EpicSpaceTroll139

Last night I worked some on a Boeing 707 replica. It's still not much to look at. I had a... Uh... "Structural failure followed by fuel-air mix detonation" while flying an A-380. I also discovered the hard way that Monoliths now have a collision mesh. Also found I have accumulated 113 crash logs in my KSP directory...

Don't know if they really count as WIPs or rather as future projects, but I put together the "spatial dimension frames" for a 707 727 And 757 They may not look like much, but I build my planes on top of these to get the right shape, and remove them just before flight testing. Anyways, I finished that Blackbird from earlier. There's also.. uh... this...this... thing

Been working on yet another replica aircraft.

Now we just need to make a boat to fit on the trailer

@Gman_builder it's a 3d labyrinth game. The goal is to tilt the whole thing around using reaction wheels to roll a ball from a starting point, along an obstacle course to a basket at the end. In the pictures I first failed and had the ball fall out, then the whole thing fell and broke the runway.

I'd seen the 10g plane challenge, and I decided to give it a go, with a twist. I'm trying it, with a helicopter. So far I've worked up to about 7.8g.

Progress... Easy does it Dangit Well... Wasn't expecting that... Needs more struts

Testing...

I'm just going to leave this here.

You mention FAR. Why would a longer runway be added to stock to deal with the difficulties that a mod introduces? If you're using mods you might as well use KerbinSide for its longer runways. And on the runway length: Lets not forget that Earth has real aerodynamics (similar to but more complex than FAR), which (usually) require higher speeds for flight, and Earth is 10x the size of Kerbin (Kerbal stuff in general is smaller too). If you scaled up the Kerbal runway to equivalent size on Earth, it would be enormous. While making the KSC runway longer couldn't hurt, I'm inclined to think that if a stock plane in stock physics can't take off from the current one, there is something flawed in its design. The only things I haven't managed to get off the runway are things that... well... they weren't gonna fly anyways. Actually there is one exception, that being a prototype for my Yumbo Yet 6000.

I believe that is actually from a stock parts revamp mod. I'd have to look it up. But yah, iirc the forward COM is to simulate the compressor stages and stuff forward of the nozzel. To be honest, I'd be fine with them just making the entire engine be there, and the thing being more tube shaped and bulky, but ah well. Not to mention that having the COM outside the part can lead to exploits (untipable rovers) and bizarre behaviors (light craft or separated engines rotating about a point in space outside of them).

While I doubt anything that will be here will be any higher than #1025 on the priorities list, I thought this would be a fun thread to create. Basically, this thread is for the minor annoying things in the game. So, one nuisance/bug/weird thing I've found in the game is that the COM of the sepratron is not where it would visibly be expected to be. It's as if the support struts have osmium weights at their tips. It is very annoying when trying to make something light (like a small probe) fly straight under the power of one sepratron, and makes for... weird effects if a sepratron breaks off a rocket. I mean, I get the COM not being perfectly aligned with the COT, but really? By this much?. It also seems like it would be something very easy to fix. To be clear, the ONLY part in the above picture is a sepratron. I copied it from subassemblies to crafts to make sure the COM wasn't moved by some other part. What quirky things in the game annoy you?

I tried it out, and it's a great biz jet. I found that isolating the control surfaces to their respective axis (using the actuation toggles in the right click menus), most especially the rudder to yaw, improve the flight characteristics however. (In the case of the rudder, it prevents the wild swing when rolling). Nice work!

I'm not opposed to the idea of part welding entirely, (though at a certain point, it becomes kinda cheaty due to infinite stiffness). Not having it didn't stop me from making this absurdity. Now part count reduction would be awesome, but this is just to point out with sufficient autostruts, regular struts, and rigid attachment, you can make some pretty big structures.

While I do see where you're coming from on some of the parts (it really is unnecessary for rocket tanks to have barrel rims), I think the Hitchhiker is alright as is. I think the foil is just supposed to be part of a structure that surrounds the pressure vessel (as evidenced by the IVA showing "ceilings" and "floors" that are flat and definitely not foil. The handles contribute to the spacey look. As forusing on a plane, well, doesn't that mean you'd have to rework the IVA too? Otherwise the Kerbals are hanging/lying on the walls with a giant empty space in a very odd configuration for an aircraft. Perhaps simply a different part would be good for planes?

Looks neat! I'll try it out in the morning! Also: How would a tailstrike damage only the horizontal stabilizer on version 1? It's at the very top! Wouldn't the tail fairing and the vertical stabilizer be taken out before it?

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.