Jestersage

Hey Raptor9, if we need some advice, can we still ask you? (I myself is less "stuck" and more of "too many good combination, don't know which one to pick")

I think you answer the closest to what I am asking for, but just for clarity sake: Situation: assume there is no commnet connect to KSC; I do understand it's single hop, direct link between vessel only; The Target vessel Only has a probe core, takes "remote pilot assist" My question is then: 1) Can the controller's command module can be either a manned command module (Mk1-3 Capsule, Lander Can Mk2, and MEM), or the advanced probe (RC-001S/L01) -- or am I restricted to the capsule? Controller's Spare pilot: Is it the same regardless of using the manned command module or probe, or only applied to the manned module? In short, if I have a non-pilot kerbal in a craft that have RC-L01, can the veessel act as a controller? I am designing a controller vessel that (for sake of discussion) have only have a probe core, crew cabin (no manned command module), and a relay antenna -- ie scenario B/B' as my OP stated. I am wondering if it can control a target vessel with only a probe core, assuming the target takes "remote pilot assist"

Now I got the understanding that with commnet, one can control an unmanned probe if the command module/probe core have "probe control point". However, the next sticking point is: Suppose Vessel A, B, C are not connected to KSC. Vessel A is a Lander Can Mk2 (aside from MEM and Mk1-3, it also have Probe Control point), with 1 Pilot and 1 Kerbalnaut. vessel B has an advanced probe core and a Cabin, containing a non pilot kerbalnaut Vessel C is an unmanned probe. Based on my understanding, A can control C, and B can also control C, right? If B cannot, would (B') where the kerbalnaut is a pilot allow (B') to control C? EDIT: Thank you. so in my case, Vessel B' will suffice.

For fun: Take a guess how many "未命名飞船" exist. So in case for those wondering: I am going to stick with kerbalX, except for a few just to attract people to my page at KerbalX. There are a few issues I see with SteamWorkshop, whihc 77i also found out: picture uploading is a pain. Also must be small size,thus you must convert you picture to jpg Sometimes it does not work, as the errors I keep having showed. I did do a file verify, but not sure if that is the reason why the uploading button work The thumbnail is painful. Also not enough info until I click on it.

I have noticed a few things based on quick glance of SteamWorkshop: Most of them are low effort There are more users from Chinese Mainlanders and Russia in SteamWorkshop. In fact I would not be surprised that's the real reason for such existence. Now this is the big one: There may be one or two designs that used to belong to someone on kerbalX and upload it. Usually they will be uploaded by Chinese Mainlanders (simply by only having Chinese name/description instead of bi/tri-ligual like my KL700). The naming scheme is also very similar. However, they did some changes so they technically cannot be concretely proved as such.

Did that, samething. Welcome, new player.

When I tryed to upload my LK700 , I got k_ERResultlimitExceeded error. I am not even adding anything special. So what can cause it? Also, is the VAB/SPH button the only place to upload the craft?

There's no way this is objective, but I am wondering: Now that Steam Workshop can work with KSP, which is the best place, in your opinion, to put your craft? As for me, I am sticking with KerbalX for now -- simply because it's community run. Now if some of the big names move their craft to Steam Workshop I may consider using it as secondary place. For those that wonder about cloud drive (and why I say it does not count). Even if you put it in a folder, one cannot immediately have a preview of how the craft looks like. In the worst case, like Admiral Andre, I don't even know which craft is associated with the video. EDIT: Trying to upload my LK700 clone to SteamWorkshop and what do I get?-- k_ERResultlimitExceeded error. I am not even adding anything special. Going to ask that in technical support. EDIT2: Finally got it up. Noticed that that place have a lot of Mainlander's submissions. The "bad" news: Scott Manley is using Steam Workshop.

My UR700+LK700 clone, the KL700 and Butalae 700S, is out. It is pure stock, non-DLC craft.(link at the top) I had been debating whether to go with all stock, or for the sake of maintaining its UR500 based craft, utilize DLC. In the end, I figure: since there are so much Apollo Clones out there, why don't I do a clean replica that is even better? So I decided to go pure stock, which is fitting, as LK700 is designed to go against Apollos in real world. The only problem is that the S-version is not that powerful if you launch it from Woomerang launch site unless you timed your launch, due to less Delta-V and worst TRW in comparison. That being said, it looks good enough to go toe-to-toe against the 5m parts. I did make a DLC edition, but is debating whether to push it out. If I get enough feedback, I may decide to do so.

