EliteGuy3

Ok, I'm done

My gosh, this game is amazing for everyone. The exploration, development, and explosions are awesome! Especially the explosions! They bring out the humour. I like creating rockets and sending them to Jool, and watching others do so. And blow stuff up. I've watched this game for 3 years, and eventually, I came to my nerves to buy the game, and I fell in love with it instantly. I don't know about you guys, but within the past year, I've had over 850 hours over gametime on this game. Well done Squad, this is the best game ever.

Make sure to read the rules before entering a craft. Also, @boolybooly, you should probably mention how gantries cause clipping and misalignment A.K.A no launch clamps.

What video?

Ok. A KIS chip is apart of the Kerbal Inventory System mod. Now, I don't know if it affects mass, aerodynamics and all that, but would does a KIS chip benefit?

So I quickly put all the parts together, and without reduced fuel levels or the "KIS Chip", it weighs 0.84t. The radial parts create too much drag, even when clipped (because physicsless parts rules), during flight. BS detector detected positive.

Same thoughts here. Checking BS detector...

Hey @ccoel, what are the fuel levels? Also, NO ROCKET!? How can you get about 25000m with a Juno JET engine? Also also, can we have a picture of it? Also also also, 4 Z400s sounds like a waste. Also also also also, no wings? Also also also also also, I'm surprised by the lack of activity in this forum.

Back when Jacksepticeye released his second KSP video - NIPPLE SHIP 2.0.

Ok, ok. Now I understand

To me, that just looks like a chunk of the mun - okay what the heck, is that a pipe? What's a pipe doing on the mun? Or is that the brother of the Kraken? You've encountered it yourself.

We call it the Kraken because bugs are like Kraken. Ships would disappear out at sea because of it, and same goes for our spacecraft, except we actually witness the Kraken. If you wish, you can find a part of the Kraken somewhere on Bop. And also, I believe a bug is when a computer is given an input which it has not been designed to calculate, thus fails and gives a wrong output, or even crash. Onto the real topic, @ccoel, were you able to reboot the game?

As I said, Again, thanks for the advice. Clipping radial parts only help for re-entry heating, and applies to all radial parts. See, this how I live up to my motto, "Discombobulated Engineer."

Wow, never thought this forum would get the attention of @Snark. Ok, So in summary, in-line parts can avoid generating (lots of) drag, while it doesn't matter where you place a physicsless radial part because the army monkey. I apologize for my discombobulated confusion over this topic. However, I'm glad it put light on physicsless parts, which I sure needed to learn about.

Oh, this game.... Well thanks. The wiki too shows that physicsless parts' characteristics are adopted by their parent parts. Still don't quite understand the Z-200, maybe it's because there's a nose cone connected to it, but at least I know now about the Z-100.

So one day I was trying to get minimalist record in the K-Prize Challenge, and I wondered why the SpecialSpeckOfDust used a Z-200 battery. When testing it with a entirely clipped Z-100, the plane didn't accelerate as fast. When I replaced it with the Z-200, it flew fast enough to get to orbit and back, like the video. Can someone explain to me why the Z-200 is better than a physicsless part in this case?

Hey, remember me? No, I'm not here to do another throw down, but... I present the Corinthians I This was surprisingly simple. What I did was, from the looks of Kolibri 2, made tweaks so it used less fuel. In doing so, I fitted in a reaction wheel with batteries. One of the problems was that circular intakes were too heavy, so I replaced it with a nose cone and 2 radial intakes, shaving off ~0.5 tons (correct me if I'm wrong). I always like making tiny craft because of how simple they are, instead of having massive cargo SSTO with a certain fuel tank with this much fuel and so on. It's also quite easy to improve, because of how little parts there are. You know which part effects what. I also do small because my head isn't big enough to all that TWR stuff. oh, It looks like I'm too late...

You don't need to land your SSTO on a runway, If you take a look at my entries, not being a good pilot myself, landed in the water or beside the runway. Just don't crash or lose any parts. I think Bradley Whistance did something like that: Just not horizontal

Thanks! Merry Christmas!

I really shouldn't be here. If I do my calculations right, the lightest possible SSTO and back is 0.6 tons. That's the barrier.

That's the new KSP minimalist record. The previous record was 1.4t. Congrats!

Okay, I except defeat. Wait, you haven't completed your album yet?

Great job @tseitsei89! Updating leaderboard.

Thanks

Well, you asked for it, and here it is: Binoree I Unfortunately, can't add formatting. What's wrong with this form? Weighing in at 1.91 tons. Although not the lightest SSTO, it sure is tiny. Could be better, but that would mean getting rid of fuel tanks, as everything else is vital. Yes. It's unmanned. Sue me.