TheDestroyer111

WOW, somebody finally found a use for piston engines in KSP! HOORAY

Old frying fat? IIRC one old friend of mine once tried cooking something on old frying fat and hydrogen somehow got out of it, which itself soon also created a fireball.

Absolutely speechless. AFTER cooling down a bit, here's my reaction to this device:

Well well... The Mk1 Inline cockpit weighs just over one tonne. And I see at least eight of them in your MiG-21. So, we already have eight tonnes at the front of the aircraft. Eight tonnes is already more than the plane's empty weight, and this weight calculation includes just the cockpits! For the MiG-15, we have at least four tonnes in just the cockpits, and that's again more than the real plane's empty weight. Plus the large amount of some part clipped inside the fuselage for no real reason than breaking the plane's aesthetics, the part is most likely an NCS adapter. Use the Korsair's engine with subassembly https://kerbalx.com/Thanie1999/F4U-Korsair Right now it is probably the most effective stock propeller in KSP. It's just Mk1 sized, yet very powerful. It's also one of the most stable and reliable engines of such type. Although it is not guaranteed to do so, it *can* operate under 2x time warp for some time without damage to the engine/propeller.

@Youen @BananaTime101 there is a generally accepted tradition for mod makers that any dependencies of a mod are listed somewhere even if they are included. As a person who hates MM and would love to somehow avenge his broken save files, at first I got hyped with the mod having nothing said about being MM dependant. And then I got angry when I installed it (ignoring the included MM of course) to make it not work.

HEY! Why did you not tell us that this requires MM! Please write in the FAQ that Trajectories requires Module Manager!!! I was getting ready to like this thread, but I stopped thinking of doing so when I launched KSP with your mod!!!

How do you make them even... Oh wait, you have FAR. OK. Because in stock aero, a plane covered up in wings is almost always a terrible flyer But really, how does the MiG-21 even fly? Although you can clip engines, cockpits etc. into each other, FAR doesn't reward clipping more wings with additional lift! You should either note on some of these planes that they are much heavier than real ones and won't fly without hacking gravity, or note that you edited the config files for the parts to make them impossibly lightweight.

I KNEW IT that while KSC is the American KSC, the KSC2 is a russian space port, and I was totally right when I put American equipment on KSC and Russian equipment on KSC2 on my BDArmory war save! //EDIT: I would say Kroviet. idk why lol

How de*** do I turn up a slider that is already maxed? Could this be caused by that that you are playing on 1.1.3 or 1.2.0 and I am on 1.1.0? //EDIT: @Veeltch please update the leaderboard!

@Veeltch Wait... Should I edit the craft file or how do I get 200% brakes? //EDIT No chutes too? Oh yeah, that is basically vertical landing... But not everyone understands that parachutes are a subset of VTOL.

http://imgur.com/a/AiMSQ What is it? Nobody said we have to do it in a conventional horizontal-flight plane

WHO SAID THERE ARE NO AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN KSP http://imgur.com/a/kBanf BTW thanks for making me realize for the first time that setting brakes to 200 can make my carrier landings much easier! @drtricky Challenges are just for fun (IDK who said the above quote)

LOL, why? Cargo ramps are made to be used for driving out rovers, and if your payload is not a rover, then you can either not attach anything behind the cargo bay (if you have gravity or your payload is docked to the Mk2 vehicle), or use the cargo bay door to get your payload out. Or if you are really hardcore and for an impossible reason NEED to push not-docked payloads out of the back of a vehicle, you can use wheels or landing legs or other deployable parts to cover the back of the cargo bay. //EDIT: @Space_taco but why use cargo ramps for anything at all? They should be removed, they are totally useless even for rovers.

There is no middle mouse button on a Mac so Whack-a-Kerbal is useless, and I'm too lazy to connect my mouse every time I want to play KSP. Solution is simple: add an option to set a different keybind to throw objects.

