swjr-swis

An entry on a hybrid concept, taking advantage of the high fuel efficiency of jets to take care of the first stage at a fraction of the fuel cost of a rocket: Some more pics of the ascent and closeup of the final stage in orbit in the album: https://imgur.com/a/fgohp 1st stage uses a set of Juno jets with just enough LF to get to their ceiling. 2nd stage uses two Spider rockets. 52.60 units of fuel on the pad, 52.57 units used to get a 70x72km orbit. I think this rocket can probably do it with about 50-51 units. One attempt landed me on a 72x94km orbit, but used up all fuel because I fumbled the cut-off. I may try again, but for now the above is my entry.

Next upcoming patent: rainbow keyboards that vary the colour of the text depending on the pressure of the keyclick...

I'll accept @foamyesque's entry as proof by proxy, if you will.

Sorry, I couldn't read you cause you didn't type hard enough...

Is this a clipping thing? The claw's analogy to the wheels 'Gear blocked:yes'?

Call me an optimist, but I departed from the thought that there's going to be only a few things that we take for granted on the PC/Mac that can't (easily/commonly) be done on the consoles. I figured that would be a much shorter list, thus more efficient to make into a post/howto and to quickly reference when responding in aid, than the reverse. Not much point in listing everything that the game can do or that can be done with the game... those of us that have been using the game on PC/Mac already know all that can (potentially) be done, we already expect those same possibilities to be there. The whole point was, the few unexpected/unanticipated things caused by the differences in platform. So we don't frustrate them or ourselves giving impossible instructions or asking for things they can't provide.

ding ding ding! How about @vmo11?

A stock method not requiring any mods: Put an orange tank (or a Kickback SRB if you feel you might miss it) on wheels with a probe core, drive it to the very end of the runway, park it across and set brakes. Go back to the SPH, load your record runner, launch. Throttle to max, keep the runner on the runway, and make no attempt at lift off. Enjoy the explosions. Check F3 for the exact speed at the end of the runway. Rinse and repeat to improve on record.

Relevant: Pressure sensitive keyboards exist and are for sale. There is a patent application for pressure sensitive keyboards. Emotion recognition through pressure sensitive keyboards is now a field of study. And so is authentication.

Sorry. @spacegenius up next.

I am confused. This is a valid suggestion, something that could actually be implemented. Who are you, and why did you hijack @THX1138's account?

Altering... consuming... just come out and say it already, you know you want to: KSP is Life.

I try not to hit my debris. A time out works just as good, really. And I don't want them ending up in foster orbits. Instead, I try to nurture my debris and help them grow into happy well adjusted space stations. Even the unplanned ones.

Ok, so... you found the pit of eternal darkness. Any context? Not that I'm scared of the dark, you know, just erhm.. just want to know how to uhm.. how to tell friends to avoid it. Yes, that's it.

Been interested in this challenge since it mentions part efficiency, speed and boat... but after reading this far, I'm still somewhat confused about the requirements and the scoring. I have a tiny pure stock boat from back in 1.0.5 that potentially might do well on the part efficiency and speed combination, but I'm not sure if it somehow runs afoul of some other requirement. 10 parts for the boat (most of the 44 parts in the craft file are the detachable undercarriage that just rolls it to the water), 80-90m/s top speeds achievable (90.4 recorded). The undercarriage at least will need to be reworked for 1.1.3 (wheels... ugh), and the boat itself might need a bit retouching for this challenge... does it have a shot as a proper entry, or does it disqualify off the bat for some reason? https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/TinyBoat02c

Not a support request, but a suggestion: I see KasperVld already added a sticky to explain how to request help, meant for console players. This is good. May I suggest a second sticky that adds some hints on 'how to help console players'? Most (all?) of the experienced KSP players in this forum have been playing on computers with keyboards, mice, joysticks, and an OS that allows them a lot of freedom and flexibility in doing things to edit/change/enhance the game, including modding. This community is very good at offering advice of all sorts based on this, from the quick tips to in depth analysis and solutions... but a lot of it could be unusable for console players. Console players may not have the option to 'press mod-F5, you know, on your keyboard' for a named quicksave, or 'rightclick to open the part menu', or 'install <fav mod XYZ> to get a read-out', or 'check the log for errors'. I for one have none of the consoles, and have zero idea if any of these things even have an alternative on consoles, let alone which one that is. I may know the answer to a question or how to solve a problem, but without knowing what can or cannot be offered, or what the standard console controls are replacing the keyboard and mouse buttons, anything I write may be next to useless and probably only frustrating to the console player. So... maybe a post can be compiled and stickied that lists things NOT to suggest to console players, because they don't have those options (mods? pressing keys? clicking mice? etc), things not to ask of console players (can console players 'provide logs' - stated as a requirement sometimes), a table of controls 'translations' for common things, like what replaces the left and rightclicks, or the most common keys, or even UI element differences, anything else that can be foreseen to cause confusion when a PC player tries to help out a console player. I think having something like that stickied up will help avoid confusion and frustration, promote cross-platform assistance, and generally help the console players to benefit from the existing experience and helpfulness of the community.

Others have already pointed out that there are currently actual bugs with landing gear, but I wanted to highlight the following: Landing gear are likely to become 'blocked' if any other parts are touching the wheels, or even get near to them. Struts count as parts and have this effect too. You can check this by showing the part menu on the gear (PC = rightclick, no idea how to do it on consoles), you will see a line at the top that says 'Gear blocked: Yes'. If it says Yes for even one of the gear, then the craft will skid and slide like crazy. So make sure the wheels have plenty visible space away from other parts. It won't take away the buggy sliding mentioned by others, but it will be a whole lot less.

