swjr-swis

W00t! Can't wait for the final release repatched update of 1.2.3 !

Muy guapo y bién parecido, de hecho todos. Me gusta en especial el que no añadiste, el B1 Lancer.

I wouldn't mind an LFO version of this part. In which case, I too think it would fit the (weak) stock convention of using that marking to denote the difference between the LF and LFO versions. Other than that, I'm not particularly bothered by the visial the way it is now.

Eso era exáctamente lo que pretendía empezando el video desde ese ángulo; misión cumplida. Hay que decir que en realidad es una monstruosidad: no tiene absolutamente nada de práctico, y por alguna razón que todavía no entiendo del todo, el lado izquierdo sigue perdiendo la rigidez que necesita y se hace una pesadilla de volar - sospecho que al plantar las piezas de las 'patas' en simetría, a veces se espeja solamente el modelo gráfico y no la conexión (lo cual sería un bug, pero estoy todavía comprobando). Tengo una idea de como evitar ese problema, pero me lo estoy planteando un poco porque require rehacerla casi de zero, y esta versión ya me costó una noche entera. Con 1.2 ya a la vuelta de la esquina, quizás conviene un poquito más de paciencia: tiene potencial. Pero espero ver más capítulos de las explotaciones y exploraciones de tus kerbonautas, y de las naves que usan. Con todo mi supuesto 'superdiseño', notarás que pocos de ellos salen de la atmósfera de Kerbin, déjate llegar a otros cuerpos celestes...

En honor de 2 años de existencia del sitio KerbalX.com, un vuelo conmemorativo: Un video de la nave despegando: https://www.dropbox.com/s/d4ielmck1c5xdp5/KSP113-KerbalX-Logo-00a-takeoff.mp4?dl=0 Atterizando: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ckucvsci0ks8qm4/KSP113-KerbalX-Logo-00d-landing2.mp4?dl=0 El archivo de la nave se encuentra aquí: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/KerbalX-Logo-00

A few. Personally, I have a much better non-collision record by making sure the boosters don't rotate at all when staged. So a bit contrary to what others here are saying, my nr. 1 tip would be: remove/avoid any source of rotations as best you can. Know where the CoM is of your boosters, and place the SRB CoM centered on the radial decouplers - then offset the decouplers as needed to adjust the height of the SRBs. This way when they get the kick from the decouplers, there will be no rotation and they should 'fall' straight down without risking collisions. A single trut at either end of the booster is usually enough to stop them from wildly wobbling or swaying about when they flame out, which is another source of unwanted rotations. Even then and especially with high TWR SRBs, give the ship a few moments between flameout and decoupling to allow even small oscillations caused by the sudden drop in thrust to die out. Following the prograde indicator into a gravity turn is good practice for lots of reasons, but it also helps with safe release of SRBs: try to be as close on the prograde vector as you can when you release them, to avoid drag from causing (often asymmetrical) rotations. Around the time you release SRBs drag tends to be a major force and can easily nullify any other attempts at a controlled release. If boosters/SRBs appear to be gaining some kind of unwanted rotation no matter what you do, try to separate them more from the center stage - especially the engines. There are a number of parts/engines in KSP that have an invisible collision mesh bigger than the visible surfaces, which means that placing them in the default spot the editor places them has them already colliding, even though visibly there appears to be enough separation (Mammoth and Twin-Boar in particular are notorious for this). The result is that at decoupling, things immediately get a kick from that engine and often the induced rotation is exactly the one you don't want. If you feel you really need a bit of rotation to pull the SRB tip away from the center stage: a single fin on the bottom outside of the SRB, due to the induced drag, can be just enough to do this. Sepratrons should be a last resort, in my opinion. They add drag, mass and part count, it can take some tweaking to ensure the rotation they create doesn't overdo it, there's a risk of damaging other parts, and they won't always overcome the problems mentioned above. If you do use them, since you often have to tweak anyway, consider minimizing the solid fuel they pack and limit the thrust.

Try the in-game tutorials. A lot of work was done on updating and expanding them. Also, there's an in-game KSPedia now with a good set of explanatory diagrams and articles. Definitely worth it if you're restarting since 1.0.

Looking at it now that I've had some rest (it was one of those sleepless nights), I notice that the K is too narrow and the R too wide. I'll have to find some time to tweak that; I need to get a bit more sleep first. The gear was a bit of a nightmare: I ended up having to use several sets of the largest ones to stop the random explosions. That size just barely fits within the fairing diameter, and they are not steerable, so it gets tricky if you touch down even slightly misaligned (thankfully it decellerates really good). Keeping the outline of the logo as 'unspoiled' as possible from engines, exhaust, wings, or other dangly stuff was a bit of a puzzle. Angling the jets hides them from sight when looking top-down, gives it a bit of VTOL/STOL ability and provides for most of the lift, which allowed me to basically do without wings other than the letter segments. I'm playing pure stock these days, so no EEX, which means I had no choice but to use girders to attach the letters, but that's about the biggest concession I was willing to make to structural integrity over visuals. If I ever load up with EEX again, I may redo a version without the girders. Once a day is plenty, it's not crucial information, you made the right call there. But my OCD is happy now!

