Skalou

I was feeling alone too, kerbal.Curseforge works great for me, NO ads (even with all the adblockers removed), NO download timer or gold subscription or anything else, and best of all not at the mercy of only one guy's humor of the day. however i'm not against a few ads if it can improve the services and remunarate the modders or even squad (and hope they will put more effort into KSP because it worth it), it will be a win /win deal: i have better mod, they make a bit of money. So i don't understand all the criticisms, what is was better on kerbal stuff?

Finally got the L4 Lagrange point of the kerbin/Mun system after a few hours with this amazing mod! Congratulations and thank you Eggrobin with your team!

What i would like is a full-span small fin in the kind of the soyouz style (or with even more angle). In the size of the basic fin: and please remove these screws thartare longer than a wing is thick. Something to have engine clusters is a good idea too (some mod have or with cubic-struts it works but it has consequence on the aero calculation).

Sure...me too Houston. Learning the mechanic and equations of gyroscopic effet ant such won't make you ride a bicycle before the 1st try, it's the same for nearly all activities but some can be simulated more easily to approach the goal. why not, it's just an idea to be improved.

the mission where choosen to be able to go back to the lander by foot in case of rover failure. What a better training than doing real job on terrain? you can't replace experience, but you need some teaching too. What i think now: an other "astraunaut complex" upgrade that allow the crew to upgrade there level in flight in the lab (or in an other new part: the correspondence school), to be balanced with some stuff (ressources and time consumption, need of a big communication network, need of a higher level than you in the ship, etc...). Admac On my side i prefer that the game force myself to continue to explore new place , but i understand your point of view.

aha, perfect= can't do better for me. and as you i don't look at a perfect lauch but a good enought (and there is so much things to do in KSP and so few time that i can't focus only on launch and try to improve also some other things as long as it gives me fun) I discovered soon enought the balance between when to start the gravity turn ( with the effects you descibe), discovered too the thermal limit, after this that with a low TWR 2nd stage i can avoid a fail by giving a big enought AoA at a propper time (after the denser atmosphere) and even save some DV, but your test as you are a far more experience player than me (and play challenge with other people? ) confort me that it could also be one of the cheepest way to go to space with a rocket.

I think it's not, For me the 1st step is to know what is a perfect launch ( for a given rocket even if it is a bad one) for a given goal, and i'm discovering some small tricks frequently. also this perfect could match different criteria of success (efficiency, precision, reliabilty (margin to fail the whole mission),...). and then do it, and there is always a small differences with the targeted trajectory and also between 2 launch. But if you claim it is possible i would like to see it (even if it's not you). Also i don't need a perfect lauch on my side, i take margin to success even with small deviations.

That's what i hoped, and maybe there is some details that worth it even if it's just an other artist point of view, anyway it's a nice video and i thought about you directly (like every night ) ! Nice modelling, hope the best for this mod! and can't wait to try one of this rocket...

I've seen this today, and share it to you if it can help modeling: let's see for the competitivity , but at least the independance.

i like the specialists from a game-play point of view, and they can all drive the ship so it's Ok, I prefer playing with a complementary team instead of 1 Super-Kerman, and if there is some limitations to bring every-one having to choose. The 1.1 with the new relay system will maybe give a higher role to pilot by allowing them to remotely drive the probes too, so it will be even better for me. (nd with KIS!!)

That's what i was doing on the mun image, keeping the prograde on the horizon ( there with infinite full to check some other stuff for an other test), it was just to show you the mechjeb tools that are a bit hidden. and for the atmospheric, i wonder if it's better to do a prefect gravity turn (follow the progade until we are in a circular orbite) or at one point going out of it to do the same kind of maneuvre as on airless bodies: not a perfect constant altitude burn, but a kind-of by increasing a bit the altitude too (it means the prograde will be a few degrees up). but your test seems to show it is. of course it depends of the rocket building, but it shows it is a possible way to go. I've seen a rocket doing this but in the other way: the ariane 5, it seems to lauch more vertical and then the trajectory make a jump out of the atmosphere (30km) to give the time to the low TWR stage to burn, but whitout the pitch and the flight path or AoA angle it's hard to understand well what it does, also It has a lot more and differents constraints than KSP.

Yep there is this kind of losses but they don't depend of your trajectory. The main steering losses i know are due to burning out of prograde (maybe both surface or orbitale are OK and it depends of the frame you take care of the trajectory) : blue: initial velocity orange: increment of velocity purple: final velocity

Really nice lauch Alshain! It answers a bit what i'm wonder actually, does a perfect Gravity turn is the best solution? what about having some higher steering losses and drag balanced by the gravity losses by going out of prograde after the lower atmosphere in an objective of low price. Does some real rocket goes out of prograde like these? (even if KSP is different, just to know) Mechjeb has some nice tools to see the différents losses and other usefull features such as real expended DV: (here in action during some tests)

Nice curves, I'm looking for this kind of data for a rocket that go into orbit, do someone has some great links please? here is mine: Orbital Mechanics: Theory and Applications Introduction to Astronautics Sissejuhatus kosmonautikasse Vladislav Pustõnski 2009 Tallinn University of Technology. (english) slides 8-9 After a few test with mechjeb, it appears that the angle alpha taken into acount is from the surface prograde, and i don't understand why it is the surface and not the orbital? (exept for the drag), on an airless body at the moment we leave the ground we don't take care anymore of the surface thing no? (the body could even start spinning backward it won't change your orbitale flight),... so why?

