swjr-swis

Looks like whatever was done to get the forum back involved restoring a snapshot/backup. There's at least a couple of posts from the day before it went down I can't find anymore.

I add a zoomed in and somewhat enhanced detail pic for -slightly- more clarity. The two docking ports do appear to be the same size, aligned, and touching. That really only leaves the following possibilities: One of the two ports is attached with the front node instead of the back one. @Vanamonde mentioned this already. You should be able to check this in the SPH with the original craft file of the station and the pod (check both!). I primarily suspect the one on the station, since that port seems to be on structural plates, and the top/bottom nodes are very close to each other and easily mis-snap-connected while building. One of the two ports has some other, maybe small part, attached to its front node. It's a variation of the same thing really - the front node is the one the game checks, if that is considered 'in use' docking won't work, even if the connected part is visually moved to no longer be in front of it. A rare bug that sometimes happened (still happens perhaps?) with docking ports is that they can get in a state where the game mistakenly thinks the port already docked, but doesn't show it in the PAW. This can only be fixed through savefile editing. Been a while since I had that happen, so I don't remember the exact edit. MechJeb would only 'help' in the sense of taking away the need to align the ports manually, but from the screenshot you seem to be able to do that already. It will not solve whatever is preventing the already aligned ports to dock, and really only introduce a new set of variables to the problem.

I had plans this weekend, you know. There was a ToDo list and all. I prepared mentally and was all ready to feel accomplished before monday arrived. Mutter. A third Phantom II, you say. In Hangar 3 even. An RF-4C reconnaissance model. Ok, let's do this. I present the SWiS RF-4C Casper II (Casper, because it's the friendly ghost. Get it? Oh never mind): There is a bit of artistic license and some practical reasons for small deviations, but otherwise I kept very close to the configuration as displayed on the museum's photo's (aside from the usual part and size limitations of stock+ KSP). I think I managed the overall image of the airframe, even the cumbersome tail. No payload other than the cameras and fuel pods. So they send them all to me. That's fine, I can work with them. No trouble with STOL/carrier style departures or fast climbing with a full fuel load. It does need afterburners to punch through the sound barrier, but once there it can cruise supersonic without, for better fuel efficiency and a lower heat signature. When speed is required, we can punch the throttle and stay high and fast for the picture runs. At SWiS, we feel that pelting MiGs with sparkly snack packages does the job too. Since this was the most-requested missing feature in the early F-4 line, we included one in this model too, granting the crew 32 shots at building international relations with our airspace-invading neighbours. And it has enough range to go right around the planet, so there's no place we can't get a few good snaps of. The SWiS RF-4C Casper II. Because it's the season to spook your neighbours. And now officially, finally, truly, I also have a hangar 3 plane in. All hangars done, without needing the Missile Gallery wildcard.

779.4 m/s even, I saw on one of the freeze frames. Points! That said, I can still see you missing a few tweaks (just from what the video shows, since there's no craft file). Here's a snap of SWiS ThereIsNoTry (an educated guess-rebuild of your craft, but tweaked) to illustrate. Doing 786.8 m/s.

All three easily corrected, yes? Is it enough for that 30 m/s gap? C'mon, make it a race. P.S.: Feel free to re-purpose any of what you see in my craft. I'm seriously itching to see if that 810 m/s can be beat within the rules. Just 31 m/s more ...

Especially for @JeDoesStuff, I suboptimalized my next entry even more, getting a nifty 778.7 m/s in stable level flight at near sea-level: Equal use of wing area Even bigger landing gear (after all, "Jeb must ... land alive.") Moar intake! Because we laugh at drag. Note that I forced the wheels to retract when the cockpit closes, so they get shielded only when retracted, and only deploy when opening the cockpit, basically uncheating them (since every other stock part strictly adheres to the in-game 'malfunction when shielded' abomination rule). I could've just left them off entirely and make my life easier, but they're there pretty much for intentional Suboptimalization purposes. I name it the SWiS SubOptimal 1. g]https://i.imgur.com/Oz7j4Zn.png[/img]https://i.imgur.com/Oz7j4Zn. It take off like a plane, flies like a demon bat out of hell, and lands like .... well it lands. She's safe, see?

