swjr-swis

I disagree. I still have a perfectly well performing install of KSP on a old tiny WinXP laptop that isn't much good for anything else. It's as close to a portable/mobile version as it has ever got, and it goes with me everywhere. Sure, I've also had a modded-to-heck 64-bit install on my full-fledged gaming laptop as well, but I wasn't lugging that thing anywhere with me unless I planned to spend more than a few nights somewhere. 32-bit version had, and still has, a good use case that is regrettably being ignored.

Laythe has a 0.6 atm sea level pressure - it's thinner than Kerbin's. The entries in this thread show that on a sufficiently optimized craft drag is no longer a factor, and the constraint becomes the Juno power envelope (Mach 2.31 @ ASL apparently being the best possible result before flame out). So on Laythe, like on Kerbin, on a drag-optimized craft the highest speeds will be achieved just above sea level (dictated by its atmCurve). Mach number is directly derived from the speed of sound, which mostly follows the same curve as air temperature. Air temperature within the Juno's altitude range is highest at ASL, and is lower than Kerbin's. Given all this, it's to be expected that the Juno will flame out at a lower air speed on Laythe than on Kerbin. A quick test dropping my JunoSpeeder-3c on Laythe only yielded a 772 m/s top speed at about 50 m over the ocean surface. The real top speed is probably a bit higher since I spent no effort optimizing (wing AoI and pitch trim made a difference on Kerbin), but flame out was happening around Mach 2.29 already, so it seemed a waste of time to dedicate much effort to this. Feel free to try though, and keep us posted on the results.

You should look into 'part welding'. It makes multiple parts work as a single one, which means physics are only calculated for a limited number of parts on your craft.

It sounds desirable, and given enough computing power it would certainly make things act more intuitive/realistically. But KSP is already heavily constrained by how much physics it has to calculate every frame. Calculating thrust the way you ask would add a lot of workload to that, potentially tanking the game for many players. Physics simulations, especially in games, tend to use simplifications and shortcuts exactly because of that, so a game remains fun to play. A stock way to do this currently is to take advantage of the fact that exhaust, regardless of the width of the visible graphics used, is calculated as a razor-thin line. Place wing sections or other useful parts strategically, leaving just the tiniest gap open, and thrust is no longer blocked. So it is already possible to build 'stealthed' exhaust ports. Just mind the gimbal range. A little more difficult to use in a practical manner: exhaust damage is only calculated up to a certain maximum distance. Anything placed beyond that distance has zero effect on thrust. Finally, with a little more handywork, the engine part cfg (or the craft file) can be edited to disable exhaustDamage entirely (this is how RCS, Ant/Spider, and the Dawn ion engine are excepted from exhaust blocking).

While true, I think we can safely skip it for this challenge. Whiplash, Swivel *and* Nerv? Contestants are going to have more trouble not overbuilding things than being short on power. Spoiler:

Yes, you can. You can edit the part cfg file, search for the following parameter (or add it if it's not there): explosionPotential = 0.1 A low value will give a 'poof' dust cloud, and higher values will yield bigger explosion effects.

'Obvious' things tend to be obvious only after we're shown how it works. Nothing was wasted if it helped you progress on your mission. Asking questions and getting help is what this forum is for.

