Xyphos

I'll admit, I don't quite understand the math behind orbital mechanics, which is why I'm asking here. as part of my kOS SpacePlane launch script, I need my vessel to circularize, preferably at the half-burn point, but I'm not quite sure how to compute that.

For the record, Movie Maker is easy to use, but it pales in comparison to other FREE OPEN SOURCE video editors out there. but if you wish to stick to Movie Maker, you can also find a free video converter to encode from FLV to MP4

Can't say I ever got out and pushed, but one of my orbital rescue missions did do a 147km spacewalk because the rescue vessel ran out of mono propellant; apparently I accidentally staged the OMS engines during take-off and didn't notice until it was too late. the damaged vessel eventually fell back to Kerbin after a few high-atmosphereic orbits, but I had to rescue the rescue ship.

Thankyou for replying but I think your math is incorrect because I tried your formula and it's not working. the spaceplane is wobbling all over the place and stalls out. perhaps you can reply later when you're in front of a computer?

I got kOS to launch my spaceplane off the runway and climb 30* to 20kM but I can't figure out how to get it to level out and automatically hold it's altitude at 20kM.

you wouldn't end up with so much debris from launching satelites, if you launched them from the cargobay of a reusable spaceplane. best part, it doesn't have to be SSTO, it can be Rocket-Assisted Take-Off (RATO) where you strap solid boosters to the plane, gun it down the runway and by the time you're ready to stage them off, the RAPIER engines have already Mached-over

No-Oxidizer SSTO SpacePlane Probe Launch Landing at KSC Probing Moho Scyanse!

I have no where else to post this, so I defaulted here. also, you might wanna edit out the picture, I posted the uncensored version by accident.

no, it's not. graphics engine is easily ran in a looping stand-alone thread, OpenGL or DirectX API calls are made here and the graphics card handles the rest. physics engine can be broken down into multiple, multi-threaded sub-engines; collision, trajectory, velocity, angular velocity, etc... combine all that together and you've got a well-oiled game engine that fires on all cylinders.

No thanks, I quit Software Engineering 3 years ago. I still do a bit of code here and there as a hobby, primarily data hacking and reverse-engineering, but nothing serious. oh I understand. it's not that freaking hard at all. just requires proper planning and outlining of the game's needs; one that supports LUA scripting for mods would be ideal, but hey.. what do I know? according to you, I know nothing, so it must be true.

oh, I still refuse to play 1.1.2 - I've reverted back to 1.0.5 cuz I learned long ago to keep backups

After taking some time off to cool down from my KSP ragequit, I've spent some time thinking about why KSP appears to work well for some people and not others and I've come up with several hypothesis's: The user is in denial. KSP always works, even when it's not. The user has low expectations and is overwhelmed with euphoric joy when something actually works. Unity. building a half-assed shell around a rotten, un-maintainable core expecting a one-size-fits-all approach to actually work, instead of writing a custom-tailored game engine designed specifically for the tasks required. My money's on Unity. I'm not saying it's a bad system, but clearly, it's not working out. if I was on the dev team, I would have pulled Unity's plug 5 years ago. in fact, 5 years would have been plenty of time to write a custom game engine three times over, from scratch.

I've decided I'm quitting KSP for a while, the problems in 1.1.2 have made this game unplayable. the final straw that broke me was the symmetry glitch on a vessel that I've spent 2 hours building, the game crashes, I load back up and the load screen just hangs there with my vessel loaded but unmanageable I can't click anything and it's all for naught. it's just as well, cuz the thing probably would have randomly exploded for no given reason anyway. I QUIT.

See my signature below. you use LV-N engines for interplanetary transfers, and perhaps orbital captures, depending on the celestial body. their Specific Impulse (ISP) is the highest out of all of the rocket engines available, making them the most fuel efficient engines available, with Poodle being the second best, followed by the Terrier in third.

there are similarities to JSON, but I think YAML would have been a better choice.

Getting your VTOLs to work properly, but the amount of RCS ports needed for that is more part-count then the vessel itself.

oh, I know. I was just trying to learn him a thing or two.

Have you tried opening them in a hex editor and search for patterns? look on youtube for data hacking tutorials, the stuff's not hard to figure out once you understand that everything has a structure, but the shape of those structures is unknown.

done. no matter what, we always seem to miss an important detail. impressive gallery, how'd you get those captions at the bottom of your screenshots? also, the very first picture shows two Mk3 fuel fusealges almost spanning the asteroid, so three or four ought to do it, with a cone near the center for smaller 'roids. got it. thanks!

I got an idea for a new asteroid wrangler and I want to test it out, but I don't know how big I should make it.

and Therein lies the problem, and those problems are only going to find new homes in every platform released, console, pc, mac, etc.

Mk2 cargo bays are too small to do anything with besides launching tiny space probes, and housing misc parts for space planes such as torque wheels, extra batteries, and spare mono propellant. real shuttle launches use the Mk3 parts, you can really haul some interesting things up there in them. it's also worth noting that Mk2 cargo bays can be attached vertically, to hold the small drilling equipment on extra-planetary landers, so they can land almost dry, refuel and launch back to kerbin.