swjr-swis

I really liked the wing assembly of this one, so I rebuilt it off this screenshot to try it out. Ended up tinkering and tweaking, and @AMA PR0 graciously allowed me to share my results: Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/AMAPRO2a More pics: https://imgur.com/a/6Pbba1Y Original concept: @AMA PR0 (I hope to see more in the future!)

@ZinkBot: it's a permission error. I get the following message trying to access that URL: 403. That’s an error. Your client does not have permission to get URL You need to edit the permissions of the image file to share it. This is not done by default.

Copying and pasting the VESSEL{ } and KERBAL{ } blocks is straightforward enough. Search by 'name = <shipname>', check any 'crew = <kerbalname>' lines and copy&paste the corresponding KERBAL{ } blocks. The VESSEL and PART identifiers are generated in a way to be very unlikely to clash between saves; if they do it's going to be a very tedious edit anyway. Of course all that is assuming a stock game. I don't know what mods do with the save file that might interfere.

Thus starts the effort to triangulate Kerbol's location relative to Sol...

I haven't seen the KerbalX site stumble over image size yet. In any case, the thumbnails are created 'on the fly' as a downsized version of the image you select. I think the error stems from something other than size. Can you give the url to the image you wanted to use as thumbnail?

You probably didn't scroll enough down the pick list; you can go back as far as 1.0.5. They leave only the last minor patch of each version, and they never added anything older than 1.0.5.

What really, really scares me, is that they added a regular kerbal in the last picture... for scale.

The good news: this is not a bug, it's an intentional change they made recently. The even better news: they made it an optional setting, so you can change it back to how it worked before. If you go to Settings from the main game menu, and look at the very last setting in the left row of the 'General' tab, you'll notice: 'Kerbals stop at end of ladder', default to ON. Just click to disable, and you got the old behaviour back.

I'm thinking at this point we still know extremely little about what we're actually going to get with the base game, let alone any potential DLC. How about we first see if they can deliver on the main product, before -effectively- pre-purchasing any add-ons. I've become very pragmatic, perhaps to the point of cynical, about software in general and games in particular. The whole mentality that it's impossible to deliver a bugfree or feature-complete product (so why even try) is too damn prevalent and accepted in this industry. Which in turn makes me extremely reticent about committing ahead of time on what I am willing to pay for a product, or how much of it I will want to deal with. I have all but stopped buying any pre-1.1 product anymore; I never buy any 'season pack' or 'deluxe version' until it's definitely clear what is going to be included or not in it. KSP2 isn't even in alpha state yet, let alone a playable demo of any kind. Let's see what we actually get first; then we can talk about how much I'll spend on it, or if there's even any point at all in getting whatever DLC they come up with.

The answer is simple: no. I'm usually one to say that as long as a certain add-on feature is made configurable/optional, I'm ok with it being added. But despite saying that people would get to choose, you then specify that the only actual choice would be between using a real-scale or a stock-scale REAL system. So basically people will still be forced to play in a non-kerbol system, just the scale would differ. Again... no. The second reason is because of the sheer amount of changes required to effectively implement and play RSS. Practically *everything* about the game gets changed to make it happen. With all the implications for code complexity, performance, and reliability. As a self-inflicted mod set, people have to actively choose for themselves if they feel like bearing that potential impact to their game. Making it stock, no one gets a choice, even the large group who will not ever play that mode. So, no. (* Hats off nonetheless for what the mod authors have achieved with it so far) Third reason is the difference in overall ideology/direction between what the stock game wants to be, and what RSS wants to be. It's hard enough -evidenced by the current state of the game- to consistently implement ONE vision about how a game should be/look/behave. Now try that while keeping to TWO almost diametrically opposed visions, on almost every single aspect. No, thank you very much, no. RSS is exactly where it needs to be: as a mod. I can freely choose to play it whenever I want, without any impact to when I DON'T want to play it. Keep it that way.

Educated guess: the entire center column of tanks of that craft is the payload, seeing as it is attached by docking port (guessing it ends in one too). Would be pretty much exactly 1258 t, give or take 150kg.

If your rocket is flipping once out of the atmosphere, that indicates either an offset thrust vector (and insufficient gimbal to compensate), or a control point that isn't pointing in the same direction as your first stage.

