Gaarst

| | |113d, 5h ago. Disco|vered | | Just an UI bug, you might as well report it.

The stock KSP parts need redesign. And Ven's Revamp has some good ideas (design and parts, especially engines with different diameter mounts). But Ven's Revamp is quite particular in terms of style and I understand that some users wouldn't like it. So no to it in stock.

Discovered 113d, 5h ago. Though I must admit I'd prefer seeing a 18m wide disco ball rather than a boring rock.

See how even discussing the idea creates a separation between younger and older forum users? @kiwi1960 A restricted subforum (I know it's not what you suggested) is a bad idea, a dedicated subforum is not necessarily a bad idea but I doubt it will be very active in the long run; a good compromise that does not involve any forum change or generation wars would be to simply open a topic in which older users can share their experiences to other users (old or young, anyone interested really). I think you are a bit exaggerating the issue: there are not a lot of trolls in the KSP forums, and not reacting to the few of them that could show up in that topic will probably set them off and keep it going as you intended. Also, I do not respect an older person that I don't know more than anyone else, nor do I expect to be more respected than anyone else by younger people.

Bug report is done, thank you for your help! Edit: link to the bug report here

Step 1: Download Hangar Extender (official release is not updated, you'll have to search for the branched 3.4.8 in the last pages of the thread). Step 2: Build bigger rockets

Didn't see it from that perspective, makes sense.

Even though texturing stuff seems to be involved, this is not about add-on development, just an issue with the stock game, maybe it would be better in Technical Support or Gameplay Questions.

(I don't know anything about texturing stuff) That makes sense, but I am wondering why it should be different for these two parts (Mk2 and Mk2 Inline Cockpit) that were both designed/redesigned by C7 or Porkjet (not really sure for these two).

Seems like a bug with the shaders/models used for some parts. I have opened a bug report on the tracker here. So I've just made a quick flag for the Asteroid Day thingy, and made it with transparent background. As it is a png, it handles transparency and some of the text and image (grey part) is semi-transparent. Now, when using the flag in the game it works fine, except when using it on the Mk2 Cockpit and on the Boar booster (maybe other parts but I did not notice it). When editing the flag after seeing this, I could replicate the look of it by tweaking opacity of the png layer. (Flag is the same, and it doesn't seem to depend on colour or curvature of the flag as it works well on a lot of other parts) So I was wondering how KSP handles flags on parts, what is required for displaying/not displaying a part of the flag (transparency thresholds), and how opacity is handled. Any hint or help on this issue is welcome ! (Not sure where to put this, mods please move if it's not at the right place, thanks!)

TWR is given by dividing thrust by weight (duh). Thrust is constant (as you assumed) and is equal to: F = 9.81 * Isp * MFR. Isp is your specific impulse in seconds, MFR is the mass flow rate. Weight is given by: W = 9.81 * M(t). M(t) is the total mass of the rocket, equal to M = m0 - MFR*t, with m0 the wet mass of your rocket. So, TWR = Isp* MFR / (m0 - MFR*t)

FAR destroys stuff when you're trying to be stronger than air. Would be fun to have this in stock (I hate how you can just flip at max-Q and still get to orbit as if nothing happened).

Forum suggestions go to Kerbal Network. I don't think this is a good idea. First how would you restrict entrance to "younger" users since you can put pretty much what you want for your DoB. Also, the whole thing about discrimination, generations clash, stereotypes, splitting the community... Kind of being dramatic here, but I hope you understood what I meant.

Lithobrake Exploration Technologies has a set of large parachutes. I guess there are other mods doing that too but I can't think of any that I use off the top of my head.

Yes, a simple asparagus with 2 boosters is an efficient design. What I was thinking of was the usual 6 boosters configuration of asparagus, or multi-layer design, which are extremely heavy and not very efficient. I should have made that clearer. Asparagus is a core, with 2 side boosters that fuel feed the core, 2 side boosters that fuel feed the 2 other boosters, 2 side booster that fuel feed the second pair of boosters and so on. That way, fuel from only the "outer" booster will be drained and you will drop them first, followed by the next pair and so on. Though asparagus can be as light as one core and 2 boosters with crossfeed (like FH was supposed to be). I find strange that your heavy lifter got smaller with asparagus than otherwise. Of course it depends on how it is designed in the first place, but I remember going the other way round (getting lighter) when switching all my asparagus rockets to more conventional types back in 1.0.

Earth is not flat and the Christian church is still here. They'll find a way to deal with it.

Asparagus uses a lot of rocket engines and fuel tanks as boosters that, while allowing greater payloads with a given diameter, are very heavy and expensive. That is not that much of a problem, but since 1.0 and the aerodynamics overhaul, people realised that asparagus had become very draggy reducing its efficiency further down. Asparagus is not useless, but it is no longer the magical way to do things in KSP as it was before 1.0 and career mode. If you're really looking for the most efficient way to launch a given payload, you have to test which designs are better. Design a SSTO rocket, an asparagus, and a conventional rocket (with boosters or no, solid or liquid) for a given payload mass, and compare their masses, costs, tech... If you're looking for: Cost efficiency: reusable SSTO spaceplane or rocket, or all SRB if you're looking for design simplicity (hard to fly) Mass efficiency: linear staging or liquid fueled strap-on boosters More payload without using larger parts: asparagus

So you're saying that, because SSTO rockets are difficult to recover and engineer and can be inefficient, you have switched to the most inefficient way of staging a rocket (cost- and mass-wise): asparagus ?

It's a feature I'd also enjoy seeing in stock, so would a lot of people as this has already been suggested many times. In the meantime, you can use Variable Thrust Limiter which adds a slider for "end thrust" in the VAB, allowing for a linear (with propellant mass, not time) thrust decrease/increase. It's basic but it works great. Not an excuse for it not being stock though...

Ran out of EC during a spaceplane reentry (RSS). Half of the shuttle (including the cockpit) overheated and exploded, still not sure how the other half and its passenger made it back.

A physicist would start talking about entropy and ruin everyone's day (someone's dead, so how further can it be ruined anyway?).

The small lines at the bottom of papers you're signing are never shouted out loud to you, you still may want to read them though... And the excuse "I can't read small lines" doesn't work.

It's not that much a question of processing power, but more of complexity. KSP is a gross approximation of real life; no matter how good a KSP autopilot is, it will still completely ignore a great part of the stuff you have to consider when flying an actual rocket, simply because KSP doesn't model/simulate this stuff. And KSP's SAS would instantly destroy any actual rocket also, you need accuracy and that kind of stuff to fly a rocket. KSP is much more tolerant than real life about errors (real rockets don't flip when going off course, they explode).

I'd like to see the statistical data confirming this statement, you'll find that deaths on the Moon are so rare, no stats have ever been made about it.

I wouldn't say Earth is the most "life-friendly" planet in our solar system. Quite the opposite, you'll find that it is the deadliest planet of all, by far!