Daniel Prates

All those joints, elbows... those are not parts from the stand-alone IR! I don't know them! Where can I get the mod that contains them?

congrats @blackheart612 on another great installment of your mod. What is that wingroot there I see on the pictures? The part buried inside the fuselage? I can't seem to find it in the VAB.

Hi @kcs123 , only now I saw this post of yours. It never occurred to me that FAR would only work with compatible parts, I always thought it changed the most general aspects of aerodynamics and would hence work with every craft. Well, as far as ksp 1.3.x goes, I detected no difference or problem whatsoever (lucky me), even though my planes rarely have a stock part on them! I am not saying that there were no issues, but there were none I could promptly see anyway - planes would fly perfectly, with that extra difficulty that FAR is supposed to provide, compared to the stock aero anyway. I actually never even thought it could not be working fine. But indeed, I have recently tried out a heavily modded KSP 1.4.4 and FAR will make a mess of things, sadly. The CoL will not appear anywhere in the craft (it just lies there dead on the floor of the SPH), and no wing at all will provide lift. Thanks for the heads up.

Oh, that makes sense. I was pretty sure I had installed both mods correctly. Well, that's too bad. Will be checking this periodically though, I am crossing my fingers this will be worked out some time in the future. It's just too good a mod to go without, both Konstructs and yours. Keep up the good work!

Hi @Ger_space, fist of all, my many kudos on your mod, I have been using it for years. I am very optimistic for @Eskandare's mod, but for now I want to keep using your old familiar landing strips, which I have always loved, and that goes so well with the GAP contract pack. So let me get this straight: the current Kerbal Constructs for 1.4 will work fine with your own Kerbin Side Complete? ] its weird, I install both the 'kerbalkonstructs' folder and your own 'kerbinside' folder inside my gamedata folder, but nothing happens. The toolbar button for kerbin side is still there, warning me to go look for the preferences settings in the 'difficulty' options, but nothing else happens. I wonder if it is because of me trying to use this with KSP 1.4.4.

That is indeed the case. And it is hard to imagine FF being incompatible with anything else in the entire KSP mods spectrum. So both this and FF should work fine with every mod build.

Wonderdul @NESD! The MG seat looks extremelly good! The MG seat doesn't seem to be working with "take command", though. A plane with both the command pod and MG pod can only receive crew on the first, from within the VAB/SPH. Btw, what is that wing on the second pic? Is it from procedural wings?

There is a great video by "curious droid" about this: https://youtu.be/IyUwSJ5pXS0

Oh yeah. It will take some experimenting though. No spring rating at all may make your landing legs more susceptible to breaking under stress. But if in the current setting it is too bouncy, do reduce them a bit. All those parts with the green bar are tweakeable. I always tamper with wheel brakes for instance. Thrusters can have their max thrust reduced, cargo bays can be set not to open all the way... the possibilities are limitless. Fiddle with them, go nuts!

Right-o! Struts make good solid landing legs, if that'a what you need. And indeed, afaik vanilla (unmodded) KSP has a "spring rating" info in the part's context menu. Remove all of the "green bar" and it will be like a completelly solid leg. If you set it in the VAB, all legs will be affected, but if you do it in-flight, only the selected leg will be affected.

Oh my, what's this? Al Kapone's old car found in Abandoned KSC:

Take a look at the STRYKER and SXT mods!

I'm surprised you understood any of that, given the amount of typing errors from my part... I wrote that while driving . Still, it makes sense doesn't it? Now, one thing I forgot to mention. Such pods absolutely CANNOT be command pods. The minute you cycle through the kerbals, the navball compensates for whichever position they are facing, and if you initially placed such part inverted so that it faces rearwards, you suddenly get mayhem as the plane starts wanting to turn 180 degrees! A single-kerbal part with room on top to place a rudder on, to emulate a rearward firing position, would also be neat.

Boy, do we need this. Glazed noses, oservation cuppolas etc. Crewed parts, but not command seats, just a windowed place we coul place navigators, bombardiers, gunners etc. Theu could have standard rectangular attachment points where you could place the basic BdA .50 twin machineguns.

Just trying to show some support.

Interesting, I agree in some respects. Expensive is what I consider entering the mun's SoI and then having to spend delta-v correcting it to a polar stance. In my perception, a system with a mun station in equatorial orbit, and a mun outpost in an equatorial position, undoubtedly is cheaper to transit to/from then a station in polar orbit to a polar outpost, not to mention you also have to go between kerbin and said station, or perhaps even, directly from kerbin to the outpost. I think it would be mostly a matter of opinion/style what is the best approach, since 'colonyzing' the mun can be done in a variety of ways, be it with a supporting station in orbit or not. In my playstyle I try to do the 'budgeted' type of craft, to come to/from an orbital station, so saving delta-v anywhere I can is crucial, hence, my 'expensive' comment. I will agree though that KSP is somewhat permissive in that area and its not hard to design craft with a lot of surplus delta-v, as compared to what would probably be a delta-v budget in our real-life moon, for instance. Doing a polar-oriented station+outpost system is not impossible, neither particularly difficult. Just, not how I would do it. I fully agree with your data, btw.