Probably the only change you need is how you fly it. You're probably trying to fly it like a spaceplane, when it's really built more like a horizontally launched rocket. There's a number of things that are 'wrong' on it for a spaceplane, but it also carries enough engine power and fuel to make it to orbit despite the design errors. Try this: Full throttle until it rolls off the runway (with the main gear so far back you won't be able to pitch up before that anyway). Then pitch up to 10-15 degrees and hold there. Don't try to adapt pitch from here on, it will only make the nose dip down. Stage Nerv when you stop accelerating. Let the rapiers auto-switch to closed cycle, or manually switch if you have set an action group for it. At this point adjust pitch slowly to prograde and set SAS to follow prograde. Cut throttle when you reach 80km apoapsis. Circularize at apoapsis. After flying a rebuilt copy of your plane like this, I still had enough fuel in orbit to do a Mun flyby, return to Kerbin and land - although the last part was very slow on just the Nerv. As for making this more into a 'real' spaceplane: CoL is too far behind CoM. This is the main cause of the problem you describe where it dips down and it takes too much effort to pitch up again. There's a lot of wing at the very back of the plane which causes this. There has to be wing sections clipped into the back end of the body too that we can't see on the images, to make the CoL so far back. Remove those, and add some more wing towards the front end. Your goal should be to get the CoL very close behind the CoM. Wings have no angle of incidence. The wings have been attached 'straight', which means they don't provide any lift when flying prograde. They need to be angled up a bit, so they generate lift while the plane's draggy body keeps pointing prograde. You can use the rotate tool, while holding shift for fine adjustment, and a single 'tick' will add a 5 degree angle. This may not be optimal but it's close enough for your first attempts. It will make the CoL drop even farther back though, so they wings will need to be ofset a bit towards the front. I count three Mk2 monoprop tanks in that fuselage. That's really two and a half too many, in a tank type that is less than optimal. Cut them out entirely, or exchange them for regular fuel, and add two FL-R25 mono tanks on one of the engine pod sets instead. Better yet, exchange them for a long Mk2 cargo bay, and now your plane can carry stuff up. Two small mono tanks can go in the cargo bay, and are plenty for any orbital maneuvers. The engines look to be 'uncapped' - they have no nose cones on the back node. Due to how KSP calculates drag, this adds unnecessary drag. Add some nose cones on their back, then offset them into the engines so they don't block the exhaust. Drag is a key factor in being able to make orbit for a spaceplane, so it's important to optimize for it. The fuel is unbalanced. Always build your spaceplanes with empty tanks first, and then place/fill tanks in such a way that the CoM stays mostly in the same place. That way the handling of your plane remains predictable regardless of how much fuel you have left. RCS/vernor thuster placing is... chaotic. It looks to have been placed for looks instead of for function, and it will likely not work correctly when you need it in orbit. Also, they add drag, so you need to ask yourself if you really need them, and if so, how to use as few of them as possible. This size/weight craft (~50t) should not need 4 rapiers to get to orbit, especially if you remove the excess monoprop. The single Nerv on the other hand makes for very slow orbital acceleration. Two and two would probably make a better mix.

I can think of several ways to do this in stock: Use a 1.25m fairing base at the end that attaches to the lab. Build the arm wit the panels and the antenna on the fairing base node. Enable the interstage nodes on the fairing. Pre-dock a small monoprop tug with probe core to the top interstage node, so you can use it to fly it out and dock it to the lab (you may need to offset the tug a bit up to be free from the antenna end, but it will work as if firmly attached). Once the arm is docked to the lab, undock your tug and it will look like your first pic. Build the tug into the antenna arm. In other words, add a small monoprop tank, a probe core and RCS thrusters to the antenna arm, so it can dock itself. Turn the antenna 90 degrees so you can add a Jr docking port to that end of the arm and dock a tug there. The last two methods are illustrated in two versions of my recreation of the Hubble telescope, HLST-1c (method 3, the antenna arms, with tugs pre-docked) and HLST-1a (the solar array arms, with built-in RCS). I don't have a quick illustration at hand for the first method, but I hope the explanation is clear.

This thread has a screenshot and even detailed info on what caused the bug:

An SAS that doesn't try to kill our kerbals would be nice. It went all HAL on us a couple of major versions ago and needs to become usable again.

Kerbal cloning by merely exiting a pod. Kerbal launching by merely exiting a pod. Synchronized space swimming: SAS of a nearby craft in space that would mirror/mimic your every attitude adjustment. Camera that would suddenly start to zoom away from the craft in the middle of flight because the game was tracking a 'ghost' center of mass instead of the actual one. I think due to separating a shroud or fairing? Floating dentures: used to be we could zoom in enough to see our EVA kerbal's teeth. Asteroid teleportation: certain scene switches used to cause the flight view camera to focus on a random uncontrolled/unrendezvoused asteroid. Valentina's miraculous space-resistance: she used to have no visible glass in her helmet, while floating in the game menu. Darkness of the Deep: getting below a certain threshold depth in the seas would drop us into complete darkness. I don't have the opportunity at the moment to match the above with footage or version numbers... work is beckoning in only 3.5 hours more and I need to fit in a bit of sleep in there somewhere. But maybe others can fill in for my lapse.

So for 1.8... you're introducing actual one-part bearings, and real skids, and generic tiny bumper parts, to 'balance' for the loss of the high crash tolerance of the ports and vernors... right? I'm going to pout a bit now.

That still happens, constantly. When debris from craft crashing anywhere near KSC get a certain distance away from where the game things your craft 'died', it has a high probability of losing touch with gravity and floating off in random directions.

It is indeed. As Barzon mentioned, the sepratron pods on the wing tips safely get the vehicle to enough altitude to transition into a glide and a soft landing (or with one more staging event, on chute, for those so inclined). I tested this from ground level, without the benefit of the launch vehicle altitude, which is a worse situation than should ever occur during launches. I tested at max Q (~10km up on a typical gravity curve) as well. Those are the two most critical points - every other moment during ascent (short of an unpredictable direct Kraken attack) is easier and safer to abort from.

