Gaarst

I did read the last line of your OP, and? That pretty much sounds like the same thing to me. No I don't plate my spacecraft in solar panels exactly for this reason. More parts, more lag, more mass: I play on a laptop and can't afford 500 parts per ship. Sticking 2 deployable panels is enough for all my needs. Right now, with part being made of unmeltanium, adding heat tiles is useless, end of story. When reentry will start doing actual damage to crafts, I'll reconsider my opinion.

Already exists, but is bound to already-existing planet packs:

Then drop all parts heat tolerances to under 1500K, make differentiated heat tolerance within a single part (ie: bottom of Mk3 cockpit more resistant than back/top) and then adding heat tiles will be a sensible thing. Using the realism argument (it would look real, it would feel real...) is not going to help your suggestion if it doesn't change/improve gameplay (right now you can literally throw a spaceplane in a volcano and recover it unharmed). So unless heat is getting a big revamp, I'll keep saying no.

Spaceplane parts are already very resistant to heat, so I feel like these wouldn't be needed. Also, way to add 1000 parts to a simple Mk2 spaceplane.

Reproducible data for this would be 1) extremely hard to obtain, 2) utterly useless. Finding the optimal TWR for a launch requires you to evaluate path integrals of your drag and gravity losses. Besides being stupidly difficult to get, the results you could find would only be valid for this launch profile and rocket, changing your rocket or trajectory would completely change them.

Intersesting, I reduced lifting and control surfaces to reduce drag to the minimum, but you did better than me by adding parts. What other changes did you do, besides adding fins and possibly tweaking the gear (not sure, it looks like so on the screenshots) ? Did you actually do anything to improve performance or just reached 205km after a few tries? (Also the craft is basically the simplest layout I found to have 2 inline rapiers, I don't claim it as mine: you beat me, you deserve to be above me! ) I think @swjr-swis has the right answer. From what I remember, I hit max heat around 15km while my speed continued increasing until over 20km and over 1500m/s (don't remember the exact figures). Try using Rapiers instead of whiplashes and you should do better.

List is here, kinda old though so I'm not sure if it's still valid.

The shock cone didn't explode. The cockpit reached very high temperatures (probably over 95% since heat bar was full) but I never had overheating problem. Though that was climbing vertically, so quickly escaping the atmo; if you climb with a slight angle you will spend more time in atmo and have more chances to blow up.

We need more info to be able to help you.

And I have other atmospheric and manoeuvre displays that are not shown here. Moar info!

No, he suggests keeping a maximal resolution for IVAs regardless of graphic settings, so that gauges and instruments may still be readable even on a low-end computer with lower graphics; or to be able to set textures for IVA and vessel view separately.

More of a tutorial to me. Seems basic but rather complete. Though some more details or explanations could be useful for a new player willing to get to Eve.

Tell me how trying to build a launcher 4 times larger than the largest launcher ever built and cheaper than any rocket ever built, in 7 years will allow time for proper testing.

Vega (cutest rocket ever) and Energia (for what it might have been)

The last thing that had a ridiculous amount of engines on the first stage, that was rushed to reach surrealistic goals, and that was supposed to send people further than before, blew up 4 times on 4 launches. And it had a LES... I'll skip my turn for that one.

42 of these on the ITS first stage. Might as well call it N-2...

Length of a wing is from the tip to the root. Width is from the leading to trailing edges, though the word "chord" is usually used and is more specific.

Reached 204 761m, 1 Kerbal on board, no broken parts. So I guess thats 204 761 points? F3 menu doesn't show anything since I reverted this thing at least a thousand times to land it. Seriously, it's a nightmare to land: very little lift at low speeds, poor pitch authority and these *** gears that bounced my craft to oblivion each time they touched the ground. Took me over 20 attempts to land it (stopped counting at 20, but it's probably over 30). Edit: if you want to try it, here is the download. Full power through the whole flight, take off at about 150m/s, pitch up to 90° (vertical) and enjoy. To reenter/land: hahahahah... good luck.

What, did you think KSP was a game?

No one cares about SSTOs. As other have said, reusable SSTOs is the thing.

Bu KIC 8462852 is not part of the Kerbal system, I can't add it to the list, I agree with the term though it's precise and everyone can understand it! Psssh, it's because you can't see the beauty of a well-engineered explosion rocket. Perimo for short, but I'm keeping perimoeorivicikion. Also we already have perimoe/apomoe Added it. Periastron and apastron are usually used when describing orbits around stars other than the Sun. Added your mention next to perimint and apomint. Adding it!

But I don't want spots (whatever colour they are), I want to be able to see the actual planet if I zoom hard enough. Being able to see Mars' satellites but not Jupiter doesn't make any sense.

So I just got this really cool screenshot of Phobos taken from Earth orbit in RSS: The distance from my telescope to Mars was about 1AU and I could see Mars, Phobos and Deimos pretty well (resolution of about 1px/km2 at that distance). But on the other hand, I could not see Jupiter nor Mercury (the latter at about 1.3 AU from me) even though I should be able to see them very clearly. So that made me wonder what is the distance for planets rendering in KSP, and if it was changed by mods (RSS or Distant Object Enhancements*), how it would be affected. Also if there is any way to increase it. *Note that DOE adds "flares" corresponding to bodies but they are much larger than the actual planets angular sizes and are just white spots, not detailed pictures of the bodies itself

Took some pictures of Phobos and Deimos in RSS: Phobos: Deimos: These are a bit small, but here are the original screenshots: Pay attention to the "Distance" readout on the KER overlay: 150,000 Mm, or 150 million km or about 1 AU. These were taken from Medium Earth orbit. Target hold is pretty accurate isn't it? This and the awesome Hullcam VDS (Continued) (shameless advertising) mod which adds a sick telescope (and a few other cameras), I love this thing, too bad KSP doesn't render objects further than a given distance (I can see Mars' satellites but not Mercury or Jupiter).