Screeno

Oh yes exactly. Fuel flow stuff , commnet, heating (skin and internal temperature) and jet engines not using kerosene are my gripes I can come up with. Of course, fuel flow mechanics should work just like they do in ksp1. Don't know why they didn't by default. Commnet simply should just be implemented just as it was in ksp1. I don't see why not. Dumbing the game down any more is not fun. I don't know why temperature is not skin/internal and only a global temperature per part. There's a lot more interesting gameplay to be had when it's like that. It was by default in ksp1, so why not now. And now on to jet engines. The only jet engine that should use liquid methane is the rapier. Like the irl (concept) sabre engine uses LH2/LOX Turbojet/turbofan engines in real life do not use cryogenic liquids as fuel. Whiplash, Cheetah, Goliath, Wheesley and Juno are all in this category. There should be jet fuel available. Which could just be labeled as pure kerosene for simplicity. So therefore think there should be fuel switching for standard tanks between LCH4/LOX, LOX, and "generic jet fuel" as well of course procedural wings that can be loaded with fuel. Not talking about hydrogen tanks for the nuclear engines, monopropellant, or xenon gas for ion engines as those are separate things, aka special tanks for specific fuels. I mean all the big standard fuel tanks that currently only take LCH4 and LOX All bipropellant rocket engines in ksp use LCH4/LOX and I feel that is fine to be that simple. But it makes no sense at all for airbreathing engines that aren't the rapier to use cryogenic liquid methane! Tldr All tanks that can currently hold LCH4/LOX should be able to switch between that and a "jet fuel" which should be what Turbojet and turbofan engines should have to use.

I am so glad they hired some of the most passionate modders like blackrack. That actually gives me hope for this game. Oh and I am VERY pleased to see they are fixing exhaust plumes to make them look like realistic versions of themselves. This looks like waterfall, which is the best representation of rocket exhaust plumes I've seen so far. Next thing that's similar is the terribly unrealistic vapor contrails. They don't happen constantly like that in real life. Irl they occur due to pressure dropping, therefore the temperature lowering and then water vapour condensates creating what is basically short lived clouds. That includes for example the ones seen on the top of wings when fighter jets do high g maneuvers at low altitude at air shows, and vapor cones (which is not a sonic boom, but often vapor cones form in the transonic region if the conditions are right) This website: https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/weather/contrails/ Explains the phenomenon well. Also wing tip vortices are called that because they happen at the wing tip. In ksp2, every procedurally generated wing part makes contrails at the tip, but this doesn't mean the tip of the actual wing that may be comprised of multiple wing parts. It annoyingly creates these contrails for every piece. It should only occur on the tip of wings/tails etc.

They are ugly and totally unrealistic. contrails only happen occasionally in real life. The reason is reduced pressure in the wingtip vortex behind the wing (yes, just the tip) , this causes the temperature in the vortex to drop and if humidity is high enough it will form what basically is a small cloud in that vortex. same thing goes for vapor cones and the clouds above wings that can be seen on high g manoeuvres sometimes. but it's all dependent on humidity. https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/weather/contrails/ that website explains it better than me and with pictures. the main thing to keep in mind is these water vapour formations are vey short-lived. ksp2 having every single wing peice create a contrail at it's tip is very unrealistic. to the point it's jarring. oh i totally agree with the wing tip node thing. this just has to be a thing.

