main landing sufficiently close to the CoM, so there's only minimal weight on the nose wheel, then it is still possible to steer, just barely, using the command pod reaction wheels, as long as you're not stationary. Maneuvering back to the runway is certainly doable. Turning on to the Taxiways, probably not.Another bonus of this weight distribution, is that the gear can take much more punishment before buckling and veering off the runway, during take-off. Can launch a 400 t aircraft on a single pair of stock Heavy Landing Gear as mains and a Medium as nose gear (edit: with no struts used).

If you're gonna buy something for KSP specifically, then get a GTX 900-series. My GTX 980 runs with -force-opengl with no performance hit compared to dx9, and no graphical issue or missing shadows. In my opinion it actually runs better than with dx9.

I can very much agree with this.

Sounds like your game was bugging in other ways than just the un-docking. Those kinds of things usually happens to me after long sessions or lots of reverts/quickloads.Sticky undocking I've always been able to solve by going to the tracking station and back. If that didn't work restart the game. It is sad that such workarounds are needed, but not it is not a game-breaker for me... yet...

I do that, too. Never gave me any issues, either.

I believe there's a lot of merit to this assessment.The CoL indicator does not factor in drag/body lift for non-wing parts. I believe what is happening to your shuttle, Frozen Heart, is that the CoL the SPH is showing you a deceiving CoL. If you move both your (D)CoM and CoL forward by the same amount, so they don't move relatively to each other only, the shuttle will become stable. Could you as an experiment, add canards and a dummy weight, to test that hypothesis?

What I like to do, is to clip a retracted small landing gears into the gear bay of the large/medium ones, and remove the Gear action group from the small. The small gear has no drag when retracted, so it's better than a light for air/spaceplanes.

Sounds like you downloaded the source code, instead of the install files.[TABLE=class: outer_border, width: 1000] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

I saw the same forces, huge cyan bar from Mk3 cargo bay, from both my own replica and the craft you provided, but both were still very stable.

Good, in the sense that we're closer to finding the problem.Did you have a chance to try the physics.cfg? That works, too

Unedited, it was completely unstable.But if I pulled the rear fuel tank off, reattached it and launched then it was very flyable once it was empty of fuel. Wet CoM was behind CoL. But that won't matter for a re-entry when it's nearly empty. - - - Updated - - - BTW, I strongly recommend you mount the OMS pointing in the same direction as the command pod. Otherwise you won't be trusting in the direction the navball indicates. Thrusting through CoM is important in vacuum, but it is just as important to be thrusting in the right direction.Move the OMS down instead of angling them. Edit: Also attach your landing gear to the fuselage. It's easier to be sure they are correctly aligned and they will buckle less. Then use the offset gizmo to make them look like they are attached to the wings.

Very, odd. I have no hypothesis to explain that.Here's a link, if you want a copy of my Physics.cfg to try out. Download is one of the buttons at the top.

I recreated your Shuttle (Craft file) as best I could and took it for a spin. It was very stable. I tried to make it spin out during descent, but it wouldn't. (The launcher I made, on the other hand, is a horrible mess. You need to constantly adjust the Thrust limiter on the booster. Use at own risk. Or use your own if you have one.) Dry CoM courtesy of RCS Build Aid. Edit: Deorbit burn was 80 m/s from AP of a 80x100 km orbit.

Is the cargo bay, by any chance the root of your vehicle? That has been known to cause havoc with lift and drag.

That maybe true for some, but I replaced my R9 290X with a GTX 980, because I read on these forums, that newer Nvidia cards (7-, 8-, and 900 series) have no noticeable performance difference with -force-opengl. It works for me in KSP and I see the same result with the other Unity 4 game I play, Dreamfall Chapters.

Is the shuttle sitting level in the SPH? CoL is calculated as if it was moving through the air towards the opening. If the shuttle is tilted up or down the CoL will be shown as if you were flying with high AoA. And that will move the CoL. If you want to post a link to the craft, I'd take a look and see if I can figure out whats happening?

Wut? A pair of Big-S can easily lift a 100 t spaceplane to orbit, and land it at very modest speeds when returning empty at around 35 t. (in the picture his craft weighs 37 t fully fueled). 100+ t take-off weight 36t when landing Does your CoM move towards the front or the rear when you have no cargo and fuel is drained?

Yes, it is. Hopefully KSP being bound by CPU will become less of a thing with the next patch, 1.1. Updated game engine, that should be able to multi thread better, in theory.

It's hard to say. Your RAM and GPU look good, but my guess would be that it's the CPU. KPS really likes the GHz, because of it's single thread-ness. For comparison my HW is 16 GB RAM, GTX 980 and a 4 GHz i7. I'm pretty happy with the way KSP runs in 2560x1080 (sometimes 3440x1440), max setting on everything, except re-entry effects. I have 34 visual and utility mods, but stock physics and parts only. I can start the game with default dx9, but it won't run for long. With -force-opengl the game runs better and for many hours. Same frame rate, no graphics issues, and less hitching in the editor and elsewhere.

Thank you. I'm expecting you'll beat it soon, though Thank you, but I'm not going to sleep, yet. Saw that Cradle game mentioned in the Unigine thread. Gonna check it out.And keep an eye on here to see if anyone beats me or challenges the legitimacy of my entry. It is almost unbelievable. And I only did it once. What if it was a fluke?

Take-off mass: 52.4 t Cargo mass: 26.5 t Payload fraction: 50.57 % Woohoo! I broke it! I broke the 50 % barrier. I knew/hoped this design was not fully tapped in my previous attempt. And it's recoverable, in theory, with a few improvements. I overheated on the way back. Didn't have enough battery. Became uncontrollable. And with the ultra-low drag, that it is. It didn't slow down... Craft file This is the hardest craft, to pilot, I've ever built. It breaks so easily, because of those wobbly docking ports. Different ascent profile than my usual. Make sure to do very gentle attitude changes, when speed is above 300 m/s. 5° pitch off runway to 300 m/s. 10° pitch to 8 km. 5° pitch to 15 km. 8° pitch until AP >60 km, then prograde. Nuke at 18 km. RAPIER Mode at 22 km.