Jestersage

I notice that in Steam Discussion, people actually seems to not like mods as much, and would love more DLC. Situation is reverse in here. Or am I just having too small of as sample size?

And thanks to whoever that liked my earlier thread for disabling NyanCat. I am trying to fork it. once I figure out how to compile it, I will put up the MM-continue.

I am thinking of just one. Basically, just 1.6.1 and older, and is specifically targetting people who dislike teh direction of KSp is going.

Okay, let's flip it around: why do you think Squad is able to do it properly and fine with the DLC and the free updates, that Community cannot solve it with mods? My suggestion is basically to give community who refuse to move to newer versions the features and fix available from the newer version, including DLC. I picked BDB only because it's the closest to DLC (technically better but far more complicated)

Right... all mods are pretty complicated to be honest.

Actually, it reduce complexity, because a properly made mod pack is going to be easier. It's kind of like Linux, Ubuntu, and Android -- Ubuntu is like a multiple mods, while Android is the mod pack where everything is within the ecosystem. The Ubuntu, pushing for everyone figure things out, did not fly to replace Window, but Android does. (Apple, of course, go one further to rigidly enforce it, but that's closer to DLC) Anything outside, do not consider it. Hence I think a community mod pack would actually work.

Okay, going down a different line of discussion: How would this apply to China and Canada? I assume Canada will be identical follow US.

Except you don't have the power. I will FTFY If employees refuse this stunt? Close shop. They have enough workforce in China. Or in our case, enough market from China. Need me to remind you about a game called Devotion?

Buy their DLC, stop pushing for mod and exclude DLC, and they will keep quiet. Community ain't exactly friendly to T2.

Man, that was a long hiatus. Between work and etc, I didn't have much time to play KSP.. For those that visited my KerbalX page, you can find my newest creation, "YD-M4-02" (As in: Transport, Large, Mach 4, form 2) a craft that I designed specifically for career mode - specifically, deliver a rover in the least amount of time. It is inspired (but nowhere close to) two Russian craft: The TU-160 heavy bomber, and the PAK-VTA proposal. Due to minmaxing, it ended up having a Mk2 Command Pod, which aside from having less drag, also have a happy accident of optimized TWR and Delta-V balance. I actually did consider going with a flying rover/External rover drop, but so far it seems to involve excessive drag, heat, and a low speed.

I think the simplest takeaway for everyone is that, regardless of where you are, you are screwed, and will be screwed. In fact, just by using this forum, you may be in the future subject to T2's whim (and I would not be surprise if one day, they will make it so that any challenge that forbid DLC will not be allowed in here) My suggetsion: just play as need, don't invest too much, and prepare to jump ship, be it this forum or the game.

Hmm... will have to double check my Butalae Octa (been staying away from the USA crafts since yours are typically better). Granted, I did ended up say "screw this" on the Skiff and just go with Skipper on second stage... and my 1st stage consist of shorter tanks, compared to you which use longer tanks... EDIt: checked. You actually have better performance in TWR.

Interesting take on your shuttle design. I basically just give up on doing the STS as a we received at the end (despite my Orbiter Space Station), but instead I ended up looking at the earlier proposals, where there is only two stages: the flyback booster/disposable fuel tank, and the shuttle itself which only have a CRG-50 (CRG-75 for the KLAW -- still testing). I think the issue at hand is the real world figure vs KSP figure. While in KSP we lump them all into LKO, if you look at Wikipedia, ISS is on a higher orbit than stated, resulting in LEO delivery of 27t, but only 16t for ISS (which is what you have for current design). As for the components, each components for shuttle launch averaged at 16t -- But as you stated, your heaviest module is 5T at most. Still, 5T to 100k, to 150k, and to 250k require different delta-V, and that's just for first launch. Throw in rendezvous maneuver, and you may actually need all those delta-V... (my design tend to have excessive delta-V just to compensate for that fact.) Of course, the main reason why most people aim for 34t is more or less the use of Orange Tank for testing. That, and the nuclear shuttle (of original STS, aka your EV-3) was suppose to be launched on the space shuttle.

Okay, I do have HyperEdit, but most of the time anything that is not in Orbit (but especially when "landing") will end up clipping in the ground spectacularly... so what are the parameter?

Considering anyone who search for N1 will also find out LK700, this can go both way. Plus, since Apollo originally asked for direct ascent with Nova/Saturn-C8, one can easily argue LK700 fit the profile too.

So you are saying that the "lift" surface, and not just the drag coefficient, is what caused the drag?

I think I will try that. The two plane are litterally identical except the parts I mentioned. The problem is that the one using 1.8m parts have better TWR (for some reason). EDIT: Decide to use the build in AeroGUI (not the action menu). Keep the same flight profile (at 13k). Did 2 tests. Results are below: Design1: using Mk2: 330kN, +/- 20kN Design2: usign 1.8: 300kN, +/- 20kN What is weird when they are combined as one, the plane yaw to design2's side.... So why is it the case, if I test it indidvidually the 1.8m design have less drag?

The general rule of thumb is "Mk2 fuselage = draggy" However, I was looking at the drag coefficent in the wiki, and notice that Mk2 parts is not that high -- in particular, I was trying to use the 1.8m cockpit and a 1.8-2.5m adapter (and a nosecone at front), and when I compared the figures of equivalent Mk2 parts (mk2 cockpit+mk2-2.5m adapter). I noticed the drag coefficent is about the same, if not lower, with Mk2 parts. So which is right? Or, if you do not have an answer, how should I test out the two different design to find out which has the lower drag?

Thank you. Basically, compare to the complexity of the DLC vs BDB. Just because subjectively it's not complicated does not mean objectively it's easy to use.

"Stop supporting mods that hides behind the MIT/GPL, and force everything community-based accept (no, not except) DLC. Problem solved." /s I would not be surprise if one day, any postings in here, community challenge included -- but especially those that reject DLC but allow mods (eg: Kerbal Airline) have to be shutdown. And considering last EULA, it is possible as long as it is hosted in this forum instead of Steam Discussion... which have a whole different issue. I would welcome this, since I grow up on StarBreeze-DLC model. However, I also know a majority would not like it. Time to move to reddit, I guess.

Oh, thought that was intended.

Except parts within the Engine plate. I still cannot find the parameter, but I know that parts under engine plates and clip to each other will rotate violently.

My personal concern with winged rover (especially with Eve and Kerbin, with actual rover wheels) is the drag, especially if you want to fly Mach3+ to your destination. Anything below? Sure why not.

Simple Rockets?

Thank you. part of the reason I was planning to use two Panther is, aside from its RL inspiration, is also my mistaken understanding that, when I drop to subsonic/Mach 1 and use Panther-Dry, it will be more efficent for fuel. Not to mentioned when I am approaching a landing zone, it have to be subsonic. I guess I will stick with the 3x Whiplash design for now.