I was wondering why you choose to use Mk1 lander can instead of MEM for your LV-3A, until I realized I tried it once already, and ended up need reaction wheels (which you disabled) and plenty of weight shifting since MEM is heavier than the cabin and thus require a vertically stacked configuration.

I have almost completed my UR700 and the LK-700. (Preview removed) I actually made multiple versions. Some that use DLC components, as seen here. Some use pure stock. A major decision is whether, for first stage, is to use x64+x32 tank (that's 1.5 orange tank) or two x64 tank. Otherwise it's just some final testing, with a profile designed for moonshot from Woomerang, direct landing. Stay tuned. Feel free to comment as usual.

My first Kerbal-esque real rocket... the UR700 I am debating whether to go with x64+x32 tank as I do now, or two x64 tank for the first stage. Otherwise it's just some final testing...

More like the N-1 failed because N-1 is a poor design, chosen because of in fighting. UR-700 is a proper design. UR-700A is even better.

Okay. So in theory, how would you launch from Woomerang to KSP's Mun? They are both at 45 degree North...

While testing my UR-700 clone, I realize one thing that Saturn V does not really need to account as much: the inclination. Kennedy Space Center is very close to the equator, so it's close to parallel to 0. Thus, the inclination change is not that high. Compare to launch from Baikonaur, they will need to do more inclination change -- one to close to 0 and one to Moon's inclination? So does this also contribute to the failure for the Soviets to reach the moon -- because they need to expand more delta V (in addition to in fighting, N1 30 rockets / the need for efficent asparagus staging of UR-700)?

Question: If one is trying to have a bundle of 3 or 4 1.25m parts, is it better to use the stock tri/quad adapter instead of using Engine plate? I am wondering how much the bottom attachment node of the engine plate affect the drag of the rocket.

Question: You mentioned that the LV-2D/2E used to be monoprop, but because of the rebalancing, you changed it. So: The rebalancing for 1.4 is only for the Radial attached tanks, right? In general, when would you use monoprop instead of LFO engines?

June 2nd Update: I have updated some of the parts, as well as removing extra parts, on my Orbiter Space Station, a single-launch solution based on one of the proposal for Space station Freedom. While I am going to release a seperate DLC-based Station, I want input from everyone: Whether I should minimize the parts further on the pure stock station (the one on KerbalX now). As those that did downloaded it, they will notice it will have some parts used purely for replication-based reasons, namely that of the monoprop tanks (which can be easily replaced with a Mk3 monoprop tank) and the 4 thermal panels mounted close to the bay door, done in order to mimic their original plan to have door-mounted radiators. EDIT: I had also changed my first Lehu that use the Ares-I direct analogue. Now it is a pure stock craft (Type SiX-S), and changed to use monoprop. The Ares-I Single SRB clone, now known as Fogin RX1, is also boosted with a TD-25-Seperatron booster, and that squeezed out a lot of Delta-V, going from barely making 200 m/s 80x80k to a ~680 m/s 100k x 100k orbit, enough to do rendezvous. All in all, I am satisfy that my little replica become much more functional.

Thanks for the reminder. That's basically my design philosophy: No need for adapter if it does not affect looks. Also thanks for reminding the more ships/subassm you dock, the p[art count goes HUGE.

Completely off topic: If you are building a craft, would you go out of the way to maintain it non-DLC, if it works just as well (and maybe even better) except having more parts -- especially if you already made something before that works well in 1.3? Asking for myself -- want to convert some of the 3.75 parts to 5m parts due to increase capacity, but you know -- DLC.

In a sense, it's a continuation of my "landing legs settings" question. There are many "tall-and-lanky using landing legs" landers, such as this guy (not mine). However, they are able to land easily (I think) without the bouncing and falling over syndrome during my test. So why are they able to do it, while my attempt failed until I gone with this?

Yes, but both of us care about looks. (Okay, in comparison to you, a bit less)

I see. In my case, My decision to use the Jr Port is due to the Mk1 capsule, as I want to make sure it carries 4 instead of just 3 Kerbalnauts.

Thanks for clarifying the issue. On a sidenote, how do you decide how to build the Apollo Capsule? Specific, compare to the dime-a-dozen MH Apollos, I notice you actually stick with the X200-8 tank+2.5m Service Bay, and use a Standard Size Port, instead of using the Conical service bay for the Parachutes. (Asking because I am debating whether to change my Orion Clone to use Standard Port too)