Rocket In My Pocket

For atmospheric stuff, I'd say one of the most important things to double check is how stable it is at 4x warp speed. Some planes will just shred when trying to time warp, and getting anywhere on Kerbin in a plane takes forever even with x4 speed. Struts can help keep the plane stiff but will increase drag, often times weak or wobbly joints are the cause of a RUD but just as often it's poor aerodynamics or a plane that doesn't fly straight and true without control input.

Do I like them in real life? Yes and no. Both are neat proof of concepts, but fairly lackluster as actual operational planes. (Although I still love the Harrier, it's just so damn sexy looking.) Do I like your in game recreations? Yes! They both look great! Is this mostly stock? I noticed the landing skid and wheel cart system on the 163, very nice touch as far as details and realism.

I can't see how this relates to KSP at all but... Honestly, I can't think of a way to test a parachute without having a living human being strapped to it in order to pull the cord. Also, it won't deploy unless you are quite high up, so a "test jump" off the roof of your house or some other such nonsense is out of the question. My advice would be to buy your parachutes from a company you have a LOT of faith in. Personally, I wouldn't ever jump out of a perfectly good plane, hell even if it's going down I'd rather try for a belly landing than throw myself out the window.

I'm still impressed, works good! I'm inspired to try and build a stock catapult now. Put up another video when you get it attached to the carrier, nice plane by the way, reminds me of a MIG.

It's been pushed back and isn't coming with the 1.1 update. So atm information would be scarce and anything you may find on it is likely to change by the time we get it. Nothing to do but wait and see!

Is this stock? If so I'm pretty impressed!

Why are we comparing two games that have just about zero in common? One is a sandbox vehicle constructor, and the other is a turn based small scale RTS. Besides the very loose connection of the topic of space? I own and play both, they are both great games in their own right. I've seen a lot of rambling nonsensical posts in my day but this one takes the cake. I mean who is this post directed at? Whats the core message?

Now that's what I call... Flying by THE SEAT OF YOUR PANTS! Ba-Dum-Tsh!

Thanks! Yup that's exactly it. At first I was against using it because of it's length, but it's one of the only parts with an actual "hole" in it that counts physics wise I discovered through trial and error. It really cuts down on the part count as prior I had to use at least 4 landing gear wheels to "encase" the probe core. (I tried decouplers but the "hole" in the middle isn't actually a "hole" as far as the game is concerned.)

Docking ports attract each other at close range like magnets. Often this can result in a sort of wobble as one port chases the other, similar to SAS over correcting on small ships. Nothing to be alarmed about.

You got me thinking about trailers again, especially about making them less part intensive and more practical. So I built a mock up hitch system that uses pretty much just the structural fuselage and the stayputnik probe core. I'm pretty happy with it! It does require a high necked trailer to work, but that's not really an issue imo. It's also very simple compared to my previous iterations, yet functions just as well. I took some screenies of the technical mock up. (I know it's hideous...but it was just for testing. The giant fuel tanks are just counter weights, it kept wanting to pop a wheelie lol.)

For the best turning radius/responsiveness make sure you aren't building the trailer segments like cars with a wheel in each corner, if you look at a real eighteen wheeler for example the trailer has all 4 wheels as far to the back as possible, away from the pivot point. Wheels near the pivot point will fight the rotation and work against you. Pictures of what you are proposing would be helpful. Best of luck!

Also, which craft in particular are you talking about? Some of them like the "Orbiter 1A" aren't designed to be able to take off by themselves on Kerbin. Welcome to the forums!

I typically use a Stayputnik probe core as a make shift ball hitch. Then you build a "cap" to sit on top of it with wheels facing inwards towards it. Sort of a poor mans ball bearing. Makes for a very nice and authentic trailer, that behaves as you would expect. However I've yet to find a practical use for trailers in general.

To get your computer specs: Hold the "Windows" key and push "R" this will bring up the run command. Now in the field displayed type "dxdiag" without the quotes. That will bring up a box with all your system information, hit the button on the bottom of the box that says "save all information" this will turn it into a text or notepad file, which you should save somewhere convenient like your desktop. Then simply open the notepad file, copy the text, and paste it here. Preferably under a spoiler as it will be rather large. When your done it'll look like this:

I'm not sure I get the point. When and how would you be tracking a plane that wasn't parked? Also, if it's parked at the KSC or something what's the point in tracking it? If were talking about space planes, I don't see the need for a separate tag, anything that goes to space is a "ship" in my book. That said, it certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings if they added an extra tag.

Placing a few RCS thrusters on the underside of the base module can really help with this problem. Not enough to lift the whole piece up or anything, but enough to raise it up on it's legs to match other parts. It should be a one time process typically so it's not like you'll need a ton of monoprop either.

You could take the joke two ways I imagine. Firstly that in the actual game the "place anywhere" RCS port can't actually be placed "anywhere" on your vessel and still provide good control so this misunderstanding caused the pilot Kerbal to crash and become injured. Secondly one might infer that he took the scientist doctor VERY literally about the word "anywhere" and stuffed it up the ol' backdoor, if you catch my drift. So he now has to have the doctor Kerbal remove it. It wasn't knee-slappingly hilarious but I chuckled.

I'm gonna say no since it's not a "naturally occurring satellite." You've directly intervened to place it there making it quite unnatural, in my opinion the use of the word "natural" here is being used to describe the origin of the object not it's make-up. There is also the question of size, at what point does an object stop being "some junk or small rock in orbit" to being an official moon? I mean...can you consider a 10 inch rock that’s orbiting Jupiter a moon? If yes, then there could be thousands or even millions of moons out there.

Also, if it's the actual cost that's bothering you, open up the debug menu (Alt+F12) and give yourself the money back, not really cheating since it's not your fault in the first place and you are simply putting things back as they were. Best of luck!

Not saying I don't like your idea, but here are some stock solutions: -Plant a flag at the KSC and label it "Kerbal Space Center." -Build a very small probe with wheels, drive it off to a corner of the base and rename it "Kerbal Space Center" then just leave it there. Also as someone else mentioned Waypoint Manager is a very handy mod that allows tracking of mission objectives as well as custom waypoints.

The one from BD armory. The OP really should have mentioned this. Assuming everyone uses/is familiar with the same mods as you is a little silly.

You already asked this question and you were all ready answered by multiple people that you can already do that by simply changing the rocket's name, or adding a number on the end. Please stop making duplicate threads. EDIT: A wild moderator has appeared! He used Merge. It was super effective!

Just remember that sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better. I'm sure were all hoping that you have more good days ahead of you than bad. Best of luck brother!