The last update is really good! Thank you! An other suggest, look at this familly waiting for their son to joining them: From what i read it's doable by adding your mod to kerbal stuff or if you want to keep only 1 source, by cheking the CKAN thread: the-comprehensive-kerbal-archive-network-ckan-package-manager don't forget the dependancies and recommanded mod' if you do it. if you don't do it, no problem! and thank you again to share this mod.

i agree you disagree, even with the same difficulty a beginner will make a lot of contract to unlock the needed parts to reach his goal (for exemple for landing on the Mun: unlock solar panels to feed the angry reaction wheelS, big landing legs, ..., hight part count building for a big rocket,...), and it's great he will learn the previous task better, and an advanced player will take a shortcut to avoid the contract grinding in better optimizing his missions and take less safety margins. if it's too hard, do more easier contracts to unlock more powerfull stuff. where is the 'chute? or why decouple the pod?

some intersting things: SR71 (and the m21 drone) note also the engine and intake style. the Skylon engine: note the "Rapier style", the real precooler is the really big challenge of this project. and this to better understand the intakes in KSP: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/125015-105-intakes-lets-figure-them-out/

I answer a bit myself, i updated to the new version (1.2 on C-Kan) and now it's much better, the icons seems to be 2x the resolution. (full resolution in the KSP settings for both version). However i have a bug with the , J-X4 "whiplash" turbo ramjet engine and the J-404 "Panther" Afterburning Turbofan, ( i tryed 3x new install with full delete of the cache files) their textures don't update to the high resolution when i select them in the VAB or in flight: I am alone with this?

From the devnote-tuesday-the-mother-of-all-merges the 18 november 2015: And nice work as usually! thank you! It works OK for what i tested but i don't have a lot of custom part, Are you planning to allow to choose the size of the compressed temporary texture in the future? i could find it great to have a better resolution, even if it save less memory, sometime it's hard to know what part is it in the VAB.

I was thinking you was dead and your mother asked to close the thread! It could be great to be noticied why the next time, or i will call the police! Nice, that you are back ! Here is an other artist view of the maybe future ariane 6 published the 7 december 2015: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Launchers/Launch_vehicles/Ariane_6

Nice topic, yes using the .blend format direcly is really great, we can modify the model and try it in KSP in a few seconds. What i remenber by reading things here and there is that the colliders are the big performance modifier, it's really better to do an other simplified mesh for the collider than reusing the one for the appearance to do the MeshCollider (that now must be convex remenber), or even better: if possible use the unity premade collider (box collider, capsule collider, etc) to keep better performances. for a fuel tank, there isn't premade unity cylinder collider, so we must use a cylinder mesh converted in collider, for size 0 or 1 the stock are 24 sided, (for other sizes i don't remenber, just use the .blend importer to catch them) An other thing i do is creating a separate empty objet for the colliders, so i can displace them easily, if i want to try an other 3d model, etc... (i don't know if it use notiaciabily more ressource however) And an other , Instead of exit and relaunch the game each time, go in the KSC > alt+f12 > reload the data base (or alt+f11 with module manager ), it's faster but sometime it breaks things (and have to restart properly).

Really nice part! Edit: old tricks for the older version (<1.1):

you just said it, so your plugin couild circularize at the altitude of the node, if its near the Ap it will do mainly prograde, near the Pe, mainly retrograde, between them, a mix of prograde/radial to keep the altitude of the node as the altitude of the new orbit. And i think too it's a good task for a node editor, but I don't understand why you did'nt mixed your idea with precise node.

hi, Can you answer the 3 questions yourself? It wil be great to know what you can and are ready to do.

Salut! here is workaround with this mod allowing you to manage the part icon in many maners: I'm using it personnaly in KSP 1.0.5, it won't be a depency for your mod, just a good suggestion to improve it if you use a Module manager patch: MM_NookosMod_PartIconFixer by Nookos //Manage the icons in the VAB/SPH for Nookosmod, needs the mod Part Icon fixer. //Tested on KSP version 1.0.5 with the mods "NookosMod" version X.Y and "Part Icon Fixer & tweaks" Version 1.2 . @PART[NookosModpart1]:NEEDS[PartIconFixer] { %iconMultiplier = 3 } @PART[NookosModpart5]:NEEDS[PartIconFixer] { %iconMultiplier = 1.8 }