@katateochi Couldn't send you cake, so I made you a thing: Craft file -how could it not- is of course available on KerbalX. It is flyable: it can take off from the runway, can reach speeds of up to 310m/s, get up to at least 16km, and it can land again safely. Just be careful in the turns, it's not particularly stable: it's easy to spin out and difficult to recover. Other than that, enjoy! P.S.: Btw, I saw from the statistics page that KerbalX had 10526 craft available, so I went to a bit of trouble to get a screenshot with exactly 10527 on the altimeter... only to discover that the statistics did not update once I uploaded this. I guess the stats are cached and don't update live? Which probably means this craft is not actually nr. 10527. Oh well, I tried.

Thanks @katateochi for creating and maintaining the hands down most awesome place to host our KSP craft files. On to the 20000!

<biting tongue>

Yes, you can open the craft page, then upload the corrected craft file again as normal. The site will recognize it's the same name and will ask you if you wish to replace it.

"The line must be drawn he-arr! This far, no further!"

Apparently though, climbing down is another story... Poor Kitty Kerman.

"Relax RIC, we won't sue over those green cuties setting up house on another planet." (translation: our lawyers told us they're too different for any real chance of getting a settlement out of this) - EA

The culprit is the current implementation of SAS: in most circumstances, enabling anything other than 'stability' mode, SAS basically never succeeds at pointing at the node you requested, instead entering an eternal state of correcting-but-never-quite-getting-there. This happens no matter the size of the craft, it is just less noticeable with larger craft. Two workarounds for the wasteful monoprop usage: as stated by the others, you can manually disable RCS when you're close enough. Or you can rightclick tweak the RCS thrusters to NOT work for craft reorientation at all; let reaction wheels do that for you (but mind the EC usage, and SAS will still fail at orienting accurately at nodes), and use RCS only for translations. I feel the reaction wheel 'cheat' is currently warranted considering the game forces me to deal with untrustworthy SAS to begin with; dev notes give us some hope that 1.2 may bring improvement.

Maybe, but only as a per save-game toggleable option, not tied to difficulty level. Iow: I would like to be able to select a 'hard' game without it automatically meaning I have to deal with LS. At other times, I want to toggle on LS on an 'easy' game. Or, and I don't see anyone mentioning this: I want to be able to 'do' LS in a sandbox game when the fancy strikes me. I have moods; they swing, and are not necessarily rational; my game should accommodate for this one absolute and universal law. It should be tweakable: how fast resources are used/accumulated (not at all to wait where did the suplies go), how hard it is to generate new supplies/recycle waste (not at all to help, the gantry is overflowing), end result of being out of supplies for too long (meh i can suck on a potatoroid to please put my teddy in my space coffin) I consider Life Support to be only about 'stuff-needs' (stuff my kerbals need to eat/breathe/osmose/evacuate/exude for their bodies to keep functioning), to be distinguished from 'comfort-needs' (conditions or activities my kerbals need to maintain a content and productive attitude). 'Comfort-needs' should be its own thing, separately toggleable and tweakable.

La oveja negra de la familia de Jeb...

First impression at seeing this pic was a Kraken arm grabbing the ship...

About 90:10 building to flying. I guess I'm an engineer at heart. Every now and then though, I do spent most of my session flying, for hours and hours at a time. Almost invariably this happens with atmospheric craft: I end up very pleased with a design and how it flies, decide to slap on some external seats (despite the probe core) and take Val and the boys on a sightseeing trip to one of the poles or to see the temple or the old KSC... only to discover that with the kerbals in the seats it won't go any faster than 100m/s or so, but now I made up my mind and this trip is happening, darn it.

Alternatively, you can right click the chute and set the pressure (usually can slide it all the way to the right) and altitude (1000-1500m, but check your landing trajectory doesn't point to mountains) to something sane so it will wait to deploy until its low and slow enough. That way you do not even need to worry about staging manually.

Yes, in fact you can say that. The first successful planes looked very much like oversized kites with a seat for a reason. They used the same type of structure and even materials, because these were the forms and materials that had up to that point been proven to take to the sky and even generate enough 'pull' to lift people from the ground. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Hargrave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Franklin_Cody

¿Nadie más? Qué tal un OVNI: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/UFO-Mk2

Siendo un hilo de la sección española, obviamente mi primer entrada no puede ser otra que la nave escudo Kerbo-Hispana: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/Nave-Escudo-KH

It makes the whole process of uploading, showcasing and sharing a craft simple and easy. And it does this for the other side too: searching/browsing and downloading, which don't even need registering. Very rare thing these days for a website to just be simple and effective at their intended task. (* from the viewpoint of the user; I recognize that sometimes, making it look simple requires a lot of complex code).