Matuchkin

How does this fly, exactly?

Whoa, that just makes landings and takeoffs more insane. I am certainly not going for this concept. No thanks.

And even if you can somehow land on this runway, if there is a tire blowout you will careen out into the residential area around the airport. Imagine a 747 doing that to your house at 120kph.

Ahh... make it an atmosphereless moon? As far as I remember, there was once a 0.90 mod that had a cuboid planet in it.

Heii- wait, who? @ProtoJeb21 sorry for letting you down.

And this is when I need to ask this question: how do I make these joints?

That looks cool, like an actually historic mission.

Wouldn't it just be a matter of modelling? The gravity would sort itself out, considering KSP's model.

KerbalX links for the Basilisk and the Swallow are now ready, and are in the opening post. Also, I am starting to test another aircraft. PS: The Basilisk, for some reason, has the ship alarm module from N.A.N.A as a part (even though I never put it there). This is registered as an unrecognised part.

Ever watched Vsauce? Look at the animation at 0:33. I would love to have a weird planet mod like that.

Wouldn't it be better to put the CoL in front of the CoM, on aircraft such as bush planes, light and small utility planes (such as the Cessna 172), and other such civilian aircraft?

Granted, their existence are not proven, but their probability is pretty much 100%. I would say that, including in the areas past the Hubble limit, there would be sextillions, septillions of stars, and we already found over 1000 planets around stars in our tiny sector of our tiny galaxy, of which over 500 are habitable. Come on, if planets are that common, they obviously outnumber stars by a very large factor. To believe that habitable planets do not exist is a bit unscientific at this point.

BTW, note that the KerbalX links for the Basilisk and the Swallow are pending.

Seriously, who the hell wouldn't want to plant a flag on Narnia?

So I got hooked into this little practice quite a while ago. I admit, tweakscale was used, but absolutely not for the fuselage. The only tweakscaled parts are the cockpit instruments, and the canopy on one of the planes, as well as the landing gear in several cases. Anyway, here are the albums. Keep in mind that I am not that good at detailed modelling, so some of these designs may look like scrap: 1. PF-1 Growler: This is my first fighter design, and the "oldest" if I was to apply a timeline to it. It is less manoeuvrable than my other designs and iterations, but it is by far the most stable design. However, it tends to lose a lot of speed when doing steep bank-turns, so I had to equip it with a large Titan engine from the airplanes plus mod. https://kerbalx.com/Matuchkin/PF1-Growler Quite a simple aircraft, so let's move on. 2. PF-1 Growler 2p: At some point, the guys at <<GENERIC WW2 STYLED PLANE BUILDING THING>> decided that the Growler was not manoeuvrable enough. One engineer commented that, compared to real life fighters, that thing was actually quite good, but of course they all acknowledged that, after all, this wasn't real life. And so, the PF-1 got adapted into a two-seater with bomb rails, suitable for a more fitting role as a light bomber/attacker. Same thing as the original Growler, so I'm gonna show off the gunner seat in the plane after the next one. Also, the wings on this version are moved back a bit, to improve manoeuvrability. https://kerbalx.com/Matuchkin/PF1-Growler-2p 3. PF-2 Basilisk https://kerbalx.com/Matuchkin/PF2-Basilisk This is a wholly new fighter, developed after the Growler 2p. This time, it is purely based around the fighter role, and boast some very good manoeuvrability. Six 30mm guns on its wings means it has good firepower, and the engine is powerful for the same reason as the Growler. However, it can become unstable if brought into a steep banking turn, but you can WASD out of such a situation quite easily. The Basilisk is far superior to both the Growler and the Growler 2p. 4. PF-1 I2 Swallow 2p https://kerbalx.com/Matuchkin/PF1I2-Swallow-2p Notice the difference? This is essentially a Growler, but I decided to rename it after I changed its wings and guns. The good thing about this one is that its gunner can rotate each of the 30mm guns 180 degrees and fire in front of the aircraft. For this purpose, the Swallow mostly uses its gunner as its primary source of fire. It is much more manoeuvrable than the Growler, again, and it can actually stand up against a Basilisk. Hope you find these planes amusing.

I actually never understood why. I mean, sure, microgravity takes effect in such conditions, but isn't your rocket already accelerating? That should push the fuel backwards, which should fuel the engine, which should accelerate the rocket even more, which should push more fuel backwards, etc. How does that not happen?

Not what I meant...

I will give no comment for now. I have no idea how paid DLCs will influence KSP and I will not immerse myself in the radicalism that follows every large change to the game or its community.

Did KSP have paid expansions before?

There isn´t a way to convey this to pilots. Humans aren't known to run on science. It is much more logical to say that, every X amount of science, engines and tools (avionics, etc) upgrade in terms of iterations (i.e. vector mk1, vector mk2 or mainsail mk1, etc).

That's all you have to say? Like, you see a MASSIVE aircraft carrier- a SHIP THAT CARRIES PLANES-, weighing tens of thousands of tons, and all you say is "nice boat"? That's like flying over Jupiter's red spot in low Jovian orbit and commenting "nice spiral": quite an understatement. I can imagine the poker face you had on when you typed that comment.

And what, specifically, can we do with a rocket engine? I'll say: a rocket engine can be throttled only partially, at the expense of worse performance. It can be gimballed, but that is only controlled by a guidance computer. It starts and stops at the sole command of guidance computers and emergency systems. Fuel efficiency is uncontrollable, and is only governed by the actual dimensions of the thrust chamber and the turbopump (which is itself being spun by a steady stream of gas). I guess that the only way to actually fidget with the engine settings in flight is to give a pilot some absolutely insane grip pads, a toolbox, then send him climbing through mach 10+ winds to actually tinker with the engine while its running. I have multiple obvious doubts about that method, and I don't think we should give Kerbals that much power in KSP. And while we're at it, let's give scientists the power to transmit science without an antenna, because why not.

NOOOOOO, NOT FRED! NOT HIM AGAIN!

Formula racing is absolutely, unquestionably, globally, totally unrelated to space travel. It's more than comparing apples to oranges, it's like comparing that beer you drank today to the temperature of the horseshoe nebula, as a yes or no answer on a scale of 1-3i. While an F1 racer takes advantage of his performance by using techniques on turns, fidgeting with oil concentration, being precise, etc, a spaceship spends 30 minutes vomiting out a fuel truck worth of energy per minute, then just floats for the next months/ years.