Arugela

https://imgur.com/a/TWhl3yo If I put a shock intake into a shroud should it pull in more air or benefit in any way?! I have a lot of parts count I added from my shock cones not quite being good enough 1:1 with rapiers. Could I add a few nosecones and improve the intake. Or does anything more interesting happen to thrust with rapiers as they are supposed to increase thrust with intake etc. does it get to speed faster. I'm not sure how to test this. besides the fact that the thing behind the shroud seems to get horrible drag and isn't counted as having a cone despite a cone being present...

What about an engine designed to pic up the smallest particles in space and convert them into thrust so you just need equipment and not fuel. Any sort of cosmic energy/microparticle even atoms. Waht exists in space constantly that we know of. Even if it's odd. Gravity? Radiations? Even if it's really small thrust. Make the equipment very small and use materials that naturally convert things with little weight. No mechanical parts. simpler probably last longer. Make a space probe!! then figure out hwo to send data back quickly and use the same thing(s) driving it to power the data etc. As for the concord idea: What about removing the wings. Making a tube. And using gasses to remove air resistance. Or however you could minimize it. You only need the gas to keep the air away, enough fuel, which is reduced, and payload. Use gas you can draw from the air at the launch site and fill the rocket with(or from water or something nearby.). Even if it takes a while. Time comes before the launch. If such a rocket were limited by size you could make it an upper stage that helps the lower stages out. Or is fed by a lower stage and then uses the last of the fuel on the way up. Say this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-augmented_rocket The front part seperates and goes into orbit and helps with air resistance on the way up(using gas to reduce air resistance if needed and sufficient fuel) The back parts get a nose job and has a hidden nose cone underneath it flies back with. You could even launch this from a bomber like the B-52 to reduce delta V more, or save on fuel, or build a bigger rocket or get more payload up. You could do lots of them at once even. If not a lot of gas can be stored it can be used to help with the thinner upper air resistance to get a little extra delta V. Maybe the back could even glide back on no fuel depending on payload etc. that or the entire thing is a rocket or the wings/pilot cockpit slide off and glide down with the entire inner fuselage being a seperate rocket slipped inside or some combination. I'm assuming that sqaure inside the front nose is a person. If not use a computer driven or even remote driving system with an option for pilot as cargo with the ability to drive to return for safety issues which can be used on the way up if needed. then you have auto pilot, manual pilot, and remote pilot for various stages and uses. Being able to fly it remotely from space could be useful as well as the ground in many situations. Including safetey ones in case of black out or other problems. Let alone things useful for missions. Maybe payloads have to be packed in a weird way. Who knows. More options the better though. Unless it has a downside somewhere. I would think modern computer systems might reduce those though now. couldn't you compress some of that air out of the front nozzle to remove air resistance to the nose and other parts of the vehicle to reduce fuel etc? Can you separate that fast from the engine usage? Even collect and fill the tanks for the upper flight on the lower flight from the engines? If needed you could partly fill from a bomber if more is needed for the flight. Also good in case you have to change the mission and need to adjust things as a precaution not to waste a flight. Various things could be done for versatility. What if the nose had an engine also. This would give the ability for it to launch from various altitudes in various ways. This could seperate to get payload up. Maybe it doesn't need to at a high altitude but a slow one skimming through the air at specific altitudes to get as close to escape velocity as possible before using fuel or other propulsions like gas to lower the rocket stage fuel requirements. If you use the same gas as the fuel or part of the fuel would it save fuel if you release some out the front to remove air resistance. It might help if not to deal with all of the heat etc. Again, if it can make the fuel as the ram jets are combusting stuff you could have a small tank fill in flight to use for end rocket stages and the rest constantly coming out to lower thrust needs/flight times. Each part of the aircraft could have intakes made for the different mass when together and separated. Then each can fly independently. But the back have might have a slower mode for return flights or something. I had a cool rocket SSTO that used air bugs to float infinitely over Duna(Looked a fair bit like that GTX plane actually). And actual craft with gas or something added could hypothetically do the same and be cool for real world deliveries if it's possible. My rocket could float at a single altitude indefinitely and then float over to where ever you wanted it to. That could be good for getting payloads to places without having to be over it directly. Or allow different approaches and use the atmosphere more or something. Or just to get above and have a gentler drop for payloads. Obviously you can float around the planet also, but doing it in atmosphere might be useful too. Some of those old bugs were fun. They allowed you to do stuff you can't currently from lack of correct parts in stock.

One weakness is fireing it. If enough missiles land at once they can bypass it potentially. It has ot hit them and that requires something turning. Unless there is a wide beam option or something that fires in all directions at once. If not you can always bypass it. Numerous other weakness would naturally exist in any implementation.