I remember there being such a tool on a website somewhere, but KerbalX isn't it. I think it was on the site of the HyperEdit mod?

, said no successful rocket designer ever. Are you sure you meant to say CoM (center of mass)? You *want* the CoM to be as far forward (the end pointing towards space) as possible with rockets. Heavy stuff at the front, draggy stuff at the back, basically. Flipping mid-flight happens when the CoM is -or moves- too far down/back (the end where the fire comes out), because the drag forces become overwhelming and 'pull' everything back that isn't powering through by sheer momentum (making aerospace engineers everywhere cringe right now, but the mental image works for me).

I'm all for it. As soon as they have the finished, polished, and reasonably bug-free GAME out, I'll vote for them to work full steam on the SIMULATOR. Not before.

Unbridled optimism. I salute you.

The link to the latest leads to this github archive: https://github.com/Sujimichi/CraftManager/releases/download/1.2.0/CraftManager.zip . Does that work for you? I get no errors from the download button on that page. At what point in this sequence do you get the error: Craft Manager Download

All three images are equally accessible as far as I can tell, so it should be possible to use any of them as the thumbnail. I've created a report on the KX site itself to investigate this.

There is a link on the About page with a space, which gives an error. But the Craft Manager download page is still there. Try this link for the correct download page: https://kerbalx.com/CraftManager

Yes, there are ways. That and more, in fact. Just one recent example I can find in a quick search on the KerbalX craft share site: the Titan v2. Replicas in (stock) KSP are not easy: due to the limited set of parts and different scales of kerbals, vehicles and solar system, you will find yourself struggling to find the right combination of size, looks, and functionality. For replicas, looks are often the most important parameter (size following closely), in which case you'll inevitably have to compromise on functionality. It's generally accepted that replicas require using special techniques, like clipping and craft file editing, to compensate. No one will fault you for that. For this project specifically: if you wish to hold onto the relative size and power of the entire rocket, there really isn't a stock engine that looks much like the RD-270 on the first stage of the UR-700, or that delivers the relative power required. The Rhino, as others have already mentioned, was re-engineered at some point by Squad to be specifically a vacuum engine, and won't give you the raw ASL lift-off power that you would need. The properly powered ASL alternatives, like the Vector and the Mammoth, when placed by themselves, change the engine looks a lot. Building a notch smaller (2.5m), you have the Mainsail at your disposition, which is a proper ASL engine, but looks a little less like the RD-270. You'll have to decide what is important to you in this project. If you want to hold onto the looks and sheer size of the original, you could choose to clip a Vector into each Rhino, in such a way that the bells end at the same level (to avoid them obstructing each others' thrust). You'll end up with very powerful ASL thrust, and unless someone looks directly into the bell, you should get a very convincing effect.

I don't vote on public polls, but my list would be: bug fixes. bug fixes. bug fixes. Preferably in that order of priority. Going beyond that, the only other thing I can think of that I'd really want, is bug fixes. But only if there's any spare development time after the above.

Craft files can become corrupted in a way that leaves KSP in a bugged state. Unless you are inclined to edit the craft file manually to fix whatever is broken, you won't have much choice other than to start from scratch.

I take from the above that the many tips given on your previous thread on this matter were either not to your liking or inapplicable to your needs, and that the working no-flatspin variant I made of your shuttle also doesn't meet your requirements. Much of what was said and shown in that thread is generally applicable to any shuttle-type craft. Since you are posting again asking for new feedback on basically the same matter, even if it is for a different shuttle, it would help to know what made the previous feedback not fit your design parameters (or your mission objectives). So we can avoid repeating the same advice.

Perhaps relevant: See also:

If so, we are deviating from what I asked. I know there are solutions that do not keep the regular tetrahedron configuration intact at all times. This is why I keep telling you to mentally reorientate the system (or your observational point of the system) to make one of the orbits equatorial. It's quite easy to see then that regardless your choice of inclinations or angular positions, the distance is a right (sorry, English is only my third language) triangle with the base in the equatorial orbit, the standing face an orthogonal projection onto the plane of that orbit, and the distance the hypotenuse of that triangle. I should've said the points of intersection of their orbits (which when reorientating the system is the AN/DN of one of the satellites).