With an atmosphere everyting gets more complicated. But I assume you want to land near a mun/minmus base. A good simple method is to do this: 1. Go into a low orbit. The less excentric, the better. 2. Use normal or antinormal burns to get your orbit to pass directly above your target. 3. Plan a retrograde maneuver node. Watch as its predicted path hits the ground. 4. Move the node, foward or backwards so that it lands directly above your target. 5. Execute? Well, not yet. The tricky business is to counter the movement of your target, since it is in the surface of a moving planet or moon. So place the end of the orbit beyond your target (how much is a matter of experience). Then execute the maneuver. 6. Watch as you descend, and monitor your path and your target's position, as both you move and the target moves foward on the ground. Then tweak it little by little with more short retro burns. Your target moves a little, you burn a little and so on. This will work if you left room to maneuver ahead of you, viz, your end path lying further from your target (because burning retrograde will always shorten the distance of your orbit's end). 7. When you pass directly above your target, point retro in relation to the SURFACE (and not 'orbit') and kill your speed completelly. You will then hover slowly towards your destination, just control your descent speed. But only do this when close enough: do it prematurelly, and the target will keep moving foward as you slowly fall towards the surface. Now, also consider this: 1. You under-shot and now your orbit ends on the ground short of the target? Burn RADIAL. It will throw your orbit end further, without changing speeds. 2. Is your target a little to the side of your path? Tweak with small normal or antinormal burns. 3. I always build surface outposts as close to the equator as I can. It will make me worry with only one axis of displacement, viz, I will start from an equatorial orbit and only worry about how far/ near the target is. But the farthest it is from the equator, the more you have to worry about it displacing in two different axes in relation to your aproaching ship: further/closer, and to the sides, forcing you to compensate for more variables. 4. Building outpost on the exact poles will eliminate all issues mentioned here. However those sites are impractical for other reasons, above all, the huge delta-v requirements to go into polar orbits in the first place. Also, usually the higher the ground, the easier to land on it, however the advantage quickly disapears as the site moves away from the equator. Yup, equatorial bases are usually the best choice. I'll do some pictures, re-visit this post later on and they will be there.

@blackheart612 congrats again, the new part size was a great idea. The adapters do help to integrate a bit with other part sizes - with tweakscale, its even easier to make them coherent with other parts. I think the new size deserves a passenger part, though! Something sitting maybe 6 or so kerbals.

Holy crap, PW has been updated!

Tantares never stops to amaze me! Tons of kudos @Beale.

Oh by all means, adress this only if there is nothing else to do. Its not crucial. And it can be solved with smart designs, for instance, using drogues. But really, in true koviet fashion, those chutes are some mighty crew-molesting parts!

I have no say in this parachute discussion since I am not experimenting any problems. I should say however that the deployment speed of all tantares chutes is indeed faster than average, resulting some near neck-breaking deacelerations, at least in low altitude where I usually deploy them (around 2000m). This is not a bug in my understanding, just an interesting fact that deserves consideration. Also, I use FAR ('blessed be this mod', says he in deep respect and awe) which changes the aero properties and thus can be the cause, as I imagine tantares is not calculated to fit well with every single mod out there (which is fair).

Its indeed strange how some places in the KSC are proper biomes for some experiments, but aren't for others. To comment the OP, I too think that there is room for improvement here. A surface sample from an anomaly would give you all the more reason to go there. Tracking and landing next to the polar cap's saucer, for one, should at least reward you with decent science (and it's a saucer, no less!)

That happena with flying crew reports too. In the high end of the armosphere you get an upper atmosphere report anywhere, and in the low end, you get different reports for different biomes. It will depend on the experiment I guess. Aome other experiments only provide "flying low" and "flyung high" reports.

A interwar-like fighter using SM-Stryker, AirplanePlus and BdA + aviator's arsenall parts: Wing size tweaked with 'tweakscale', ailerons and flaps by procedural wings. I use FAR too, so it has working flaps, and since FAR makes everything more difficult, the weight was capped at 4 tons (which already is a lot!) by adding only a couple of .50 machine guns from aviator's arsennal, diminishing the wing's structural strenght (a FAR feature) and bringing along only enough fuel for some 25 minutes of flight. It stalls at 45m/s, but only 35m/s with full flaps. Top speed is around 120m/s. Crappy performance for KSP standards, right? But actually quite good considering the weight, engine power, what it was designed for, and of course the extreme realism provided by FAR, which REALLY FORCES YOUR HAND to design sensible, realistic airplanes. (EDIT: so maybe it's no wonder it ended up looking so much like a real life plane. Needless to say, all Centers were properly placed, which influenced how it ended up looking). This is all 1.3 KSP or course. Half those mods haven't got into 1.4 yet and maybe never will. I am only posting this to show what can be done with half a dozen mods, this one in particular! Kudos to the dev!