Doesn't it have less power requirement. Plus it might be nice to sell to retro console users or something. It could have all the old hookups needed plus new ones or something. I would imagine somewhat of a market could be made for it. Maybe with speciality processing if needed for compatibility inside the monitor. Could always take some of the market as an option and just in case for other issues in the future.

CRT is was back baby!!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display I'm sure this is old news(Very old news), but I thought it was funny. Something said it had nano sized display point. I'm surprised this wasn't pushed further. Could you combine it with Microled or something weirder. Make one light produce many! Or interlay them for some special functions.(direct optical processing info? Computer in a monitor assuming you can't do that whe cathodes.) Would this, if made now, be better than current monitors? SED or FED? And can SED multiscan? I read FED can't. Does it need it? If this was made would this bring us back to analog connections and how much would it change Computer video processing needs. I'm assuming this has something to do with current costs. Would it reduce back down again? I never liked CRT being eliminated. Always felt scummy and unnecessary.. Could this hypothetically be brought back as a competitor to modern displays to make higher end monitors with less problems and less overhead? I would assume it would be great for anyone using consoles like how we used to or low end or even high end monitors that should be close distance. Not to mention if it simplified and reduced GPU costs. Could we get it where we buy one for gaming and one for other uses? We all have slots for a second video card. Why not two video cards. Especially if the difference in processing methods was enough to not need the same bandwidth as pure digital. Could the be like super powerful tiny display cards? If all the info is stuck together before display could it work? or combine it correctly in the monitor somehow. Or make combo cards where it can be produced in both analog direct methods combined with digital. I would think you could simplify certain things down. Maybe duel monitors with both hookups or something if needed. Then focus the RTX type stuff from one display port and the other stuff from the analog like the background. Unless you can do all of it with analog processing of some sort. Could you process directly to analog with something different to simplify some of it and not just translate it to send an analog signal? I still wonder if microled can't start being used as hybrid electronic/optical computing. Maybe that tec becomes processing and CRT becomes display again! If there are lots of scan guns couldn't they also make SED/FED so taht you can easily do lots of split screens for different games. Maybe different consoles at the same time or split screen for old fashion multiplayer. They should make these for retro games. And make them work with actual retro consoles. That would be a cool seeling point. Hook up an old atari or amiga or nintendo. The monitors could have cool sleek 50's looks also as the cabinet. Rounded monitor anyone?! Isn't there a really old type of TV that was supposed to be CRT and rotate on a hinge and was shaped like an eye. Might have been in a music video or something. It looks a bit like the eye from lord of the rings, but it's a 50's/60's retro case. but eye shaped. Maybe I'm just thinking of this: Imagine if we had these and had a true return of the desktop again. The PC could be in the lower case with a real hookup through the bottom casing. This is literally a modern tower case with a CRT on top:

Could they use a large number of gates on the way up to manage the pressure in stages? If it was for burial maybe it was for use with the latest king or ceremonially. Maybe they burried them for a time then moved them to the other area for a permanent burial at a later date. Then when the next king died they could be burried their temporarily until the next leader needed it. At which point it could have been like a viewing service of some sorts in that it was very temporary and fairly quickly afterwords moved to the valley of the kings. So, maybe just for the burial services. As to locations, springs in the middle east were generally considered special and important. Maybe they used that spot because of the spring. It could help with construction and could provide water inside if needed for anything. Maybe it was also a safeguard of a water source in case of bad times. Maybe excessive in isolation, but in combination with other needs, not so much.

This looks cool. A potentially feasible method for building the pyramids. Don't think I ever saw this even though it's from 2013.

Mines old. I'm just bored. My game goes at 5 seconds per second before stuttering and then stutters are 1-1.2 seconds something per second. It's pretty slow. Actually takes me 2 hours or so to fly to orbit. So, if we ever get super planets. I'm prepared! 8) The extra parts is from the back wings being partially taken off. One is a modified normal version. Normally it's straight wings. The slanted wings might fly worse but the parts count problem can effect performance. So, I don't know if it's game performance or plane performance atm. Have to wait for improvements or if they ever go over the game and remove more garbage collection stutter. Old engines have something wrong that comes out in high parts count. Goes away now if you turn them off.

