EpicSpaceTroll139

10km is actually about the minimum size of the Chicxulub impactor, which we think killed the dinosaurs (together with about 75% of all plant/animal life), so I imagine you could wipe tiny Kerbin out with something a little smaller than that! Then again, things travel a lot slower in KSP... and 1/2 the velocity = 1/4th the KE, so you might be right... might even need to be larger actually.

You might wanna take a look at this video from Scott Manley On topic: Bigger asteroids would be cool, but at a certain point they would just become big enough that really all you could do is science and just hope one's not going to hit Kerbin.

Built Jeb a much smaller Xmas tree than I have traditionally done in the past. Blooper:

I've mostly been doing an approach similar to #2, using my airbrakes to control my descent. I usually end up on the carrier about 6/7 times. Anyways, last night I did some tight formation flight with a friend on NoNameShips. Also, I found one of my fighter jets at almost the bottom of the sea... not exactly sure how it got there... made a good submarine though.

I remember plenty of exploding carriers. Don't know if any of them were yours tho. Anyways, last night I did this.

I was buzzing this 500something m tall tower a friend had made on NoNameShips server. I ended up getting a bit too close and... somehow managed to become attached to it. Eventually the tower just went *poof* gone. I was left with a bent up, but still flyable plane, which is weird, because I don't have Kerbal Crash System installed. Also had another incident in which I ran off and then got run over by someone's carrier. Hilarity ensued as I got launched to the bottom of the sea at ~0.17c. As for him, I think he blew up

I've been working on (or rather, attempting to work on) a BAE Systems Hawk. The game however does not seem to like my plans. It has crashed 7 times so far during the build (I wasn't even in dmp for all of them). I've taken to saving every other time I add/remove/move a part.

I can see a fuel cell byproduct a being very useful. Perhaps there could be two fuel cell types: Total loss: What we have now. Reversible/Closed Cycle: More expensive and heavy than an equivalent total loss fuel cell. Produces "water" (or whatever reacted LfOx forms) as a byproduct, of which some can be stored in a tank integrated in the fuel cell, and if necessary, some can be stored in separate tanks. When toggled, the fuel cell would act as an electrolyzer, using somewhat more electricity than was produced earlier in order to revert the byproduct into LfOx. Such a system could be useful for dense energy storage to say, allow power hungry operations (such as a running a MPL) to go on through, for example, the long Münar night. As opposed to having a few hundred large batteries, you could have a few fuel tanks and a reversible fuel cell. The trade-off would be that the maximum charge/discharge rates would be finite, as opposed to infinite like with regular KSP batteries.

While I think wind power would be awesome, I feel like before we add that, we should add the first bit: the wind. Having a wind turbine but no wind effects would be kind of like having solar panels that but not having your ship get lit up by the sun. I like the idea of a larger PB-NUK, but I feel like that might be something for a mod because, at least in career mode, the small one is already pretty expensive. Simply scaling the thing up so that its radius and height are 2x the original would theoretically put it at around 180k! Maybe something with like half the blutonium of a rescaled PB-NUK could be called "PB-NUK Kirling" and have a greater power/cost ratio, but weigh a bit more? I dunno. I also think part failures would be cool in stock (perhaps just in hard mode or by toggle though? That way the newbies wouldn't be put off by their ships randomly breaking). Perhaps in addition there could be some kind of research function that you could spend money to improve a part's reliability. There could definitely be more wheels. Any more wheels, especially Omni or Mecanum wheels, are cool.

Looks nice! One way to improve performance might be (unless you like to really gobble that monopropellant) to remove the large monopropellant tank and instead stick one or two small radial tanks on the bottom, or even just a small stackable one. This could save a lot of weight, allowing the LfOx you have to take you farther. By the way, what kind of places will this thing be used?

I tried to be a good Samaritan on a DMP server and bring a Kairbus that was missing its engines home from the island by towing it with a claw attachment on my Boeing 737-600. All went well until I got about halfway home. Then the oscillations started, with the whole setup starting to snake up and down like a worm. Eventually it got so violent that I was stalling out and we were both going down. I tried ditching the unruley Kairbus hoping this would allow me to recover, but there wasn't enough altitude, and we both went into the drink.

We all have had moments when we botched a mission out of our own stupidity. But I've often wondered how many of us have had our plans thwarted by some strange, and sometimes hilarious bug! Recently I had this happen when I tried to launch a reasonably large hypersonic aircraft with two parasite aircraft. The configuration looked perfectly fine in the SPH. When I launched it however... uhh... just take a look. I took the old version and attached new parasitic fighters, and it came out fine that time, so no harm done. Please post your kraken moments here! btw, if there is a preexisting thread like this somewhere else, feel free to point it out, and close/merge this thread. I thought there would be, but all the kraken threads I found through search (and also by looking through about 5 pages manually) were complaining about bugs. This thread is for the humor!

Shenanigans I'm wondering whether I can fly a fighter jet through the mini-bridge/tunnel

This quick thing I made only has one barrel, and is perhaps a bit more bulky than it needs to be, but the basic design principle should be applicable to yours.

I don't remember if this is a picture of my hybrid helicopter taking off, or whether it was skittering around on the tarmac, but I do remember I got it flying that day. Some additional pictures: Would it not be simpler to just put some rtgs and reaction wheels on the triple-barrel assembly and have the rest of it free to rotate so you can just point the turret with the wasd keys?

I guess @The Rocketeer and I were thinking along similar lines, as I've had a working prototype hybrid helicopter sitting in my hangar for a couple days now (haven't had time to do much because of a chem test I'm taking today), and it works surprisingly well. It's really ugly and needs some aerodynamic changes though . I'll post some pictures when I'm not on mobile. Basically the idea was to use reaction wheels to provide ~90% of the lift needed for takeoff, and then the turboshaft does the rest.

