Delay

Did you do 5.35 circumnavigations with that thing? How did you do that?

I asked because rule 7 states "No Staging". Still, thanks. Edit: Another question: Does a big increase in gliding time (and distance) count as "flying with 50% of the engines"?

So, do I have to activate a parachute by hand or assign it to an action group? Or can I use the staging for that?

Tried to make a SR-71... Ended up with a suborbital spaceplane, but it can go into orbit under the right circumstances. Does that still count?

You do know you can go too far, right?

Loaded up the quicksave again today. I was surprised to see that the airplane stayed intact. Seems like quickloading after a game restart is a workaround. Anyway, here is another quicksave (I provoked the failure this time).It's pretty much garanteed to break up.

Sorry to say it, but it is enabled. I don't know what it does, though. Sure it "eases in gravity", but what is eased?

What if the game didn't apply physics instantaneously, but slowly increased their "significance"? It would avoid instant forces that lead to disassembly, wouldn't it?

Of course I know, it was an exaggeration to get my point across better. If it looks like the airplane could stall at any minute (basically FSX' default 747), then there should be a malus.

So I flew an airplane (the DC-10 of the airliner safety challenge) today when I realized this very annoying bug with physics in the atmosphere. It might be me jumping to conclusions, but it seems like any quicksave made at over 150 m/s causes the main wings to separate from the fuselage and the plane falls out of the sky. If the airplane survives (the wings didn't separate), I can see the wings jump up and down before stabilizing. Now I'm afraid of quicksaving in the atmosphere because it could lead to the catastrophic failure. Is there a quick fix for this? Or is it something only the devs can fix?

If I understand correctly, you imply an elliptical orbit whose periapsis dips below the event horizon You seem to forget about special relativity, which states that nothing with mass can go faster than light. Going back up inside the event horizon would require faster than light speeds. You would just slowly spiral to your doom because of this.

I present to you: a recreation of the DC-10! (Ignore the arrows, Steam uses F12 for screenshots) It can't tailstrike. (+20 points) It can land without turning around if you cut throttle before takeoff. (+0 points) It can't fly in a straight line without SAS/trim when flying with full tanks, it becomes more stable as the tanks get empty. (0 points) It can fly on the two wing engines (I won't add these bonus points, since it'd be cheating, +0 points) It has airbrakes (+10 points) It can land on the water with all crew surviving. (+10 points) It has all engines and intakes in the same stack. (+10 points) Information: Passengers: 80 (Superheavy) Cruise speed: 278 m/s at 3000m Max speed: 319.2m/s at 1600m Max distance: 2115.48km (over 50% of Kerbin) Number of engines: 3 AOA: 3-5°, lowers with fuel level Score: 1381 points Note: There should be a malus for angle of attack. An airplane at 45° AOA should not scoreas good as one with 1 or 2°. Please?

Don't give up. Keep trying! Pick a flat landing site if your lander always tips over. Build a launcher with more fuel. If you add to the lander, your launcher has to carry more, decreasing its performance and you it's possible you fall even shorter. Unless you're good at suicide burns, try and keep your speed under 60m/s or so. The further you go down, the slower you go. The landing legs can survive ~20m/s (not recommended though) I had the same issues, trust me. I think everyone had those problems when they started. Mun landings are routine for me now.

Could it be inclination? The movement doesn't have to be pro- or retrograde. It can also be to the side.

Minmus.

I'll give it a try! Sounds like a lot of fun and dying.

This depends on the "quality" selected in the settings. Increase that and you should be able to see the shadow further.

I name craft according to their functionality. It is supposed to land on the Mun? Call it "Mun Lander"! It's not very creative, but it works. All my satellites in Kerbin's SOI (including Mun and Minmus) are called "Satellite" followed by a roman digit. For example "Satellite XVII" for the 17th satellite. For interplanetary ones, I chose the more creative name "I-Comm", which is the newest product published by Apple stands for "Interplanetary Communication (Satellite)".

I'd do it with a gravity assist from Eve. That way you only lost around 600m/s and Eve does the rest of the work. (I don't know; I've only just begun with interplanetary exploration) Never landed a craft at the KSC after reentering. I came close, but only twice or so in over 25 flights.

That seems to big to be Kerbin. What mod is it? (Note the very thin atmosphere)

That was literally the fastest fix of my life. Thanks.

Seems like I run into a lot of issues suddenly . Anyway, I built a station, but I notice that, as soon as I go out of time warp (not physical tw), the station starts to shake heavily around the docking ports. I tried autostrutting the station together (I set it that "root part"), but that doesn't work. I run an unmodded version of KSP 1.2.2. All docking ports on the station are affected by this.

Never made a plane that can go around kerbin fully.

I built a 2 ton satellite (to Eve) powered by a Dawn (of course, after circularization) At first I thought "Well, Xenon is pretty light, so dry mass won't be that different -> I need lots of fuel." Wrong! I used the biggest one available; the one with 5250 units. After calculating dV, I found out that it gave me over 14,000 m/s: way too much. I decided to use two 700 unit tanks for around 3,000 m/s. So no. In my opinion, the Dawn is pretty good when you ignore thrust to weight. Sure, it might take several minutes to perform a burn, but unless you want to land somewhere, efficiency is what really matters.

Well, they'd also orbit each other instead one orbiting the other, right? Seems like Ike is pretty strong*. *I've no been to Duna yet, I'm doing by first fly-by now. But unless Ike is completely hollow, I think that it would happen.