I feel that a system that can generate heat tiles on the desired surface of a fuel tank (standard methalox tanks not hydrogen tanks however), wing or command pod/cockpit should be implemented. Unlocked somewhere in the tech tree, aka not unlocked by default, you have to earn it. Perhaps a universal part that when applied to a fuel tank, wing part or aircraft cockpit, becomes procedurally generated and snaps to the surface of part you applied it to. ( similar to how fairings work but it automatically just covers the side of the part you apply it to). It can't be destroyed unless the part it is attached to is destroyed. (or, it could simply act like just adding a texture to a side of a part which is much simpler and less resource intensive because it doesn't add a literal part to the craft) It would add weight to the part it is attached to proportional to the size of the heat tiling generated. Heat tiles would protect the part exposed to the airflow underneath them from aerodynamic heating but would not effect aerodynamic forces because that would cause a lot of issues with building crafts. They simply shield one side (or both if you apply it to both sides) from heating to a certain degree and add weight to the part they are attached to. I feel this would add an extra level of realism and fun factor. This also brings me to an issue: heating is not simulated by skin temp and internal temp like it was in ksp . It's just a generic temperature by part mechanic that isn't very realistic. It also creates part balance issues. I feel for the thermal system in ksp2 to work properly it needs to take in to account both skin temperature and internal temperature. Anyway for a thermal tiling part system to work, skin/internal temperature would need to be separate things. thanks for reading!

Ok so I got restock and restock waterfall config, deleted my old stock waterfall config. All the rocket engines have their waterfall effects but the rapier, whiplash, panther, goliath, wheesley and juno have not got them. (aka they have their rather ugly stock effects) even if I put back the stock waterfall config file in gamedata the air breathing engines still don't get their waterfall effects applied. anyone know how to fix this? Edit: i dowloaded the lastest stock waterfall config and it worked when i used a whiplash, but rapiers are weird, especially the closed cycle mode, the plume is missing

yeah the stages were only 1 tank apart from the S-1C stage.

Title. The mainsail has almost the same thrust at sea level as the mastodon but the mainsail also has far better max isp in vacuum so the mastodon is redundant both as a launch engine and as an orbital engine. The mastodon should really have a higher thrust ( thrust in the middle of the min and maxthrust for the mainsail (around 1400?) would be better then it's got a niche as a more powerful launch engine than the mainsail but with less efficiency) , it's supposed to be a launch engine, at the moment there is no point using it at all except for aesthetic purposes. Also I should add the skiff is pretty weak in terms of thrust too, I made a saturn v replica and the S-II and S-IVB stages with a full tanks of accurate size had terrible thrust to weight ratios, something like 0.3 which is useless for an upper stage in the atmosphere. It should probably have twice as much thrust as a swivel for what it is, it's a 2.5 m engine.

At least splashdowns are safe

Awesome! You can only go up from there! If you struggling with landing you can always attatch a load of parachutes to it, and deploy them when it's safe XD

How 2 ssto: Craft with rapiers(s), plenty of fuel and ,a shock cone intake. These days you only need one shock cone per 2 rapiers. It is very important you balemce the center of mass of dry/wet craft, so it doesn't move much during flight. Take measures to minimize drag, look at the front of your craft straight on and the side straight on so you can see it's cross section, the less massive variations in cross section means less drag. FFinally make sure your rear landing gear are close to the center of mass, make them go just behind it. But to far behind and it won't lift the nose up You can fly just fine with a twr less than one , you don't need loads of engines, this would as weight and make drag... As soon as you pick up some speed it'll go up past 1 again. For an easier flight try not to have a static twr lower than 70, 50 would be to low imo. (I reccomended you get kerbal engineer so you can see the Delta v, and twr. It also lets you see the twr at different altitudes and speeds) Taking off sould be the easyest part, just go up to 100 ms and with enough wing area youll lift off by lightly pitching up. With a low twr you should just fly at 10 degrees pitch until you go supersonic and then you'll gain thrust and speed rapidly. Now is a good time to pitch up to 20 degrees, remain at 20 until you get to 10km up, then begin to pitch down, the goal is to be at 10 degrees again once you're 20km up, by then you will get up to about 1300m/s, but some desgins can get in excess of 1500m/s by pitching down to 10 when they hit 15km up though the limiting factor here is heat. The shielded docking port miraculously prevents ssto's from overheating for some reason. I would reccomended that as a nosecone, and it's also easy to dock like that anyway. Ah, back to the flight. When your craft begins to loose trust rapidly you should switch to rocket mode, pitch up and burn until desired apo. The rest is just standard orbital stuff. But not when it comes to re-entry You want to lower your periapsis to 40km if you are in low Kerbin orbit, (i mean an apoapsis of 70-100km ) You want to basically do it like the space shuttle did. Point your crafts nose 40 degrees up, this way you don't overheat or slow down to fast, you don't even need airbrakes. (Though I would reccomended them for landing!!!) You can remain at this high angle of attack until you slow down and the atmosphere becomes thick enough that you can glide back to lading. Also, if you want to land back at KSC from low Kerbin orbit, just put your 40km periapsis directly above the big peninsula west from ksc

