EpicSpaceTroll139

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?

Here's the Titan Mk1(-2) Also, welcome to the forums @Koro

By to much forward pitch, are you referring to leaning the helicopter far forward in an attempt to go fast? Because if so I've found that helicopters don't seem to like going too fast. Even the much larger Titan Mk1 cargo heli (which I showed earlier) isn't reliable over 25m/s. I'm not sure why it happens on the small heli, but the Titan has the excuse that its rotor blade tips start (according to my calculations) to go supersonic. (Then again, that's only really applicable in heavy lift mode, so I really don't know). Lol

Hmmm... I have made some turboprops with blade tips that are very close to the speed of sound. If I make one with blade tips that go supersonic, and I use this mod, will I be able to create an extremely loud noise like the XF-84H Thunderscreech (most kerbal name ever haha)?

Ok, it turns out these rotors can get a maximum of 560kN of thrust with 224% thrust efficiency, rotating at 2090 degrees/sec = about 35 rad/s = about 333rpm, assuming runway's altitude. (I determined all this through the Aero Data GUI found in the debug menu.). I might be able to get slightly more if I tweak them for less drag. I'll share them as soon as I get Koro's permission (they're mostly his work).

This is why I suggested going into the craft file and removing symmetry on all the parts of the prop assembly. It is using symmetry on parts that already have symmetry that provokes the kraken. Remove the symmetry on the parts before mirroring them, and the kraken should stay away.

I have no idea... I didn't see that button before lol. Maybe because I haven't needed it before. Usually what I'm doing when changing symmetry modes is fixing instances of the editor deciding "Hey! You just replaced your plane's fuselage after fixing something near the cockpit! I bet you want me to change the symmetry on your wings to radial even though you never used it while building!" >:( Had to do that on several planes, worst of all the A-380... took friggin 20 minutes.

I haven't tried this yet, but from other projects, this should work. You could make an engine subassembly and then go into the subassembly craft file and change all the symmetry type lines on the parts to "none." Then when you put it on a plane, mirror symmetry should make a perfect counterpart.

Ah yes, I never really optimized that thing. I was just like "hey it flies!" And shared it @Azimech How dare you make a plane with my engine! Just kidding, that's awesome that you were able to make a plane with that!

The rotors already have these actually in order to prevent the DMP server I test these on from autodeleting them. What I'm getting at is that you wouldn't be able to throttle while controlling the main craft. In other words, whenever the throttle needed to be changed, one would have to switch to the rotor, change the throttle, then switch back to the main craft. This would not only be annoying, but also make hovering and maneuvering much harder. Also it would probably be a death sentence in DMP because whenever you switch ships there, it's liable to switch you to someone's plane 20km away and not let you go back.