EpicSpaceTroll139

And I thought I was a perfectionist.

Funnily enough, after my 3rd or so attempt at using them when they first came out , I never had any problems with the fixed gear blowing up. What I have had problems with is the "fix" that replaced the suspension with marshmallow and makes it so the tires visibly clip through their fairings, even with full 2.0 spring and damper settings... I mean, seriously?

I've been hoping for these for a long while, but I've always been to lazy to mention it lol These would help a lot with spaceplane and ship design!

What I mean is that the propellers are made out of stock parts, like Azimech's turboprops.

Oh I didn't realize that! I'll fix that as soon as I'm home (mobile tends to derp stuff up). For now here's the link Fixed

@Koro ^ How do I remove this on mobile? @sdj64 I've found success with making one wing longer than the other in order to counteract torque.

I actually found that gears made from thermometers work quite well even at high speeds (I found this out while working on a helicopter with intermeshing rotors. I never bothered to complete it though. If someone wants it I could however do so)

And I thought the 1200kN rotor I was working on for a helicarrier was big...

Actually the SAS are just there to help stop them after landing, after which you can quicksave/quickload to reattach them to the main body via the docking ports. Idk what it would do with the rotor SASs on in flight, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be pretty. As for getting more thrust with the rotors than you could from the jets alone, this doesn't indicate anything whacky (well, the way the jet exhaust efficiently spins the disk is weird, but continuing on). The rotors work based on real life principles. So I'll give an explanation using 3 engine types. So first off you have your turbojet. It works by making a little bit of air move really fast out the back. This is good if you want to make a plane move fast at high altitude, but it has bad fuel efficiency when you're at low speed and altitude. The Concorde used this kind of engine. Next you have your high bypass turbofan. It works by making a fair bit of air move reasonably fast out the back. This is good for moderately fast speeds at fairly good altitude, and is pretty efficient. It is what you find in modern jetliners. Then you have your turboprop. It works by pulling a lot of air through a propeller relatively slowly, spinning it using a jet engine. This is good for low speeds and is quite efficient. It's used on short range commuter airplanes. Basically, by looking at this trend, you get that by moving more air at a slower rate, you can get more force from a the same amount of fuel. However, you can't go as fast. Helicopters use turbo shafts, which are basically oversized turboprops.

Could you give us a more detailed description of what exactly is going on? It's kind of vague. And also what picture?

If you read a bit further you would notice that he said there are no v.1.1 mods that provide grid fins. This is putting aside that the OP never was saying that a specific mod should be added to stock. DDE suggested that something be added to the game. This is the suggestions & development section. I don't see the problem. The whole point of the S&D section is that there will be a lot of suggestions for stuff that may or may not be a mod. I don't see the problem here?

I personally think this is a great idea. Grid fins are one of those unique parts KSP should have, but doesn't. As for the "most people won't" argument. You could just as easily say "most people won't make it to eeloo, therefore we don't need it there taking up memory."

My guess is the ship will only register as being in one. But if you move a pixel it will be in another, Orr another pixel a different one, and so on

I think the problem you all are really having here is landing gear placement. It is possible to create planes that weigh several hundred tons and still use the stearable nose gear. (Like my A-380) Just make sure the main gear is close to the center of mass. This will also help you rotate on takeoff. Granted, the largest steering gear is a bit small physically... would be nice to be able to make it taller.

Sorry if this has been suggested before, but I've looked around and haven't found anything. I don't know whether this is a problem for most people, but I find that usually by a couple weeks to a month into a save, I have enough crafts that only a couple pixels of scroll are enough to move crafts from the bottom of the menu to off the top. This of course makes it hard to find the craft I want to work on. It occurs to me that this is probably a common problem. A craft search by name seems like it wouln't be too hard to add. Now that it's been brought up, a folder system would be awesome too! What do you all think? Would you want these added?

Edit: this is 1.1.2

Actually as of 1.0.0+, body lift is modeled in stock KSP. Also the Mk2 parts were made to act like wing parts in the first place.

Yah, Mk2 tanks produce lift, but that isn't really an excuse to make them have the same amount of fuel as a smaller Mk1. It's only logical to have the extra space contain fuel. If balance is a concern, they should just be made more expensive or similar, not made space-inefficient. Sure you could say there are structural supports in there, but they certainly shouldn't take up all available space.

What kind of bearing are you using, and what are you spinning with it? I've found bearings to commonly catch on themselves and exert destabilizing forces. There's also an angular velocity limit which means good mass is necessary for stabilization. Also, I'm pretty sure that gyroscopic stabilization isn't so much a directly programmed feature, as it is a result of basic physics being applied to all the parts. It is because of physics that we see the artifact that we call gyroscopic stabilization. And yes I am talking about a spinning top. I gtg to work now but maybe I can show proof of GS later

Gyroscopic stabilization already is a mechanic in KSP. Try sending a spaceship tumbling in random directions, and then pressing q or e for several seconds. It should end up stabilizing. (This is all with SAS off) Might I ask what about bearings suggest a lack of gyroscopic stabilization mechanic? Edit: also you can even make a top right on the launchpad

Oh, that's fine, by unconventional what I meant is that I'm effectively turning the engine inside out.

Are there any rules for the design of the turboprop? Because I'm working on something that should get really good performance, but it's a bit... unconventional to say the least.

I'd have to say my proudest moment from the space part of my KSP play is from a while back, and was landing a rover successfully on Duna after it ate 3 different probe/rovers I sent to it (I'd landed there before, but for a while after it didn't seem to like me)... I apparently have an analog of the Curse of Mars in my game.

I think the reason trailing nosecones reduce drag is because of the mechanic of the game which makes exposed nodes have drag. This happens whether the node is at the front, side, back, wherever that's not inside a cargo bay or fairing.

I don't think this can really qualify as a bug, so much as a feature that just plain was never implemented. The KSP stock aero model wasn't made to simulate every aspect of real life aerodynamics. Just really enough to allow your average Joe to tell it's there when launching a spacecraft and launch a plane with. Of course it was pretty bad for a while, so it got upgraded in 1.0.0. It is of course still nowhere like real life (you still need FAR for that). KSP still doesn't model stalls reasonably, so why would we expect it to model the drag reduction of running engines? (Still would be a nice feature ofc for those of us that know about this, but I'm guessing lots of people wouldn't notice or understand it, and would think it was a bug) As for the putting nosecone on the back of engines, even if the engines got reduced drag when running, people would still put nosecones there because there's a node. KSP physics mean that nodes will produce drag, regardless of the engine thrusting or not, so the argument about adding nosecones is a bit arbitrary. This is an entirely separate bug. As for "overcrowding engines" ... I don't see what you're getting at. Presumably clustering engines close together would reduce cross-sectional area when looking down the length of the rocket, and thus drag. This sounds perfectly logical. Could you explain what you're talking about exactly?