Use the one in the OP. I changed the folder location and it messed it up. The aero test one has the stuff for it.(Edit: NVM, Fixed) I think the misalignment was from the lack of local/absolute. I some of it the same. But the COL is still up and back. For the first craft I managed to get the wings symetrical. It had to do with useing abolute vs local. Still don't know which is which because I can't tell if the button means it's local or changed to local... Craft: https://www.dropbox.com/s/n6c18eevhf2y0z8/KB-52 1_8_1_2686 x108 8_5.craft?dl=0 <- Normal flyable version/configuration. adjusted wings in flyable configuration. COL up and back. https://www.dropbox.com/s/m7eli5kmscnpj3n/KB-52 1_8_1_2686 x108 8_5 test.craft?dl=0 <- Aerotest version. The one the pics are taken from.

Yea, that solved the unevenness part(I think, possibly not in some cases though.). But it still needs numbers to be able to see exactly where it is. With small adjustments it's almost impossible without visual references to even out wings in odd circumstances. In my case I have to over align to get a visual reference. Which means I can't figure out if two separate wings are really angles the same way in two different spots.

Without snap it is impossible to get the same angle on multiple parts. We need to be able to see values to start with on all 3 axis and then have the ability to manually change them with actual values. This would solve a lot of building problems and help people both learn the game and make more interesting things. Almost everything in the game needs this done to it.

I removed the flaps and it does not seem to be the issue. It move it forward a hair but not very far. Edit: I wonder if it's the COL not being the same potentially in delta wings. I've read that if you reverse them it's more towards to front or back. Maybe angling them does something weird. But it's still should be close enough to straight to not move it I would think. Unless the difference in snap being off make it move up a little. I think it's from the uneven nature of not using snap. I changed the wings with snap on and it's angles the COL backwards and moves it forwards, but it keeps it center mid line with the COM. That may be the problem. Still not sure why it angles it. I would think it would still recenter itself since they are exactly opposite. Pic in the pic section.

Pics up. https://imgur.com/a/jwUaiZ1 Craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/n6c18eevhf2y0z8/KB-52 1_8_1_2686 x108 8_5.craft?dl=0 Craft engines are adjusted to put COM on COL. Some of the plane won't make sense. It's adjusted for demonstration purposes. To adjust the COM use adjust on the MK3 to MK2 adapter between the two large cargo bays just in front of the MK2 inline cockpit. it's a large mass of engines I moved to control the COM to the COL. They normally stack on the wings.

I have a tri wing design. If I have one wing perfectly center, one above a rotated down slightly, and another below rotated up the same amount It does not recenter the COL. I'm doing a spaceplane SSTO. I tried to make the top wing tilt up a little and the bottom wing tilt down the same amount. This makes the back of the wings touch slightly. The problem is it's not keeping the COL centered back on the COM like it was previously. Before I was flying with it all perfectly inline. If I make both go up or down in the same direction the COL stays inline for the most part. But if you make them symetrical in the opposite directions it does not. I'm not too worried about forward and backwards motion. The problem is the COL moves up or down from the COM center position. I would think moving both symetrically in opposite directions would recenter it. I know it's moving in a circle slightly. I would think this would create an equalibrium though. I guess I could just make it slant up or down and be done with it but I was hoping to do this. The other problem may be that the wing is not perfectly symmetrical back to front though. The back is slightly cut off but it's centered on the plane at the widest point so the engines don't burn it up. It's like a double(Back and front) delta wing with the back not completely there. I think this could be part of the problem cut I can't figure out why it does not balance out when both are done evenly. The other problem is that I have to do with without the octegon things set that adjust it for you evenly. I have to use the circle settings to make finer adjustments and the game does not have the ability to see exactly what this is set to or a way to make sure this is even. I think I got it even but it's too far off and seems to go up too much to make sense. I'll get some pics in a bit if needed. I normally have this set with all wings perfectly level. This works ok. But I was hoping to slant them to get a wing setup for all situations. I have a tri wing so why not angle one center, one up, and one down slightly. I was hoping to get more lift on level flight. Or get better lift in an all around sense because of the lack of lift potentially when prograde. Edit: This is all on top of the fact that not using snap ensures the items are not symetrical perfectly. My wings are all copy pasts so they are identical. Nothing is different. Pics: https://imgur.com/a/jwUaiZ1 Craft: https://www.dropbox.com/s/n6c18eevhf2y0z8/KB-52 1_8_1_2686 x108 8_5.craft?dl=0 <- Normal flyable version/configuration. adjusted wings in flyable configuration. COL up and back. https://www.dropbox.com/s/m7eli5kmscnpj3n/KB-52 1_8_1_2686 x108 8_5 test.craft?dl=0 <- Aerotest version. The one the pics are taken from. Craft engines are adjusted to put COM on COL. Some of the plane won't make sense. It's adjusted for demonstration purposes. To adjust the COM use adjust on the MK3 to MK2 adapter between the two large cargo bays just in front of the MK2 inline cockpit. it's a large mass of engines I moved to control the COM to the COL. They normally stack on the wings.