I think a good idea for any Mac player of video games might be reversing the fn-f-keys. Go to System Preferences - Keyboard and check "Use all F1, F2 etc. keys as standard function keys". This way, the system functions such as volume or brightness adjustment are done with fn+Fx and you don't need to press fn when using function keys in KSP or other programs. BTW next to your post I replied to is an upwards facing arrow. You can press this arrow next to any answer to mark this thread's question as answered so that it is easier for people to sort out answered and unanswered questions (only moderators and the user who asked a specific question can mark it as answered, and moderators rarely do it as someone might have more questions to post in the same thread)

Great idea! This would amazingly help me in analyzing why my newest replica of a chinese fighter plane tends to get into flat spins when pitching up heavily at high speeds. And it would help me for the same thing with my space shuttle. But to be useful for such things, the wind tunnel should also be able to at least display the aerodynamic forces as well as precise rotation of a vehicle. It should also be possible to start a wind tunnel test with the vehicle already rotating (would help a lot for analyzing spins), as well as *maybe* a replay function? If it doesn't heavily increase hardware requirements

Learn to use variable propeller pitch. There is a reason why every good prop plane and many helicopters use control surfaces. You can deploy them and control their authority limiter to change the propeller pitch. When the propellers are closer to being perpendicular to the airflow (but not entirely perpendicular) they are better at lower speeds, and for high speeds it's better to make them closer to parallel to airflow (but again not entirely parallel). AFAIK the best way to do variable pitch is to set the propeller blades so that if you deploy them with authority limiter at +150, they are parallel to airflow. This way, if you are using elevon control surfaces (they have good max deflection angle while their shape is reasonable for propellers), auth. limit. should be somewhere between -150 and -50 with the elevons deployed (I'll check that later to be sure) for take off, and put it higher values when you can't go faster. Note however that setting it too high will make the prop stop creating thrust. With authority limiter at +150, the props are feathered. This means that they are parallel to the airflow, this means no thrust but can help lower drag in case of engine failure. If an engine break but the prop is still intact, feather the one that failed and if its reaction wheels are still intact, you should also reset trim on the props so that they don't rotate.

WOOO Another episodeeeeee! This reminds me of the gillyquake in plan kappa It was also a glitch that was turned into a story element

I wonder why so many people are also not familiar with it

@Carter938 @capi3101 @voneiden @DrMonte KERBAL KONSTRUCTS http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/94863-112-kerbal-konstructs-v0971-slopey-glidey/ (it's for 1.1.2 tho, but i used it on 1.1.0 for a while without any unpredicted effects ) And if you want to display coordinates in flight, if you for example want to have gratis fun trying to find it you have Kerbal Engineer Redux @Just Jim Who uses hyperedit these days for vessel moving when you have Vessel Mover Continued, which is far easier to use, more precise, and less buggy?

But can I already start a colonization with Kerbal Inventory System and, if it doesn't cause Kraken attacks, OSE workshop? Or should I rather do it stock and maybe later attempt it with mods? And I still don't get the point system. Do you mean that a Mun ground city gets 25 + [PART COUNT] points? //EDIT: no no no, the scoring system sucks. If it's for part count, then one can spam low-mass parts like science instruments to get a high part count. Even worse, this way people with strong computers have it easier than people with weak computers as stronger comps can support larger part counts. Maybe implement a scoring system based on mass, part usefulness and kerbal count? Or just have no formal scoring system at all? Remember, challenges are just for fun!

I don't get the points system. If I build a colony on the Mun, do I get 25 points no matter how big the colony is as long as it fits in the requirements on the bottom of the post, or do I get [PART COUNT] points as long as the colony fits in the requirements? Also, I have a suggestion that an ISRU and a laboratory are required for a ground city, and any orbital city should have some source of propellant from a ground-based ISRU or mining craft. Also, I think there should be a separate leaderboard for modded colonies. Modded colonies should definitely use KIS and KAS (These are essential for longer-term habitation, especially without quicksaving/quickloading if something explodes otherwise than glitches) and possibly something like USI Colonization Systems, probably with USI/TAC Life Support. For mods, Pathfinder and OSE workshop could also help.

But WHY use Vector engines in the middle with aerospikes on the outer asparagus boosters? The Vector has better atmospheric Isp by 5 seconds, while the aerospike has 25 seconds better vacuum Isp.

Wow, I didn't even think of that... Hold on... Possibly, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster most probably is not very similar to the Deep Space Kraken.

Are electric SAS powered engines allowed? EDIT: