AlexanderB

Physics warp ate my parachute, causing jeb to smack into the ground and explode. He's respawned though, I don't know why. Trying to build a spaceplane with only the basic turbojet.. *facepalm* Otherwise, it seems to be going well.

You *can* fly engines there, if you activate them by action group. It even works if you manually re-insert an empty stage and just activate an already active stage. The rest I just write up to "challenge". Then again, I read the contracts and skip the ones that pay very little or are too far-out to easily complete.

Pretty sure its not yet activated, but I'll include it in my test.

My Jeb got pancaked when physwarp ate the parachute, I descided not to revert. Cost me a lot of rep points too. Since I just downloaded KER for 0.24, I don't have to run "simulation" launches to determine liftoff TWR either, so I might just turn on the "Iron Man Mode" too. I never really used quicksaving/quickloading either, only occasionally to fine-tune aerobraking manouvers, for example. Guess I'll have to do that with actual math from now on. [edit:] oddly enough, after a game restart, hes back alive. Odd.

That would make it so much easier. Thanks.

I wonder but haven't found out yet, do you pay less money if you start with empty tanks? Hmm, time for some experimentation. Why? Because I usually disable the RCS fuel in the command pod, certainly on rockets that aren't even fitted with RCS ports, the extra weight does make a difference in some cases. (I'm a minimalist)

How was it again? "The difference between messing around and science is writing down the results?" Testing bits and pieces and making all sorts of experimental crafts for (sometimes marginal) profit seems like good science, yes.

For identical parallel engines it stays the same (except mass goes up), for stages, the difference in wet and dry mass is only the fuel in the active stage. for (very) different engines parallel.. eh. I don't know by heart. for reasonably-similar-isp engines, just add the ISPs and divide by number of engines for a close approximation?

I just plowed Jeb into the ground in 0.24 carreer, physics warp ate the chute.

I made a single stage rocket with the LVT-30 and 4 of the small fuel tanks to do liftoff, 5000m and space (>70km), straight up. No problem there. Built a second rocket to do orbit, got decoupler contract to do it, Orbit achieved, went well untill Jeb got eaten by the kraken (parachute dissapeared? and the pod obviously left a crater.) Only then I got the solid booster contract, Together with retrieve [some guy] Kerman from a 108x108 orbit. Easy. As for the rest of the randomly generated missions, getting within the required window for completing it can be quite tricky. For example: I got one for the parachute that honestly doesn't work on the way down, the airspeed in the contract is just too low. and ripping it open on the way up seems like a baaaad idea too, but would match the speed and altitude combo better.

Sounds like fun, but it'll be a while untill my fresh 0.24 carreer advances far enough to do this. Gonna try and stay out of the sandbox for a while.. Anyway, bookmarked so I'll be back later with an entry.

The solution could be to add some other part to the booster, like a winglet or fin. It has to do with the way the game models heat, if you connect a hot part to a cold part, it doesn't overheat as quickly, if you add a hot part (booster) directly to another hot part (booster), it'll heat up quite rapidly. Heat for some reason also involves distance to COM of a part, thats why mainsail + orange tank overheats, the orange tank is too tall and the game doesn't register it cooling down the mainsail. If you use a smaller tank to attach a mainsail to, its fine..

Nope, get an error page. Warning: session_start(): The session id is too long or contains illegal characters, valid characters are a-z, A-Z, 0-9 and '-,' in /host/www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/htdocs/lib/config.php on line 9 Warning: session_start(): Cannot send session cookie - headers already sent by (output started at /host/www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/htdocs/lib/config.php:9) in /host/www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/htdocs/lib/config.php on line 9 Warning: session_start(): Cannot send session cache limiter - headers already sent (output started at /host/www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/htdocs/lib/config.php:9) in /host/www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/htdocs/lib/config.php on line 9 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /host/www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/htdocs/lib/config.php:9) in /host/www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/htdocs/lib/multiplayDwn.php on line 11 Invalid Token this one. [edit:] My GF just asked why I wasn't playing yet, I said, the download just sends me to a white page. I clicked the link again to prove it, and it worked. Yay.

I think something's a bit overloaded. I get a link to multiplay.co.uk, which does nothing. Guess no 0.24 for me today..

It was kinda-annoying when I was trying to zoom in/out on my manouver node..

Physically in the same vertical stack, yes, and from there on, you can move it with KAS to the tanker. (I don't see any in your picture, only the one where the KAS line leads to.)

Small miners work, but you have to have at least a small fuel tank on them, and a KAS line to the big tank to transfer from there. Just cram a Round-8 in there and its fine. Fuel lines need to point *towards* the converter to transfer fuel into the tanks, oddly enough. Its because the converter "draws" fuel from the tanks like an engine, but it draws a negative quantity, hence filling the tanks instead of draining them.

The kethane converter works as a reverse engine, so just like regular engines, they need to be on the same stack as the fuel they're using (making, in this case) in order to acces the tank. in other words, you need to provide a fuel tank (and/or fuel lines to a fuel tank) for the stack that the converter is in. Monopropellant (and xenon gas) isn't bound by stacks and fuel lines, so it is automatically put in any of the availible tanks.

Which was the "fix" for wobble, wobble that was caused by over-use of the availible control authority. it was already worse in 0.22, but in 0.23, the aerodynamic surface controls seem to have become more sluggish, as if fine control is permanently turned on, making the effect on things with aerodynamic stabilisation (over pure pod torque or thrust vectoring) even worse, yes.

Those tiny cube struts are massless parts, so a tiny rocket will do, and this is basically limited by how much parts your PC can display without catching fire, lol..

For me, tweaking the Physics Time a bit (from 0.04 to 0.08) (and sliding terrain detail to "low") fixed a lot. Before tweaking, the timer turned orange just by looking at the kerbin terrain/horizon.

Hm, I think they're great, for small SSTO's. 1 engine, 2-3 intakes, 1 or 2 fuel tanks, a capsule, some wings and wheels if you want a plane, or a decoupler and chutes for a jet-missile.. - Lift off runway (Thats the hard part, the thrust at low altitude is not so good.) - Go to 23-30 km, build up horizontal speed. (Depends on intakes, really..) - Nose-up and rocket power to a nice AP - Circularise. So typical SSTO, really. Its just an 'easy' 1-part solution for small craft, that otherwise demands multiple engines.. Its not super-efficient, but it works well enough.

First thing I did was build 2 SSTO's, its.. quite easy with the Rapier.. As for the switching back & forth thing, set the air intakes to an action group, that cuts them off, they switch to vacuum mode + reduces drag. I liked the snappy response better too, but I guess this makes it easier to control? Having the surface of kerbin in view does this to me, turning the camera skywards, and the FPS is all good. I turned the graphics down even lower, see if that fixes it..

Well, spaceplanes are (were? before 0.23) harder to construct and fly, and thus a self-challenge for the bored player.. Rockets are the easiest choice at any rate.

That rapier engine looks awesome! SSTO for dummies, basically..