Well, if they did fix the reaction wheels, maybe they would make better thrusters. Or just use those proportions and make big ones! And better thrusters.

My current use and reason for this is stuff that needs to be in cargo bays because they are high speed parts going at speeds with as close to burning up as possible. It's also about parts count. So, I need something with few parts and electric is also nice as it's renewable in flight. I'll take reaction wheels with more electricity per force use. I don't know why you can't have bigger ones that are more waisteful either. That is not unrealistic engineering wise. I have to get parts count down if possible. I already have large solar panels for mining. I could open up my utility bays in the case of my current ship and just use them. But less parts is preferable. Unfortenately most of the ways to become efficient are a matter of more parts count. I wish they would make everything more realistic and add real engineering solutions. Maybe let us build our own parts. Even go hypothetical, as in stuff we can build but haven't based on general engineering knowledge and let us put it all together. It would still be severely shorthanded regardless. But the more the better. Starting with the premise of building and even modding parts would be fun. We could take apart and upgrade the existing parts for instance. They might just need things to cement single parts like welder or something. BTW, in what way are current ones overpowered. Too electrically efficient? If it's raw power I don't see the issue. You can always upscale something in real life. We're not dealing with real life earth payload restriction or wahtever is the limiting factor potentially on earth. I'm assuming it's weight and whatnot. Or some other tertiary restriction from whatever their payload design or electrical designs were. If the ISS was bigger I would imagine they would have bigger reaction wheels. Plus I use my stuff on an SSTO which only needs to rotate for low gravity and stuff. So, I actually need good power and small parts count. It's not unreasonable to build them for large things like inline 3.75 and whatnot is it?

Either way. we need a suite of option fitting real world examples or a way to produce parts that are produced in the real world with minimal in game abilities to change geometry and other things to fit existing parts. 8)

That would be find if they didn't make all mono stuff blow up to easily. Maybe if they stopped making it impossible to go fast and turn. Or put in the mono nozzles in all the parts that hold mono and act like or had real life counters that had nozzles in those and other places. Then we wouldn't have to use the radial parts as standard. Look at the MK3 vs the real shuttle. It had lots of nozzles. some to pull away from the orange tank separation. The game, like usual, is completely underdeveloped. And in ways that should take no work or effect performance and should be easy to do and implement.

Are you sitting in it?!

I have a 688 - 750 part to orbit cargo plane. The bigger issue is the stutter on top of this. Without stutter it would be 1-5. 5 seconds per second on an old phenom 1100t. With stutter it's at least an extra 5 second. Stutter happens each second for 1 second each. Before 1.8 for 688 parts it was 2 seconds for tripple the delay. Without the stutter this game would have been much more playable this whole time. The stutter is connected to engines parts coding. It goes away if you turn all engines off. And air mode doesn't have an effect in space. But on the ground both closed and air breathing modes stutter with even one engine on and 0% throttle. This is amplified by the number of engines with only one engine one and the rest off. There is a base coding problem or something not resolved yet. High parts count bring this out very fast. Still not sure if anyone else get this. Is it related to hardware or software. I put up a bug thing on it but nobody has responded to help figure it out. I'm assuming these issues can be resolved in KSP1 potentially. If it's not resolved in KSP1 first I have a feeling it will be in KSP2.

I don't think the problem is it's resetting so much as it's not applying them. If I go into the setting and hit apply they are there and are applied. I think it's just applying some defaults for some reason or something. My settings still exist. Although by the size of some objects it is applying a few settings but not all of them. You can tell by changing the UI settings a bit. I think the generalized settings for all UI sizes are applied but not some of the individual ones.

I was about to note this in a post. I thought when I first saw it it was from some change to the Kerbal Base to add military camo as part of the version release. Finally got curious enough about it to look into it.

That is exactly what is happening in Elite dangerous.

Yea, It doesn't seem to care. I looked at total thrust in the gui and it has the correct numbers everywhere. Unless it's invisibly cutting the total thrust. It has 108 engines. I opened the aero gui and paused it to compare to a single engine. Didn't have problems until I put a hidden cargo bay in one of the fuel areas and it did cut off some air intakes. I had to move it to the center so it wasn't touching the individual parts. It was for the mining equipment. It seem everything except cargo bays have a lot of leaway when it comes to engines burning through them and air intakes and whatnot.

By this specifically this shows the shuttle with two things that would save parts constantly. Those curved solar panels in the shuttle doors. And the mono propellent engines nozzles imbedded in the front and back parts. All mono holding parts should have nozzles embedded as well to use it. Then the other nozzles are just extras in case you need it.