Jestersage

While it is possible to determine the direction the wing will go when "brake" was applied, in normal operation, is there a way to ensure the wing flap pull in the direction that I want so it will "work as intended"?

Personally, what I really dislike is the nerf on the Cub, since my Dragon depends on it. On the other hand, I feel the Thud maybe reworked soon, so I will poodle at that time.

I posted this somewhere else, but for sake of discussion of Wolfhound: The nice thing about this nerf is that it actually give me a reason to not use WolfHound in a good way. See, when I design stuff, I usually create multiple variants; some for looks, other for performance. Wolfhound is ugly, but due to its high TRW and high ISP, for Space Capsules (and space tugs), I ended up creating variants simply for the sake of function even though it does not fit in looks (eg: An Orion MPCV with Wolfhound -- how is it different from an Apollo-clone except it have less fuel?) With such focus on TRW (based on KER), it gives good reason to actually check when to use WolfHound and when not to. It actually give Cheetah a real purpose, as the AJ10 Kerbal Analogue is the Cheetah -- 2x AJ10 gives one Centaur, which is what Poodle is now based on.

If they want to sell stuff to China, yes.

I am debating whether I actually like the Wolfhound change In terms of constructions, it actually give me a reason to not use WolfHound in a good way. See, when I design stuff, I usually create multiple variants; some for looks, other for performance. Wolfhound is ugly, but for the Space Capsules (and space tugs), I ended up creating variants simply for the sake of function even though it does not fit in looks (eg: An Orion MPCV with Wolfhound -- how is it different from an Apollo-clone except it have less fuel?) With such focus on TRW (based on KER), it gives good reason to actually check when to use WolfHound and when not to. It actually give Cheetah a real purpose, as the AJ10 Kerbal Analogue is the Cheetah -- 2x AJ10 gives one Centaur, which is what Poodle is now based on. Now, why do I don't like such nerf? Simple- aside from the fact it's a nerf, it really gives no reason to buy Making History for new people, something the Take Two Overlords would not be happy about.

I would. Granted. If they really want to, they can do what Payday 2 did, and quite a lot of Take Two properties did: No base game, No DLC, only the combination verison available, and if Steam is smart can subtract properly. Selling OP stuff by cash is what allow Chinese game industry to expand, so...

I am refering to my own Apollo clones, ranging from one's made out of the Apollo Service Module, to the simple one where it's just a Mk1-3 capsule on top of a X16 fuel tank and then attach engine at the bottom, and even one that have the 2.5m Payload Bay on a x8 fuel tank -- but sure let's go with Acapello, which is a bit overkilled (and close to an x16 fueltank). Will be interested to see how other users does it; especially those that use it as a space-tug/upper stage engine. Speaking of which -- fix of Apollo Service Module door when? Right now if it's loaded, the door act as if closed.

What is weird with the new Wolfhound is that it actually have worse actual efficency when compared to Poodle according to KER. With a direct swap on various Apollo-type clone, there is an actual loss of delta 20m/s to even 200m/s. However, it's TWR (when compared to Poodle) is better, but for a vacuum engine it's not much of an issue... Have not test out the cub yet, will check later. However, I think more and mroe of us are using Cubs more as a clone for SuperDraco on a Dragon V2, which is powerful and small

Yeah, notice Wolfhound now have a bit better TRW, but for most of my crafts, Poodle actually yield better Delta V than the Wolfhound (?!) Happy Holidays to you too!

This is the list of changed parts, listing its name as it would appear in the craft file. (Unverified except by me, so be cauious if you want to use it to drop in replace your parts in you craft files) If it only show a name by itself, that means it retained its name /// Beta // mark3Cockpit --> mk3Cockpit.Shuttle // mk3Fuselage --> mk3FuselageLFO.50 // mk3spacePlaneAdapter --> adapterMk3-Mk2 /// 1.4 /// // TR-2V Stack Decoupler → TD-06 Decoupler // stackDecouplerMini_ --> Decoupler.0_ // TR-18A Stack Decoupler → TD-12 Decoupler // stackDecoupler_ --> Decoupler.1_ // Rockomax brand decoupler → TD-25 Decoupler // decoupler1-2_ --> Decoupler.2_ // radialDecoupler.2_ --> radialDecoupler1-2_ // Reason for this: radialDecopler have the same problem,Convert Back // TR-38-D → TD-37 Decoupler // size3Decoupler_ --> Decoupler.3_ // TR-2C Stack Separator → TS-06 Stack Separator stackSeparatorMini --> Separator.0_ // TR-XL Stack Separator → TS-25 Stack Separator stackSeparatorBig_ --> Separator.2_ // TR-18D Stack Separator → TS-12 Stack Separator stackSeparator_ --> Separator.1_ // ROUND-8 Toroidal Fuel Tank → R-12 'Doughnut' External Tank toroidalFuelTank_ --> externalTankToroid_ // Rockomax X200-8 Fuel Tank → same name fuelTank4-2_ --> Rockomax8BW_ // Rockomax X200-16 Fuel Tank → same name fuelTank2-2_ --> Rockomax16.BW_ // Rockomax X200-32 Fuel Tank → same name fuelTank1-2_ --> Rockomax32.BW_ // Rockomax Jumbo-64 Fuel Tank → same name fuelTank3-2_ --> Rockomax64.BW_ // Mk 1-2 Pod → Mk 1-3 Pod Mark1-2Pod_ --> mk1-3pod_ ///1.5/// // Mk1 Command Pod mk1pod_ --> mk1pod.v2_ // HECS probeCoreHex_ --> probeCoreHex.v2_ * HECS2 HECS2 // OKTO probeCoreOcto_ --> probeCoreOcto.v2_ // OKTO2 probeCoreOcto2_ --> probeCoreOcto2.v2_ * QBE probeCoreCube // RoveMate roverBody_ --> roverBody.v2_ // Stayputnik probeCoreSphere_ --> probeCoreSphere.v2_ // RT-5 "Flea" Solid Fuel Booster solidBooster_sm_ --> solidBooster.sm.v2_ // RT-10 "Hammer" Solid Fuel Booster solidBooster_ --> solidBooster.v2_ //convert back solidBooster.v2.sm -->solidBooster.sm OR: solidBooster --> solidBooster.v2 solidBooster.v2_sm --> solidBooster.sm.v2 ///1.6/// // Mk2 Lander Can mk2LanderCabin_ --> mk2LanderCabin.v2_ // 48-7S Spark liquidEngineMini_ --> liquidEngineMini.v2_ // RE-L10 Poodle liquidEngine2-2_ --> liquidEngine2-2.v2_ // LV-909 Terrier liquidEngine3_ --> liquidEngine3.v2_ * FL-A10 adapterSmallMiniTall_ * FL-A5 adapterSmallMiniShort_ // ADTP-2-3 Size3to2Adapter_ --> Size3To2Adapter.v2_ * Rockomax Brand Adapter largeAdapter_ * Rockomax Brand Adapter 02 largeAdapter2_ // TVR-200 Stack Bi-Coupler stackBiCoupler_ --> stackBiCoupler.v2_ // TVR-1180C MK1 Stack Tri-Coupler stackTriCoupler --> stackTriCoupler.v2_ * TVR-2160C Mk2 Stack Quad-Coupler stackQuadCoupler_ * TVR-200L Stack Bi-Adapter adapterLargeSmallBi_ * TVR-300L Stack Tri-Adapter adapterLargeSmallTri_ * TVR-400L Stack Quad-Adapter adapterLargeSmallQuad_ * Small Nose Cone standardNoseCone_ * Aerodynamic Nose Cone noseCone_ * Advanced Nose Cone - Type B pointyNoseConeB_ * Advanced Nose Cone - Type A pointyNoseConeA_ * Protective Rocket Nose Cone MK7 rocketNoseCone --> rocketNoseCone.v2_

Thanks. Time to build my (all the updated parts in the change log and then document the name)

I think your LITE and NITE may go back to Poodle now...

So does anyone know if the revamp, from the craft file PoV is "new parts" (eg: <part>.v2) or "old parts" (retaining old name)

While I figured out the variable name for the craft parts, trying to feed them one at a time into the Notepad++ is still painful Is there a program, or something I can start off, that I can put in the changes of name and forcibly change it to newer parts (expected "bug": all the old values are retained)

Agree completely. The problem is how do you stop yourself from starting to add parts when you don't need it. If you look at my crafts at kerbalX, you will notice there is a part-number increase vs functions.

Oh come on, mine is not that pretty... I want it streamlined, but lego-y is enough... Yeah, pretty much doing this -- until you find some how it does not look pretty enough, and you throw in 4 parts here, and 2 parts there...

Okay, this time I am lazy -- a Chinese-influenced project without the Chinese description. I present to you by Chang'e 3/4 clone, the Munfeelsor Compact: As I indicated in the page note, the Poster's description is heavily influenced by a song. Can you guys guess which one it is from? ;-)

Right -- mine requires 4-person (or more) no matter what, so a switch from LEM + Cabin to Mk2 may make sense.

When I first went it, I say myself: "Okay, part number, function, delta-V/TRW first, aesthetic be damned" Now I found myself starting to find some of my craft start to ignore that "rule". So how does everyone, especially those focus on low-part count, prevent oneself from going part count crazy?

Hey Raptor, do you expect yourself to at least try to use the Slim Mk2 Lander can, especially for LV-3A? (I know I will experiment with it for my Altair clone)

Thanks for both answers. I will also experiment with airbrakes.

To begin with: No mods. So right now I am trying to use landing gears as a pseudo elevator to raise and lower the payload. On Kerbin, it works as intended. On mun, it at best launch the payload up but with an okay orientation, and at worst it sommersault and proceed to ruin my payload. So refering to some of the older threads, I noticed the following: According to https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/173583-landing-gear-weight-limits/&amp;page=0#comment-3347698 * Spring rate is what it sounds like. A higher number for spring rate will compress less for a given load, and will oscillate at a higher frequency. Perversely, this means you can have too much landing gear and will have to reduce the spring rate under light loads. * The damper rate, OTOH, is the percentage of criticality. 0% is undamped; oscillations will carry on forever. 100% is critically damped; oscillations will be eliminated by the end of the first cycle. A typical rough terrain suspension is damped around 30%, whereas a 60% damping is used for a smooth surface. Going beyond 100% damping tends to make it difficult for the wheels to maintain contact with the ground, jacking down the suspension over rough surfaces. But also, according to https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/175866-cant-tame-bouncing-landing-gear/&amp;page=0#comment-3398427 * Did you set friction control override? That thing also bounces and wobble. However, I am uncertain how the friction control affect it. So I guess what I want to know is: * Is there anyway to minimize the bounce/catapulting? * In addition, how does friction control affect the bounce? * And anythign else affect the bounce?

Well, let's hope they would not really depreciate the Mark1-2 capsule

So it's already 1.5.1, and so far, the DLC service bay have two technical issue: even with advanced tweakable, you can always stage its panels Once you stage it, and then get out of its view, and upon return, the service bay only have the appearance of being popped open. This is especially problematic with the SM-25, as it's designed to have its panel popped open to exposed payloads as needed -- so it become difficult to click on the parts within the two compartments. Wondering if they will be fixed?

Most of my stuff are stock (+DLC) replicas, or replica of paper projects. I will say the most "full on replica" is my Soyuz Clone, since it does not even have reaction wheel, but utilized RCS for the reentry guidance. For other stuff, click on my signature.