Loskene

Learn. That was your first plane, now see how your second one goes.

ooh lovely, wasn't expecting this to be ready just yet. Nice one

Yeah I've found that only parts blowing up on land contact actually slow down the craft a bit when they explode. For splashdowns they just disappear and the part behind carries on at full speed. ie there is lithobraking but no aquabraking for return capsules, ditch the shield and slow down over water.

The kraken is salivating at the thought of elastic kerbal tether physics. I support it.

Are the drop tanks set to feed fuel into the core tank or is it drawing from all tanks at once? It tends to get confused when it has no way of knowing when drop tanks are supposed to be staged. It's possible that both of those readings are wrong, regardless of engine count. The DV calculator requires very clear staging/fuel drain order to give accurate results.

I jettison it whenever I want to destroy the capsule by having the shield fly straight back up due to KSP errordynamics. Wait.

Nice, looking real smooth there. Bonus points for the Robot Wars-worthy "srimech"

I think you can put AG triggers on the timeline, meaning you can make a timeline over X seconds and place the actions along it in order, though I guess you'd need a dummy robotic part for doing that and nothing else. Might be good to have a proper delay system as well.

So basically a stock version Smart A.S.S. from mechjeb (we rarely need all of mechjeb but it has some very useful tools) so we can input a numeric heading and pitch/roll/yaw angles to try and hold. Stock SAS just tries to hold "this heading" but any motion beyond a certain range makes it forget what "this heading" is and just settle for whatever, meaning it'll never hold perfectly level and can't compensate for horizon drift. Being able to just order it to hold the horizon or a specific "default" angle it can't lose track of is all we should need. I would like it, since SmASS is one of few things I always want mechjeb for. I mean we could go full fly-by-wire (many such mods exist so it's doable) but that should be the bare minimum to accomplish the task.

Conservation of angular momentum will bite you the moment you "unfurl" the tip and it ends up subsonic, if I get what you're thinking of here.

Yeah I found orientation much easier to get around when I started using WASD to fly the navball, not the ship. It's also the key to low flying, like super low flying. The prograde marker is the only thing your eyes will see the whole flight, so I use NavHUD to see it projected into the world. Helps a LOT.

That's a good use for a stayputnik actually, I might steal that for a small quadcopter drone.

Oh. Well you're right I have no idea if they did, but I believe large publishers also hook their various studios up with industry contacts they have to get a better return out of it. There have been a lot of new hires since then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Nothing on this yet huh. Is there a bug report filed for it?

Strange one alright. Neither of those are modded tanks? Any modulemanager patches that might cause conflicts? Radial vs node attachment? idk mate, usually it's just a crossfeeding issue. Might have to build a few test articles on launch clamps to eliminate part configurations until you find the culprit.

Absolutely, the basic rules of the game don't change, rocket science is rocket science on any scale after all. It just requires a little more precision than you'd need for eyeballing builds and boosts around Kerbin, but a gravity turn is a gravity turn.

iirc it was because they "fixed" the bow-tie autostrutting across mirror symmetric parts. Unfortunately the bowtie autostrutting, while apparently unintentional, was useful enough it became a critical design element for a lot of people, so they reverted it or made it into a proper behaviour or did something like that to fix the fix.

1) As long as it keeps making enough money to keep the lights on and pay staff, though with a AAA publisher on board you never know when that is. They could axe it tomorrow if they felt like it wasn't "meeting expectations" 2) As long as it remains on sale, which may be many years after the development period has ended, and continued sales justify their minuscule but non-zero hosting and serving costs.

I'm very curious what it is you think was being said there

While we're all happy KSP survived the corporate dicer, let's not lose ourselves thinking it was anything on T2's part other than supplying the project with a cash injection and access to a wider selection of skilled developers, for the promise of a profitable return and nothing else. They have no artistic interest in the product, it's minutae or integrity of development. Games publishers do not hire from the games industry, all of their leaders come from the packaged goods industry. That should tell you all you need to know. We're lucky they've taken no interest in it beyond writing a self-serving EULA, for now, so long as it meets performance expectations.

You said you don't know how to do that. Other people do. I'm one for supporting adding mods to the base game in order to make testing easier (I even want the MH mission editor made available in career games for exactly this), but if you think it's impossible or prohibitively difficult without them right now... nah mate. That's on you. The rest of us figured out the rules of the game by playing until we ran into their limits.

Well there's yer problem...

You're a funny guy

Could try using struts on zero-force decouplers so they break when you stage to release the robotics, but I think they're adding same-vessel collisions back in to solve some of these problems in other ways.

Situation: There are now 16 competing standards.