And even a bit more, as I'd already shown before you chimed in. So how about we stick to the challenge rules as posted?

Ok fine, I'll race you guys too. A single Juno, 2m53s to a full stop on the Island Airfield. Jeb chickened out on this one, so Val had to do it. 348 m/s before she had to cut throttle to land. Full album: https://imgur.com/a/uN2SLet Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/SWiS-YouKnow

Juno, you say? Just the one? Has to carry Jeb. Hmm. All this in stock too. Not even DLC? And you want records. Hrmpf. Actually I love that little jet. I may have played around with it a bit ... Low altitude sustained flight on a single Juno (less than 0.5 m ASL): Low tech supersonic jet plane on a single Juno (mach 1.6 or 478 m/s in sustained level flight at just under 11 km, with just the tech nodes required to unlock the Juno, 68 tech points used): https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/LT-Supersonic-II Circumnavigating Kerbin on a single Juno: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/MinCN-1885 I won't beat you guys on time, but maybe on least fuel used to get to the island? Jeb figured 1.65 units of LF should do it. https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/MinLF-165

You're reading into 'global reach' too literally. It's not about literal flight range of individual planes, but about planes that play(ed) a part in achieving and maintaining the USAF airlift, special mission, aerial refueling, and aeromedical evacuation capabilities on a global theatre of operation. At the time of introduction the Learjet 35 / C-21 had one of the best combinations of handling, range and performance, which gained it part of the line-up of planes of Air Mobility Command and the 375th Air Mobility Wing.

I suspect mostly because of missing AoI on the wings. And those intakes are unrealistically draggy even when pointing pure prograde... all the more when angled like they are. For a plane of that size and profile, a single Panther should give plenty thrust to get it to mach 2.5 and higher. What is going on lately with inserting images in posts??

Adding to @Hotel26's instruction: make a copy of the <savename>\backup folder and save it someplace else. KSP1 keeps a backup there of the last 5 (default, could be more if you changed it) persistent files. That way you can test them, starting with the most recent, and see if you can get back to a working situation without losing too much progress.

My kerbals' favourite way of celebrating ... well, anything really: challenging each other to River Runs with their latest flyable contraptions.

It's a good consideration and I know KSP's penchant for flipping control surface action in-flight as CoM shifts 'past' their hinge-line. This is however not what is at play here, and the example craft I linked shows this. The bug manifests itself in the second elevon2 from the front. If it had flipped because of CoM shift, the first one would/should have flipped as well. Were CoM shift the cause, filling the tanks to default status would flip them back again, which does not happen. (*) Repositioning the entire wing assembly -with all elevons- back and forth was attempted and had no effect on their deployment status. Even if all the above were not the case, it would still not explain, nor could it be correct behaviour, that mirror-symmetric parts suddenly deploy in a radial-symmetric manner (one up, one down), instead of mirror-symmetric (both up or down). *: I'm not even addressing here the other bug where KSP is completely inconsistent about what deployment direction a control surface defaults to, even in a series of otherwise identical, often even copied, parts.

