Rocket In My Pocket

Sorry to hear KerbalStuff is shutting down. A big thanks to @SirCmpwn, for doing so much selfless work for the community, we all owe you big time and wish you the best in the future! Curse is an unmitigated mess of a site, it's ugly, cluttered, covered in ads, and I can't believe anyone would endorse it as their official modding site, especially SQUAD. I'll be using GitHub or DropBox before I even consider Curse.

That's... Actually... A good idea! The ships could even be saved as .craft files for later use. I'm not sure how work intensive this would be for SQUAD or if perhaps it's something a 3rd party could do? The only problem I can see is mod support for mod parts, but I'm sure that could be sorted out. I would definitely make use of something like this.

This guy sounds like he should be the DJ at an all night smooth jazz station or something. Video was also good, explains the game in broad strokes while recommending it wholeheartedly. If I had watched this prior to learning more about KSP I would'ave bought it sooner. 10/10

Whats that Russia? Did you say something? Sorry, we couldn't hear you from all the way up here on the MOON.

Was watching a bunch of "moon hoax" and "secret apollo missions" type youtube videos and stumbled onto Scott Manley's channel, after watching a couple I decided to check the KSP demo out, loved it so I decided to check the forums out. (I always visit a game's forums before making a purchase to get a feel for what I'm buying based on the communities attitude towards it.) Everything seemed kosher here, community was friendly, and updates seemed regular enough, so I got the full version and have been playing ever since! Also just in case anyone got the wrong impression, I'm not a crazy conspiracy nut who thinks we didn't go to the moon/space, I just don't think the government/NASA has been entirely honest about how/why/when we did it.

I'm confused, how would learning orbital mechanics help a bunch of bankers? Or is this just a sort of "after hours/just for fun" thing? Either way, best of luck! My advice is to keep the main body of your presentation short and sweet, then invite questions after.

Alt+F5 let's you make a manual quicksave and give it it's own name, so what you do is make a quicksave on the launch pad right before taking off. Now if you have any problems you can load that quicksave, which is effectively the same thing as reverting to launch. I also highly recommend manually quicksaving at all important milestones on your trip like making orbit, encounter, just before attempting to land, etc... As far as saving your Kerbals sending a rescue mission for your rescue mission for your rescue mission for your rescue mission is a time honored Kerbin tradition so just keep trying!

I'm calculating the difference at about .05 but I could be wrong, math never was my strong suit.

This used to happen to me too, especially when rotating the camera to face the door of the VAB, turning off the "ground crew" in the options menu fixed it for some reason. Give it a try, maybe it'll work for you as well.

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Settings

This. I usually upgrade the Hangar late because any plane I make over 30 parts typically has VTOL capability, anything that doesn't can be taxied off the launch pad and over to the runway.

Sounds like your GPU could be overheating? What kind of computer do you have, laptop or desktop? Maybe grab a free fan monitoring program and see what kind of temps you're getting when running KSP. If temp is fine, I'd try the old "update your drivers" routine. Best of luck!

I think my point was more so that the Ailerons are usually in line with the COM, the Elevator should be either on the front or rear. If both the Aileron/Elevator are on the rear in a flying wing design, that's fine too. Just so long as he's not trying to control pitch via a control surface that is near the center of the craft where the Aileron's typically are. I suppose we'd have to see a picture of said "jet" to make the most suitable suggestion for his design.

Not too high I would hope. Space stations are serious business.

Cool video, but yeah doing in this in stock career would just get your plane promptly deleted which is a shame. I realize the physics bubble is limiting but even if they "paused" the plane outside the bubble so you could fly it down after you were done with the rocket that would be a better system in my eyes. Perfect? No. Realistic? No. Better than not having any option at all currently? Yeah. I'm sure someones gonna suggest the mod that auto retrieves stuff with enough parachutes etc... but that kind of robs the fun of actually flying the plane back down and landing it which from a game play perspective is the only reason I could see doing a launch of this style anyways.

Pretty good looking bird! As far as the question at hand, I'd wager it's just too darn heavy. Any plane I've ever built that was capable of really high G stunts like loops and backflips off the runway was always small, light, with lots of power. As far as the air intake issue it's really hard to say without flying it and watching the numbers, but it could very well be part of your problem. The wings are also in the shoulder/high position which is good for stability (and also carrying missiles which is why I assume you've used them), but low wings tend to give better performance. Some Wikipedia stuff about wings in spoiler.

Ailerons are for roll control, your horizontal tail fins (Also known as "Elevators") should be controlling pitch. Rudder (The vertical control surface on the tail) does Yaw obviously. Make sure you are right clicking each control surface and manually setting them to control the correct axis of movement. Also, try Claw's stock bug fixes, it let's you set how much control authority each surface has. (As well as many other great fixes and tweaks) If a part doesn't look right some liberal use of the rotation/offset tool can typically solve that. Claw's Stock Bug Fix Modules + ModuleControlSurfacePlus (Plus) (25 Jan 16) - (STATUS: Updated for KSP v1.0.5.1028) - Description: Currently contains the following Plus options (no StockFixes required) - (Plus) Adds tweakable authority range - (Plus) Disables flight controls in space, so they aren't moving around when maneuvering

The .craft file would be even better!

Cool story bro.

The Steam forums... You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

Wait...that's confusing because on 0.12 I get like 5 fps when loading up the "Station One" scenario, but on 0.03 it's like 20. Are we talking about the numbers going up/down or the graphical bar in the settings menu?

As I understand it sharper or more defined terrain structures would require more polygons, at the moment they just "deform" one large sphere to produce the planets terrain. Which is why there are no overhangs or caves or such. (That's an over simplified explanation but you get the idea.) That said, why don't you just turn infinite fuel on, fly up to Duna and look around a bit? Do some orbits on 4x speed at low altitude maybe? Best of luck!

To activate the jetpack you have to press "R" It works the same as the RCS system on regular craft. Hope that helps!

Man...right in the feels. I think my eyes even teared up a bit.

It's basically the same, it just has some black lines and black heat tiles on the belly: I may actually use this version in the full pack as the "prototype" and use the all white model for something else.