STS Fallacy

They're a whole lotta fun. Although you might call me a shuttle cheater, since I only use the Buran configuration - tried the STS one too, but found it too damn hard to balance properly - and the results were vastly inferior. Here's one for illustration: Unfortunately, they're still vastly inferior to most rockets I've built to date, and SSTOs blow them out of the water. They're bad at everything - payload-to-orbit, cost, safety and manoeuvrability. But I'm having a blast launching them, so I use them anyway.

Core part of windows or not, some interaction with that dll (or its subprocesses) has resulted in a crash. In my opinion, it wouldn't be the first time that lousy programming of the system itself has messed up a program.

That thing got me thinking. I normally don't use windows - my laptop is a mac and my desktop runs linux, but I borrowed my brother's laptop and installed KSP there. Got a CTD after +- 30 minutes of playing. And another 45 minutes after that - with OneDrive installed. Removed it, got another CTD after an hour or so. Played KSP 1.1.2 for about 30 hours on my mac. One CTD. And for ten hours on my linux. No CTD. Which means... (no offense, I'm just joking) Windows is the reason of those crashes. Now seriously: That dll was the reason of all three windows CTDs I had. Something fishy going on in there.

The update has pushed my performance up a lot. I can finally afford to crank the aero effects up! Also, my planetary bases no longer make the game grind to 10 FPS when I come anywhere near them. To date, I've only had one CTD, caused by reverting, and some kraken attacks - courtesy of "Friction control". Hardware: 2015 MacBook Air, Core I5 @ 1,86 GHz, Intel Iris 6000 graphics.

Definitely buying that one...

My biggest gripe? The way the "Friction Control" AKA "Spaceplane Messer" works right now. It crashes my craft on takeoff and landing (due to inexplicably blocking wheels and thus spinning them out of control), seems to have a negative effect on wheel strength and doubles as a Kraken bait. More than once, I've had a craft sliding sideways across the runway with the system on, as it somehow thought that it's normal. And the worst thing about it is that if you turn it off, it steals your brakes and replaces them with the ones your kid's bike uses. It's so outrageously bad that sometimes I just turn the plane around on landing and brake with my engines. But otherwise, the game seems good to me as it is. Squad has done a really good job. Just fix the wheels and it will be good.

Every single spaceplane I build has a T-shaped tail. It originally started as a necessity, because jets weren't giving any thrust with stabilisers behind them, and it sort of stuck...

I second the replay value. Nothing in my life gave me more bang for less buck (20 EUR for 1000+ hours). Also, the creative potential. In this game, you can do anything as long as you're crazy enough to think it up...

My first line of career rockets: USC-1 to USC-12: USC stands for "Untitled Space Craft". Also "E.R.M.A.H.G.E.R.D." - Emergency Rescue Module And High G Error Recovery Device.

The 14km ceiling is courtesy of the Juno engines. They lose their power at higher altitudes. In practice, during my flight to the arctic (One way, mind you, wouldn't have enough fuel to get back), I've never surpassed 10km. It was just a painfully long cruise at 300 m/s. Another thing, I have a hint for you: In editors, try to pitch the wings up by about one tick of the angle snap placement, and pitch the stabiliser down one tick (or two ticks if you use the symmetric plane tail, or more if your plane is underpowered, though that will give you more air resistance). That way, the SAS will have an easier time maintaining pitch. You can then go AFK for about 3-5 minutes at a time and just correct the flight when you come back. For the rudder, you can use the the tail fin or standard canard - those parts can have things attached to them. And for the stabiliser, I've had best results with AV-R8 winglet (or another standard canard). These have fixed bases, so it doesn't look too silly when they move. Although you could probably use anything, as long as it generates lift. For the aircraft I've posted earlier, the T-tail is a necessity. With a standard tail configuration, those engines would give no thrust for some reason...

I might be coming late to the party, but nevertheless: Built those two for the early career survey missions. The first one is able to take from the rally track as well, if you turn down the friction control. The second one has been used to do surveys in the arctic. Both fly well, with the second one, I could even go AFK for three minutes and it hasn't crashed.