qzgy

Creative. Did you have the Mk1 crew cabin unlocked yet? I assume that could have also worked too...

Actually, if you have a well designed rocket, reaction wheel spam shouldn't be necessary. Just stick draggy stuff on the back. Looking at the design, I have to concur with what most people here said - don't turn too abruptly and stick the fins lower down onthe rocket.

That's just the basic, unfinished hull. Also includes a table. Not useful, but anyway, I have it. Slight downside to a pretty thing - performance is a lot less than ideal. (1600ish parts) But also, thanks!

Heh? No files need to be tweaked... Those are part of the very stock game. No Offset limits is by holding down shift, Autostrut is a tweakable in the part menu (may need to enable advanced tweakables)

Can you vary the wall thickness of the combustion chamber? If you can make the wall thicker (at a mass penalty), then technically you could worry less about engine pressure and contain higher pressures. Also, what about the ability to change different materials? Like, the ability to use titanium for greater strength for a certain mass but at an increased cost.

Pity. My earliest version is 1.1.3. Well, thanks anyways.

Matter of taste. It does make sense that ships should sink though. Also, what version is that mod and where are the guns from? I might play with it later.

This seems like a massive design flaw...

I'd also guess the CoL is really far back. Like, way too far back to be very effective. With the CoL far back, it has a tendency to pitch down more and thus, force you into the runway. But also moving the gear closer, as Scarecrow said, will help.

Most of the stuff there (in that forum thread) still applies. I'm not sure about the second question. To help performance, usually I a) drop part texture quality and b)decrease render quality. That also helps on large partcount crafts.

Now the real question is how did you play KSP in a car? Laptop?

Made my computer cry. Or in other words, I built a large-ish ship (55m length, 10m width). The KSS Princeton, with over 1500 parts at launch, will cut frames. It can travel at a top speed of 14 m/s (more if you want to stick even more engines on. or a rocket.) Images in spoiler. Also armed with 10 cruise missiles, two of which have an extended range. The launchers themselves also raise and lower, so that's cool. Still needs some work, mostly on the launchers, but I think its almost ready

July 1962: Lockheed XV-4 "Hummingbird" The XV-4 Hummingbird, or originally the VZ-10, was a US Army project researching the feasibility of a VTOL aircraft for surveillance purposes. It was part of a line of V/STOL projects conducted in the 1960's. 2 variants were made, the XV-4A and XV-4B. They differed in the method in which the vertical capabilities were achieved. The first prototype (XV-4A) had two JT-12 engines that had the thrust redirected through multiple nozzles to achieve vertical takeoff, helped by a secondary flow of cold air. However, this produced an abysmal 1.04 TWR which was below performance estimates, and the prototype later crashed on the 10th of June in 1964 with the unfortunate loss of the pilot. The second version as modified between 1966 and 1968 so that the JT-12 engines replaced by 6 J85 turbojets, with 4 acting as dedicated lift jets and the other two able to be diverted for vertical thrust. Additional changes were made to the aircraft, including the addition of an SAS system and conversion to a hybrid fly-by-wire system. The second prototype crashed the 14th of March, 1969, with the pilot managing to safely eject (an improvement over the last crash, if a bit grim). While the first takeoff was early July of 1962, actual tests of VTOL capability was first conducted on a tether in November of the same year, with free hovers beginning in May of the next year. The 8th of November 1963 marked the first full transition from hovering to horizontal flight. Testing on the second vehicle was cut short by the crash, leaving little to no record to be found (on the internet, at least). Builder Notes: Like the real thing, the lift jets are angled at about 10 to 20 degrees. Keep this in mind when flying. Also try to remember to enable RCS for better control. Action group info on the KerbalX page. Download Link: https://kerbalx.com/qzgy/XV-4B Tomorrow's Craft: @Munbro Kerman's X-20

Yeah. Just check my kerbalX page (shameless plug), look for BAC mono kinda 5.

So if we assume that there is a bit of a volume difference, would that also affect the parachute size? I would think so since the extra volume should be used as effectively as possible.

Are we also assuming they take the same volume? Like, on a 0.625 m stack chute, the cute is the same as the current 0.625m inline chute? I agree with the balancing, just asking

Here you go. (there is also somewhere a commentary video)

This is. Let's stop.

Ok fine, it has a lot of stuff to balance for gameplay. I get your point. Why not include stupidly powerful jet engines, Ion engines with lot higher thrust, and relatively tiny distances between stuff?

That too.

Raining yesterday night, still haven't ventured into the outside world.

Its fun. Gives a basic understanding of orbital mechanics and so on. but as ZooNamedGames said, real life is a lot harder. For example, in KSP, you can get away with alot of aerodynamic no-nos (such as making a rover fly.)

I would recommend the trajectories mod. Gives a rough estimate of where you will land taking into account drag and stuff. Not 100% accurate but it gives a decent enough tool to plan with. As a general stock rule of thumb, a reentry burn so that the PE is on the peninsula after the KSC peninsula (not the one it is on) will get you at least kinda close to the KSC.

Ahh, ok. That could work.... but having to decouple to deploy is inconvenient. Stack chutes would be a lot nicer.

What? So you want Squad/T2 to make more DLCs? They haven't even finished one. For PC. Also, as Galileo mentioned, I don't think it would be easy for squad to just rip the mod, stick a price tag on it, and resell it, which is what you are suggesting. Think of the conversation Squad - "Hey Modder - Can I borrow your code which took you long hard hours to make and sell it without giving you profit?" Modder - "Uh, no....." Also, maybe YOU would buy it, but maybe I wouldn't. It would be best if someone could make some adapter of PC to console for those on console to be able to mod,but this may not be a feasible idea.