swjr-swis

Hola @IlCapo. Un poco más de información que te puede ayudar a decidir que hacer para el próximo paso: La tabla de experiencia del KSP Wiki, que deja ver cuantos puntos de experiencia reciben los kerbals por cada cosa que llegan a hacer en la esfera de influencia de cada cuerpo celeste. Dentro del juego en la KSPedia, bajo el tema Career/Kerbal Experience (o Carrera/Experiencia Kerbal si ya estás probando el 1.2.9 en español), encontrarás una tabla que explica qué aptitudes gana un kerbal con cada nivel (Level and Roles, o Niveles y funciones). Combinando esa información, podemos deducir que no hace falta ir a otros planetas para alzar al nivel 3 a los kerbals. Ya que se necesitan 16 puntos de experiencia para alcanzar el nivel 3, lo que se puede hacer (planeándoselo, hasta en un solo viaje): ponerlos en órbita de Kerbin +2xp (*) posarse en la Muna +4.6xp posarse en Minmus +5.75xp salir lo justito de la esfera de influencia de Kerbin como para que registre una órbita alrededor del Sol +6xp e inmediatamente frenar para volver a Kerbin y aterrizarlos sanos y salvos - un total de 18.35xp O sea, que ni se necesita poder salir de la cabina para poner la bandera, 'simplemente' posarse un momento en cada luna es suficiente. (*: Y estrictamente no se necesita ni hacer órbita de Kerbin porque un solo punto menos no nos impide llegar al nivel 3; o sea, que si quieres tirar directamente a la Muna desde el lanzamiento, también se puede.) Si por ahora solo te interesa el nivel 2 (8 puntos de xp), no hace falta ni posarse en las lunas: orbitar Kerbin +2xp orbitar la Muna +3xp orbitar Minmus +3.75xp Mucho éxito con tu carrera.

If your game is modded, it's likely some mod that removes this effect then. In pure stock (1.2.2), engines can definitely launch kerbals.

Not sure why you need a mod for this, stock works just fine:

I like Dres. It's nice and quiet, away from main inter-planetary traffic lanes, it has its own infinite supply of orbital asteroids to play with, reasonable gravity... perfect place for an evil lair a base of operations.

The Kerman sisters take their Flyer out to the western desert. Unexpectedly, it kept flying at night... (The rotors do run out of battery at night, but that just makes them no longer respond to commands... they keep running.)

Other than the crew at the KSC and a handful of recruits (from the KSC janitors crew), the entirety of the kerbal race is floating somewhere in space after they all decided at one point to 'see what's up there'. This is the real reason the space program was needed: to regulate and keep track of launches and stop kerbals from marooning themselves, and now of course, to rescue the ones already out there.

It means simply to stage it - as opposed to activating it through rightclick and the part action menu.

That sounds like you found out from experience...

Perhaps with the missions expansion coming up, and the part failures they have mentioned, Mission Control becomes more pivotal. Obviously 'missions' beg for a tie in to that building, but perhaps the way we get notified of part failures could also come from there. There's definitely potential.

Ok, I added the specified pics to the imgur album and pasted the link. Video is rendering added, and I'll add the craft file next too so is the craft file.

Here's my entry, the IslandSpeeder1: pure stock, 39 parts, 3.939t, carries 4 kerbals in command seats, Juno-powered (4 hover, 3 propulsion). The album containing pics of the run itself (and the pics above): The video: Points (2700?): Made it to the island runway in 3:10, and back to the KSC launchpad in 07:00. +1000 Service ceiling of 12101m. +100 Carried a 2nd kerbal in tandem (two, actually). +100 Carried another kerbal alongside. +100 For now, the fastest recorded speed of 406.3m/s. +100 For now, the altitude record of 12101m. +100 (F3 claimed 12102, but in the video I only see 12101 reached) For now, longest distance traveled, 328524m. +100 Craft can sail on the water. +100 Craft is a fully functional submersible. +500 Achieved supersonic speed. +500 No circumnavigation. No space. No orbit. No orbit record. 0 Best looking? Will have to wait until there are more entries. Penalties (0?): No wheels. No lifting surfaces. No mods, control or otherwise. No RTG or LV-N. Definitely a hover vehicle. 0 There is some part clipping, mostly for aesthetics flight/hover balance. Up to you whether you feel it's excessive, I don't know how that's judged. It has a very effective airbraking system, without using actual airbrakes. VTOL lateral speed nullification, hover mode, and landing are about as easy as can be in stock (assisted with a Jr docking port). It can stay mostly intact and protect all 4 kerbals after fully unpowered drops from 1250m, hitting the ground at 85m/s (How I know? Fuel ran out a couple of times while still more than a km above ground, heh ). Not bad for a quickly slapped together ship to get me through a sleepless night. This was fun! Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/IslandSpeeder1

I used to do that. I've since accepted that 'magnetic clamping' is a Real Thing, attach them directly in the lifter and then pull them as far out as the (augmented) offset limits will allow.

Yes to extending arms: first click attaches them to the craft and goes into 'extension mode', second click to decide how far out the base goes; the arm can be procedurally generated. Oh, one can dream... Yes on the crew loader too, preferably with a door/hatch on ground level. I wouldn't even mind if all it was is an integrated ladder running up the inside of the clamp 'tower'... they're hollow structures anyway. (And yes on the launchtower! Make it be on huge tracks and adapt to the width of the craft on the pad. It doesn't even need to be animated, just spawn at the right distance with the craft (the Engineer's Report knows how 'wide' a craft is before the launch, so the information required is there for the using). Anyway, don't get me started. Insomnia is a bad thing.

In the historical code, you'll also find airbrakes had the option to stop reacting to pitch/yaw inputs once in space. That seems to be in the same vein as these and perhaps worth including.

https://github.com/ClawKSP/KSP-Stock-Bug-Fix-Modules/tree/master/Source That there is it, isn't it? C# is not my forté, but I browsed the code. Oddly enough there doesn't seem to be any statements in the latest revision that affect the control surface movement in the way discussed here. So I dug deeper and checked the history, and sure enough, it's there in older versions: private float vacuumRange = 1.0f; // disables flight controls when in vacuum (...) if (FlightGlobals.getStaticPressure(part.transform.position) < 0.001f) { vacuumRange = 0.01f; } ctrlSurfaceRange = ControlSurfaceModule.ctrlSurfaceRange; ControlSurfaceModule.ctrlSurfaceRange = ctrlSurfaceRange * Authority * vacuumRange; (...) if (FlightGlobals.getStaticPressure(part.transform.position) < 0.001f) { if (vacuumRange > 0.01f) { vacuumRange -= 0.05f; } else { vacuumRange = 0.01f; } } else { if (vacuumRange < 1.0f) { vacuumRange += 0.05f; } else { vacuumRange = 1.0f; } } ControlSurfaceModule.ctrlSurfaceRange = ctrlSurfaceRange * Authority * vacuumRange * Mathf.Sign(ControlSurfaceModule.ctrlSurfaceRange); So the code was in there but was removed at one point, not sure why (*), and the OP was not updated to reflect that. But as @StahnAileron mentions, the above code excerpts probably would need adapting to the 1.2 framework (and soon now, 1.3, whenever it drops) to work anyway. *: I only found the following in the release thread: Looks like it was a quick stopgap measure with the intention to add it back in soon... and then it never was.

Check out the following mods, that already did this: https://spacedock.info/mod/137/Discontinued Parts And maybe @JMBuilder can cooperate with you on this, you seem to have slightly overlapping interests/goals:

A few tips: It helps a lot to pack a very weak engine of some sort in your final payload (the satellite), like a linear RCS port (monoprop), ion engine (xenon gas and EC), or Spider/Ant (LFO). At KEO altitudes, most engines have way too much thrust and even tiny taps of acceleration can overshoot the target Ap/Pe by a lot. Additionally, it helps to fine tune the final orbit if once you have Ap/Pe roughly right, you rightclick your engine and lower the thrust to the very minimum of 0.5. This should allow to get Ap/Pe within even 1m of accuracy, no matter how light your payload is.

@Claw's Stock Bug Fixes (or more accurately, the StockPlus part of it) already added this functionality, I think both for control surfaces and engine gimbals (not mentioned in the description, but I seem to remember seeing it in 1.1.3): The thread doesn't seem to have anything newer than for 1.1.3. But you could have a peek at that code if you plan taking it on yourself.

Even discounting pilot error or tiny deviations of the perfect heading, SAS itself adds perturbations, unfortunately. Especially when trying to keep pointed prograde or retrograde, it has a tendency of starting a self-amplifying swing about the marker, which at high speeds can very quickly swing it beyond control.

I was not submitting an entry; I was answering Flamingo about the possible top speed.

Since apparently it's required to be very explicit: THIS IS NOT AN ENTRY. It just merely shows the possible top speed for this 'plane', which is the stock lightest mk0 option and the most viable to get the best score with (with the Oscar-B tank it's the same weight, but due to shorter length and drag/body lift it makes the craft less controlable). Speed can be pushed to 815m/s or so by setting SAS to prograde and skimming the ocean surface. So it's just a matter of who's willing to spend enough tries to record that and the mountain landing in a single run. I had one run but I fumbled the keys when it was already softly down and it scraped enough over the surface to blow up the engine... not going to try again. Btw, dry mass is 375kg.

Launching a close-to-finished rocket or spaceplane, wondering why engines are sputtering at staging, reverting, checking all fuel lines/crossfeeds but not finding any reason why it should not work, replacing all engines just in case cause it might be some 'weird bug', tear my hair out as it still fails after several reverts and checks....... .... ..finally remembering I had emptied all tanks to check CoM position when empty. Sigh.

If you are positive that it's a bugged mission, you can mark it as complete in the Debug Menu (Alt-F12 on Windows), under 'Contracts/Active' click 'Complete' on the contract in question.

True, but there are plenty of small and thin parts we manage to click and place just fine (TR-XL separator, TR-2C/V, radial decouplers, small hardpoint, struts and fuel lines, etc). This could be further mitigated by removing the fairing shell animation effect in the editor (exploding the fairing segments when the cursor gets near) and just leaving the transparency effect - with the shell staying in place, the entire shell could potentially be made clickable. The exploding/expanding animation is pretty eyecandy but not very practical, and frankly the niftiness of the effect has long subsided for me and now it is just a nuisance (it can randomly be in the way of attaching parts or struts because the expansion of shell segments is very hard to control and is never quite identical on all sides of the fairing), aside from being one of the factors causing high CPU/GPU usage in the editor.

Considering the size of some of the explosions on the launchpad, it's not entirely beyond the realm of possibilities a rover got 'launched' in an unexpectedly creative manner...