Guys, I see a lot of good advice, but are you considering that @VirtualBrain may be a console player? Can console players 'press W', or use mods, or even something as taken for granted as providing logs/screenshots? I mean, for all I know they can, but we may need to drop some of our assumptions from now on when offering advice.

Improvement is always possible, but I understood all of it, trigonometry and all. You did good, way better than I would in some other languages (and sometimes, my own). My response was a joking compliment, really.

Procedurally formed fairings please. 1 part to place/manage instead of XX parts. Choice of clamshell separation with persistent debris (simulation of hard/rigid shells) or confetti that auto-dissolves (fabric fairings). If clamshell, choice of how many radial/longitudinal segments to separate into. If confetti, the pieces should be tiny or become tiny quite quickly and be physicsless. Choice is good, and I would use both depending on circumstances/design goals. Choice of automatic or manual shaping of the fairing. Again, choice, and only fully automated 'perfect' shaping would no longer allow me to create specific designs for reasons other than pure optimal aerodynamic shielding. When manually shaping: allow the fairing to have an open end. Ie. like stock, default left-click to place a segment and edit next segment, but add a mod key (ctrl/shift/alt) when left-clicking to indicate stop editing after placing this segment, and leaving it the fairing open ended. Choice of exact angles or smoothed curves for segment transitions. Stock fairings automatically smoothly curve over longitudinal segment edges, but not the radial edges... which is a rather odd combination neithe entirely smooth nor entirely angled. Let me choose for either one if I want smoothed edges. Remove the 'exploding' animation in the editor: it's pretty eye-candy but only hampers the building process and affects performance. Making it somewhat translucent is enough. Make the outside and inside of the now static fairing shell surface-attachable. Implement collisions to the inside of the fairing shell. Option to 'allow/disallow deployment/activation of payload' in the fairing. Choice of textures. Ok I got a bit carried away, thought the question was how I would like stock fairings to work.

Where can I vote this for stock? Also, license this technology to desk chair makers, so when we lean over more, the car/plane/rocket turns harder. And TV makers, so when we look away, the pretty blonde white female will actually reconsider walking down into that dark alley/basement/wooded area.

"Quick and dirty" in random triple A title: <explain how to aim somewhat ahead/above the target for instant headshot> "Quick and dirty" in KSP: <adds specific explanation of how to calculate, including trigonometric functions, RL examples and researched article references> I love what KSP does to its players.

Not sure 'fun' would be the word I'd use in this context, but heck, let's muse on doomsday scenarios. My contribution, and hypothetically relevant considering a recent dev article: crowdfunding the bug tracker cleanup. In return, the base game becomes free. The way I envision this: Replace the vote button on the tracker reports with a 'Crowdfund Me!' button, estimate the cost of investigating and solving individual bugs and show it as the target, and when 'donations' for a specific bug report surpass the target, place it into the work queue and start working on it. Enhance with multiple milestones. Eg. if the target is exceeded to 150% 'no vacation before bug is truly squashed', at 200% 'there is no bathroom!', at 500% 'add another dev to work on this bug', at 1000% 'buy out Unity to fix the wheels engine'. To add more of an incentive for the existing player base: do the same for feature requests, with appropriately estimated targets. Delete the 'features not to ask' list, but make the player base put their money where their keyboard is. Entirely replace the 'Suggestions' forum by a permanent link to create a new crowdfunded feature request on the tracker. Also, add a few new categories of reports: 'mod to make stock', 'mod author to hire', 'former dev to re-hire'. Same mechanic. In fact, add 'current dev to fire', because why not go all the way. For 'mod to make stock' to work well, start a 'Stock Mod Manager' report with an appropriate target and make it a mandatory prerequisite. (*) Keep the process transparent, ensure a significant portion of the target funds are directed towards their intended target. It may take years before the player base realizes they've been hooked. ??? Profit Power to the people player base. The community gets to directly influence KSP development... at a very direct price. And if you call NOW, we'll throw in some free porkifying of rocket parts! Now sign here, here and here, initials there and there, in virgin blood please. (*: if you're feeling truly evil, add the following report categories: 'mod to NOT make stock', 'non-stock mod to exclude from the Stock Mod Manager', and 'mod to temporarily remove to pester specific people'. Add micro-transactions to buy pitch forks, tar and feathers, and torches. Limit the supply artificially and add an auction house for players to trade them, and charge a commission per auction sale. Then go and.. <froth> erhm... ok I'll stop now.) ... I know, some days I awake in a decidedly evil mood. Put me down now before I start spewing my thoughts on governmental election processes. P.S.: All Rights Reserved. If Squad ever implements any of these ideas, I reserve the right to run for president. I have a wall and an e-mail server and I know how to use them.

Emphasis added, because this is a very good point. The Wheasly seemed to be quite a bit better since its last updates, so I went and did some more tests: it starts losing a whole lot of thrust very quickly at a disappointingly low altitude. Even the humble Junos maintain more thrust once passing 8-10km. Replacing the two Wheasly nacelles by a set of 7 Junos (center and 6 in radial symmetry around it) not only managed to dip the plane over 18km without needing rocket engines, it also turned the plane supersonic, sustaining up to 610m/s @ 13km. This is not just due to the thrust - apparently a set of 7x 0.625m drag 'stacks' produces considerably less drag than a single 1.25m stack. The Wheasly uses the least fuel of all jets, and has the thrust reverser... otherwise it appears to still be very underwhelming, especially if it even 'out-drags' a spamming of Junos. Good catch, I failed to notice the position of that gear. Advanced tip: if the main wings are given just a tiny bit of angle of attack (pitched up a few degrees compared to the body of the plane), the plane can lift off without needing to pitch at all - and it helps keeps the drag down in flight, giving it better performance.

Thanks, RIC. I did a bad job of wording this, even though I am aware of it working that way. You expressed it more accurately.