Mat2ch

Is this the hypethread I've been waiting for?

Well, there are hollow tubes, which you can exit to. And iirc the MK1 inline cabin allows this.

I like being able to exit from the back door of the MK3 pod to a cargo bay. You can walk to a car parked in a plane this way and make it fall out of it Also some more hollow elements would be nice, like the multipoint connector. Sadly, they don't.

Hi, I just tried to build something like the ascend vehicle from The Martian, but soon realised that the hitchhiker pod can't be boarded from the round thing, which looks like a hatch. This go me thinking, which pods are boardable through the inner doors and which are not. I thought there may be some logic behind it, but nope. It seems that all the round hatches are not boardable, but only some of the square ones, found on MK2 and MK3 parts are. It would be great to have them all available for crew actions. My test stand, for goofiness:

I think this question matters, even though the poll is missing the option "non of the above". It's a tricky thing to get such polls right and if we ignore the fact that there's much more than just male and female the poll currently says 10 % female, which is a rough estimate, but sadly a good picture of the reality. Yes there are females playing KSP, but too few. It's the same problem as in almost all technical parts of the world, there are too few women interested in them. I don't wanna go to deep here where this originates from, but we - as a community - should encourage more females to play KSP and show us what they are doing. I like to learn and I love watching others learning and every new member gives me a new perspective of how things are or can be done. Especially in KSP where we have this huge freedom of doing what we want. And since we boys tend to stick together all the time, we might miss something when there are only a few femals around playing, experimenting and making different erros than we did. Btw: I have the rule: Everyone who visits me has to play KSP. Everyone. No differences made. I hope to inspire as many people as possible this way.

Oh, I just got another idea. Adding a "simulate" button. It will show you how the CoL and CoM behaves in different flight situations. It doesn't have to be a full calclation of every angle. Just once from -90 to 90 degress pitch, same for yaw and roll. Usually we're flying forward, so no 360° simulation required. (And this is just a proposal, doesn't have to be discussed).

Hello Snark and everyone else, thanks for answering my post. Yes, I feared that the cyan vectors are the drag vectors and that they are throwing my shuttle around. It's the first time I encounter this problem (at least I think so), before all my crafts flew very stable (but most of them had canards, so...). Yes, you are totally right here. But also drag and body lift is the same in real life. It's air particles hitting a surface. There is no difference between them and Squad should get rid of the drag and add an aero vector to all parts. Would also solve the editor problem once and for all.

Hi, I'm currently fiddeling around with the Space Shuttle. (I've already learnt that the big-S Tail fin is not a good idea to use as the whole thing thens to oversteer) My Shuttle flies on the back of a tank and makes an orbit (with a full orange fuel tank). But I've got a problem on reentry. The shuttle looses its lift and then falls to the ground with a back first. Usually I'd say, CoM behind CoL, but I made sure that this is not the case. Then I took a look at the aero overlay. And on some occasions there's a cyan vector appearing and if that happens the spin starts. As if there's another lifting surface which you don't see in the editor. And it is huge. In the first image you can see that CoL is far behind CoM and it stays there, although I've added additional engines for the flight test. You can see in the second and third picture that the wings do what they should. Now on pancake manouvers you see the cyan vectors appear, which seem then to get bigger than the lift. On fourth and fifth image the shuttle has spun out of control and is falling down with it's back, although the mass should push the nose down. What is it? And why do I have the feeling that the game mechanic is wrong here? (or my understanding of the events that would happen in real life)

I don't know, I just don't know.

Oh, yes, I'm using Claws Stock Bug Fix mod and the changelog says it's exactly the bug I ran into. A quick test showed this was my bug. Thank you for your help!

Hi, I recently started my huge Duna mission and I only having trouble with it. First a docking port would not undock, so I used Claws manual how to get it to undock. But now the airbrakes on my lander wont extend. They move just a little bit and then stop. When I enable the aerodynamic forces overlay I can verify that they don't produce any drag. I've tested the lander design on kerbin and the airbrakes extended without problems there (well, except from sometimes the "you can't extend etc." bug with the service bays, even though the airbrakes weren't mounted to them. But that's not the bug here, I opened the service bay and didn't get the message either) So, what is wrong here and how can I get the airbrakes to work again?

It's of no use, I have to make the best out of my slideshow called Duna mission. Watch the fire aerobrake. You can dip down to 20 km without a problem and usually this should slow you down enough to make an orbit.

Your problem looks like the usual 32bit memory limitation problem. But mine, I'm not sure. I really hope 1.1 brings a performance boost, otherwise I'll have to look for another favorite game

I completed assembling my Duna transfer stage. It has all you need for a long term mission. A lander, a lab and a mining rig. Sadly it is running with only 4 fps. It has only 295 parts and I'm not sure why it is running that bad. I had much much bigger assemblies before 1.0.5 and they ran much better The bad performance takes the fun out of it.

I rebuilt my Duna lander, after I accidentaly deleted it. I made it better, but I fear it got a bit out of hand...

This challange sounds like one of the hardest things to do. I like it. But I don't wanna try it

I finally had an idea for my Ike miner craft. It got a bit out of control, but will give me enough fuel for a looooong mission: And then I, well, look for yourself, there's not much to explain here

I once mined one dry. It had such a huge surface area and was so light that it just floated to the ground.

The problem might be that the open source drivers need a lot of stuff, while the proprietary pack everything in one package. For the open source part to work you need kernel support, xorg driver and the radeon part from mesa. And everything should be as new as possible, since the drivers are growing every week.

Not true, not true. Today many are fiddeling around with Raspberry Pis and Arduinos and such things, which is way cooler than copying some gifs from another website to your own... oh, the animated background images, stars, blinking, how could you remind me of that...

Uhm, I've got an AMD card and I'm running linux. You just should use the free drivers... but AMD could really speed up their opensource linux driver dev a little. I hoped for OpenGL 4.5 support before christmas.

Well, not broken in particular, but no more security updates afaik and a newer version didn't seem to be an option.

Oh, I had to try this myself. It is truely amazing! But from this view it doesn't make sense now that passangers can't get to the crew cabins, when there's a Kerbal in the pod.

Flying, all the time. I'd wish there was a "center behind vehicle" button. When I fly, I want the horizon to turn, not the plane :)

The most important part, if you ask me. Now new players have a resource to see the stats of all the parts in one big list. This is really great! I was bothering, because the wiki helped me, when I started playing. This is great to see. Also the dV-Map is updated. And I just figured out I need 3400 m/s for Kerbin, not 3200. Explains why it was so hard to make orbit lately...