I didn't say control surfaces, I said the craft. Although I can see how I could've worded that less ambiguously. I do however mention deployment, not control authority. I use control surfaces as wings quite regularly, because they allow setting a very specific small AoI by deploying them, something the stock rotate gizmo doesn't offer. Bonus, it also allows control of deployment, now AoI, on the fly by say, binding to up/down or fwd/bck keys in the action keys. Giving one control over lift/drag ratios in-flight. So yes, this bug shows up with deployed control surfaces, and it causes unexpected and uncontrollable roll on the plane when it happens. So maybe that's the thing I do more than others that makes me experience this bug more. Control surfaces as wings, deployed, with a small deployment angle (usually because I want something in the range of 1-3 degrees). And at some point, the game decides to make mirror-symmetric 'wings' to be deployed in opposition, as if they were placed in radial symmetry. The only fix at that point is throwing the part out, because even taking it off the plane and placing it back again will continue to give the mirror part the wrong deployment. Craft file exhibiting this bug, This one started showing the bug after I emptied the tanks to check on full/empty CoM. The bug is in the second-from-front Big-S Elevon 2. Move the deployment sliders back and forth to see it. That whole wing was 4x copy of the same set of parts, and the other three don't have the problem. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/p3nvosdunmqsnzig4i3qt/SWiS-WHA-3NS.craft?rlkey=b1xe3ee8quf3y4ax5g6cvmkof&dl=0

The 'random' part in the description kinda already gives away that a straight steps list isn't going to make it happen. Heck it happens simply loading an already existing non-edited craft sometimes. And unfortunately the first clue you get it has happened is when you take out a craft for another test and it crashes on take off because it keeps rolling instead of pitching. Best I can do is provide craft files in which it has already occurred. This happens so often though; I keep wondering how anyone else is able to fly a craft. I guess there's not many flying stock anymore.

Control surfaces randomly and spontaneously deciding (in the editor or once spawned in flight scene) to pick a different deployment direction than before, including mirror-symmetric control surfaces deploying in opposite directions - as if they had been placed in radial symmetry. Any chance that this could be looked at/fixed in KSPCF, or is that not in scope? It's a rather significant bug that once it happens, and it inevitably happens almost guaranteed while working on (space)planes, renders the craft unfliable. To say it's frustrating having this happen after a couple of hours editing a craft is an understatement.

Just above the brake setting. You can change 'invert direction' on one without affecting the other. Side effect: you can't use symmetry on the prop blades. Because why would they make it easy on us. Did I mention before how intensely I dislike KSP's implementation of props...?

I had a bit of time before bed, and I could let most of the test flight run unattended (very stable plane in cruise), so I went and tested the range. It ran out of fuel and touched down at lat 24.127 heading due west the whole time. Departure was from KSC lat -74.724, so a total of 98.851 degrees, at a median cruise altitude of say 7.5 km, which gives 1048 km in all (sea level distance 1035 km, if you prefer to count that way).. Album for the record: https://imgur.com/a/2JXTZAS I expected your plane to do better than mine, given the slightly higher cruise speed, and the generally less draggy 2.5m fuselage compared to my mk3 body, while using the same wings. You keep your throttle higher though (50% vs my 21-22%), which is a significant difference. But then you downsized your engines compared to mine. Would be interesting to see how it would do with the full-size engines and similar throttle.

Los 90 que mencionas son desde el punto justo antes de escapar Kerbin. Empezando desde órbita baja (80 km, circular), tienes que añadir los 950 que cuesta llegar al punto de escape. Y no olvides que puede costar hasta 430 más el corregir la diferencia de inclinación entre las órbitas de Kerbin y Eve. O sea que 1300-1400 no está nada mal.

I was born between Apollo 14 and 15, which makes me a Copernican (for those that practice seleneology). So, in case you ever wondered what happened with CSM-111 and LM-9... well, now you know. No badge for me, clearly. But respect to the old farts.

I don't know what 'the full run' means, but I did have this recorded a long while back. With a little later, Val trumping Jeb by going through the even tinier lvl2 tunnel... The craft flown was a reengineered iteration of Pixie's Arrowhead, if I recall correctly.

Go home, asteroid... you're drunk.

I don't see the problem; seems like it's working exactly to requirements.

The SWiS KSC crew was dismayed (and crestfallen!) at discovering post-publication that the prototype exhibited some ... operational inconveniences. The complete lack of usage instructions was also a source of some strongly-worded reprimands. The Deep-R prototype has been corrected, a brief instruction pamphlet was hastily taped to the outer hatch, and the responsible were exposed to targeted projectile pandemonium as a disciplinary measure.