I landed an ssto plane on duna, something I haven't done since 1.05, and as soon as my craft came to a stop on a flat surface, strange behavior happened. It was drifting left and rotating around it's front landing gear, even though steering was disabled on all gear and brakes were on at 200%.... very annoying! To make it stand still so I could time accelerate I had to gear down. Anyone else had this glitch?

My launchers are always stable, I've never had a flip problem or overheat, maybe I was playing it to safe with the throttle, so perhaps I should just let it go full power. I'll see which ends up with more dv in orbit

I would like to know, is it better/ more efficient to let the rocket stay at full throttle the entire journey, therefore letting the thrust to weight ratio go higher as the specific impulse increases and fuel drains? or is it better to throttle down as you go higher and faster, to keep TWR at the same level throughout the flight?

The reason why its slow is becaus ksp's simplified aerodynamic model treats wing lift and body lift as totally separate things, so having a plane made of all wing parts pruduces insane lift but also insane drag. I wonder if this replica flys in ferram....

Is the WIP version stable? Just wondering, as I miss those 2.5 m sabers, I wish ksp had 2.5 m rapiers man...

Need a dispenser here need a dispenser here

Got it down to 10 rapiers so far XD I will probably post it sometime later

Now I'm gonna have to fix mine to be as efficient XD

Wow only 4 rapiers and a turbojet?! And I takes orange tanks to orbit.... Wow man, it is clearely perfectly optimised! My mk3 ssto for taking 40 tons to orbit has 14 rapiers and 6 turbojets XD

does this work in 1.0.4

Fat bottomed girls they make the rockin' um, err "rocket" world go round! - "Kueen" oh dear I made another k for kerbal joke

you see ive dveloped an ssto with so much delta v once refueled, 3700+... i went to duna, did an aerocapture to get into a perfect circulat orbit, then i descended to the surface. everything looked normal for a while, the aircraft handled well. but the issue is, landing is deadly, due to the atmosphere being so thin, a safe landing speed is not obtainabl due to the plane dropping out of the sky when it gets to slow. ive found below 150m/s and thing sget hairy...

You know I love me a bit of drag reduction, just ask the RP n3 arrowhead XD

Also shift, minimizing drag using a streamlined airframe reduces the need for redicoilous amounts of engines, the craft in the op I can tell from looking at it has many large changes in cross section area so it will produce a lot of transonic/supersonic drag. Also using shock cone intakes is better because they basically have no drag due to how pointy they are, compared to the ram intakes, I find those are very draggy. I made a 45 ton payload capable ssto spaceplane which is only 130 tons... Just um.. sayin.. lol

Oh god why is everyone so damn salty... Jesus Christ people... I'm actually primarily a "console peasant" and guess what. I have a ps4. I've had Sony consoles for years ever since I was a kid. From ps1 to ps4. And some of my favorite games of all time are on playstations. I don't understand the superiority complex that a lot of people who play strictly pc games have. They seem to belive that console gamers are all whiney kids that just play cod. Jeeez. I'm a console gamer... Gues what. I have never played a single call of duty game and it doesn't interest me in the slightest. You know what, like 99% of the players I encounter online on ps4 are perfectly civil adults just playing games on console because its relaking to sit on your sofa and use a controller to play games. And guess what. My favorite game on ps4 is destiny, I absolutely love it, and can't wait for the taken king to be released for it. Yes, the devnotes were not even devnotes, but for gods sake, cut squad some slack, they have worked their asses off these past months, and they are only just getting back into regular work again. But I have to say, flying tiger looks so bad its cringey.