I just tried that. It still got the same problem I'll find another plane without clipped surfaces that demonstrates buggyness

I found a craft that will, with reasonable reliability, reproduce the control surface inversion bug with the AA activated. It apparently flies fine with it deactivated, at least in a clean install. I have gotten this bug on other crafts, but I figured it would be overkill to upload all the ones I've had it happen on. Bug Demonstration Craft In the above picture you can see my control surfaces deflected as if to make the plane pull up, however instead my plane noses down in response to this. I'll try to get a picture with aerodynamic overlay to see what's going on. It should be noted that this plane is positively stable, and was easily flyable before the introduction of AA Edit2: Apparently this bug can happen with the MASTER SWITCH turned off. All that must be open is the Craft Settings I am playing Windows 64bit 1.2.1. Is there still problems with 64bit that mean I should try 32bit? Edit3: It just had it happen with AA deactivated. I will test in a non AA install to make sure I didn't somehow bug the plane after installing AA, Edit4: I tested using the aero overlay and it would appear in this particular instance, the plane is fighting itself. The tailplanes are doing what they should be doing, but some control surfaces clipped in the nose are for whatever reason doing the opposite, and they are overpowering the tailplanes.

First off, this mod is awesome. It has made some of the designs I thought impossible in KSP work (relaxed stability fighters for example) work and hard to fly designs (flying wings) easy! However I've found a strange bug that has been resulting in some bizarre plane crashes. I'll try to replicate this in an otherwise stock install, but I've currently been having a strange bug in which (usually at >130m/s) my control surfaces will either reverse* (make me pitch down when input is pull up, and pitch up when input is push down). Sometimes the surfaces will even be visually deflecting opposite to the force they are creating. This results in the autopilot violently flipping my plane (if it was on), and me having problems flying it for a period afterwards, even after turning the autopilot off (even when the plane is positively stable). After about 30 seconds the control surfaces revert to normal control. A similar bug that often happens along with this one, and which sometimes happens at lower speeds, has my control surfaces suddenly become ultra damped, often, for example, resulting in my fighter halting a loop it was in to lawn dart into the ground. Is this a known bug from the 1.2.1 update? As I said, I will attempt replicate this in a clean game and send you a log (if that helps). *I do not have FAR, so it's not aerodynamic effects, and most planes falling victim to this worked perfectly before I got the autopilot.

I'm running 64 bit here. My problem is a combination of using 1.2.1 (which for some reason is less stable than 1.2.0 for me) and that I'm playing with DMP. Also: nice compact rover. If it's flipped over you could always try ramming it with a kerbal using the jetpack. I find that to quite often be enough to flip a light rover over on low gravity worlds like the Mun.

Crashed Crashed And crashed some more

On the first thing, I was testing using a standard cylinder+cone fairing shape, but I was figuring on applying what I was doing to a fairing that was shaped like a cylinder later. It wasn't until my second set that I tried making a cylinder with an flat end. In that case I did what you said and got the oddball results seen in the last image. (I've found that by simply ending at whatever the radius I want the cylinder to be, I can get a cylinder, it just doesn't have a visible end, and so looks like a hollow tube (but it's not really). What I was trying to do in the first example was contour the walls of the fairing so they changed from looking like the top example to the lower example in the following picture. That is, there is a notch inside which the stripe is hidden. Also, yes, I knew I could edit the texture file and get rid of the stripe. However, this would only get rid of the stripe for me. As my objective in making these replicas was for others to enjoy them, I wanted the missing stripes to be inherent to the craft. It seems that there is no clear way to do this (other than perhaps starting a whole new fairing every couple meters so each individual fairing isn't long enough to have a stripe.) Ah well.

It is because of the lack of this feature that I have taken to making multiple saves of my crafts (especially my replicas) every time I add a section to them. (Ex: build basic frame = XXXX 1, add cockpit = XXXX 2, etc. I would definitely support a regularly timed autosave feature

Yah that would make sense, considering that there isn't any way to "launch" kerbals themselves. Perhaps some quirk makes it hard to spawn kerbals without them being in a part first. Of note is that (AFAIK) kerbals are the only moveable objects (aside from shapes from the object thrower) that do not have a part file. Even the asteroids have a "potatoroid" file. Meanwhile, as far as I can tell, Kerbals just have a cfg and the rest is kind of built into the rest of the game.

People say that using the seat is an exploit because it's lightweight compared to a command pod. But the seat: Doesn't stow any flags (and no part adds this to it in stock) Doesn't provide an infinite supply of EVA propellant (and no part adds this to it in stock) Doesn't take crew reports (and no part adds this to it in stock) Doesn't store experiments Doesn't provide torque Doesn't store monopropellant Doesn't store electric charge Doesn't provide thermal protection Doesn't have a radar altimeter (and no part adds this to it in stock) Doesn't provide an aerodynamic shape Doesn't provide complete protection from accidental spaghettification Doesn't have attachment nodes, and thus cannot be stacked on top of each other without a frame. Can't teleport it's occupant to another location on the ship via the "transfer crew" function (and no part adds this to it in stock) If this feature is implemented, they will presumably be unable to hold tourists because the tourist could be knocked free of the ship, a condition which the game does not allow. Meanwhile a command pod can do/has all of these things in one convenient part. Even putting aside roleplay, these tradeoffs seem to make it pretty balanced. If someone wants to use a combination of parts that has less features but also less mass for a particular mission, more power to him! There are situations in which a combination of parts are technically better in every way except part count! (Ex: 2Mk1 lander cans vs. 1 Mk2 lander can). Seats are not one of them, so why this arbitrary rule? I see no gameplay reason why I shouldn't be able to launch with a Kerbal in a command seat.