Mainly, it looks like you're carrying way too much fuel for what that plane is meant to do. Even if you carry dense overweight payload in that cargo bay (like full ore tanks), it should be able to make orbit on a lot less fuel. Aside from that: control surfaces add drag too, so cutting down to the bare essentials will help as well. Try emptying your tanks completely and add only just enough LF to keep your jets running until they flame out on ascent (add a notch or two extra for contingency and for powered landing on reentry). Then add just enough LF+O for the aerospikes to take it to orbit, a midge more for orbital maneuvers, and another drop or two for the deorbit burn. At this point you may need to add a little extra LF, as the added weight will make the jet run longer. You will probably find the plane can reach orbit, deliver payload, and return safely without needing to fill all those tanks. That'll allow you to remove some of those tanks (and dead weight, and drag) and further optimize your design. Oh and add some (more) angle of incidence to your wings. The prograde marker being below the flight direction is a dead giveaway that you lack lift and/or incidence on the wings. This is the typical situation where the Mk2 fuselage suffers most from drag.

Time permitting I'm willing to look at it. Perhaps something like this? Craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/afrj6cngv56j0io/Dream Chaser II.craft?dl=0 Problem is that it's still a good bit too heavy for the Muon 6, so launches will be less frequent and considerably more expensive, not even counting the man rating cost. It looks good and works well, mind you, but I'd still strongly suggest going with something that can be lifted on a Muon (iow something that weighs 8 tonnes or less). P.S.: to answer a question about the lacking angle of incidence on the wings - this is completely intentional. This vehicle will never need to push itself supersonic or fly itself to orbit, so it gains little benefit from a flight-optimized lift/drag ratio. In fact the main problem becomes to minimize the wing/body lift generated during a typical gravity curve. Angle of incidence on the wings would add a strong force high up in the stack pushing away from pure prograde, making it very unstable and potentially flipping the launch stack. So in this particular case, that one tweak is skipped.

I uploaded an alternative design, the Wisp 2b. Let me know if it meets your requirements. It's yours to use and/or finalize.

Not exactly how you worded it before though. Now you're saying that it's not necessary for the Law to actually say you can do it, it can also just be inferred/implied indirectly. Something else then: does it also state anywhere that citizens/residents are allowed to wear clothes? T-shirts and even underwear may be implicitly outlawed by not being specifically mentioned anywhere. We can probably go on back and forth like this for a bit, but pretty inevitably we're going to encounter something we all take for granted as permitted that is not explicitly or indirectly mentioned in your code of laws. That's rather the eternal problem with lawmaking: you can't ever anticipate everything that people can come up with to do or try. So to say 'you can do anything as long as the law says you can' is inevitably going to leave gaps of things lawmakers forgot to think about giving people permission to do. P.S.: I'll concede the wager on the indirect 'permission'. I owe you a beverage.

I don't want to get into this debate, but this part puzzles me. If it is literally the way you describe it: can you quote us the exact article in your local lawbook that gives you permission to breathe? I'm no lawyer, but I am willing to wager a beverage of choice that you'll find no such article. So is the entire country in violation for 'unsanctioned survival activities'?

I encounter this with some regularity too. Not a bug, just how the part parenting system works... but it does come with consequences in flight, as you describe. Perhaps rather than re-rooting manually, it could be alleviated a lot if we were able to assign 'root priority' in the editor, much like naming priority works these days. So when the craft separates, an automatic re-rooting takes place based on which part was assigned to be the next highest prio root.

You didn't. I'm disappoint. Guess I'll have to double it myself. I'll settle for first place (again) with a 1.82 second run, with the fittingly versioned 5G. Full album: https://imgur.com/a/BH0q3vB Craft file (not on KerbalX cause it's just silly now): https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wuifcuvsuzvwx5/The Egg 5G.craft?dl=0

Nah, I'm not a fan of the things. Too many parts required, not stable during warp, etc etc, and really just a constant reminder of one of the major missing things in KSP: a single-part stock bearing. I just really wanted the Kerman Flyer to specifically use props, so I reused and tweaked one of my own little experiments for it. It's very stable and does the job for the Flyer, but that's as far as I'll go. There's other people out there who practically make a career out of stock props that have tried all sorts of designs and techniques. Do a search for the phrases 'stock prop' or 'stock bearing' and you'll get enough hits to be reading and experimenting for a while.

KerbalX counts 360 sepratrons.

Actually, I decided to add some wheels instead. Presenting The Egg 5f - running the 1km in 1.92 seconds. Full album: https://imgur.com/a/Qqp27o3 Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/The-Egg-5f I had to temporarily install the BetterTimeWarp mod as well as Races to get the darn thing to register a time... had to slow down time to 0.25x for it to even see the checkpoint. But there you go, a proper Nr 1 spot for a proper wheeled drag race car.