XLjedi

Yeah, I pretty much eyeball it like @Lu K. ...and don't often do a very good job. So I voted "Time Launch" but it's very crude at best.

Well sure! ....and I think Kerbals would probably come up with their own kerbal-ish (somewhat comedic) name for such things. I like "Whirly Storm" OH! maybe "Whirlycane" that's even better! That would be my recommendation. I'm going to use that in my own storylines now. Edit: need to start working on my storm hunter turboprop now. I call dibbs on the "Whirly Hunter" name!

@kerbiloid that "visualized whirl" looks a lot like an Atlantic hurricane. I've decided that the Island Base in our game was nearly destroyed by a visualized whirl... hence its poor state of disrepair. Rather than rebuild their above ground Rescue Operations Center, they just dug-in to the adjacent mountain. An elevator moves craft from the secret hangar to the spawn point. Edit: I for one, would love to fly a Whirl Hunter into the eye of a visualized whirl!

If you don't mind my asking... what was the process like for being selected as a tester in your case? Did you apply to a request for testers near launch?

yes, you misread again. I didnt LOL at him. I like his craft design.

@Brikoleur is correct. If I were to venture a guess... part attached to wrong side of servo. Flip it, remount to craft, and try attaching engine to other side of servo.

There's a monolith due north of the KSC runway you might also wanna checkout.

hello and welcome

Well... yeah, I know. I have a tutorial that might help you to correctly setup your propellers. Not sayin it's perfect, or you need to follow it, but you might find it interesting.

So not really plane parts then... but just dumbing-down of the game. I can see that. Yeah, I wouldn't want that either... I thought the latest implementation of props and rotors struck a pretty decent balance between complexity and playability. I did see there were some folks who wanted a simple snap-on engine and I'm glad they went with variable pitch blades and controllers. On the other hand, they skimped a bit on the cyclic implementation. Maybe not as RL-tech as I might like, but in the end I can build a controllable helo that fills the mission role, so I'm happy.

Hope they add the missing pieces back... I can most likely play happily reverting back to and possibly rebuilding (if no craft porting feature is offered) all of my stock pre-BG designs. So that's a good 95% of my hangar. And I'm sure there will be some new things to tinker with and keep me busy for a while, like setting up networks of bases, supply lines, near-future tech craft, and so forth. So although a bit disappointed, I do remain optimistic overall.

I will definitely miss the BG robotics parts, KAL-1000, and rotors... That's really disappointing to hear.

I think the only real deal-killer for me would be a very limited set of parts from what is currently available in the current stock+DLC with some sort of pay-per-part DLC scheme just to get me back to where I am in KSP1 right now. I would hope our starting point for "stock" KSP2 parts would include, at a minimum, the parts I bought in KSP1 along with the 2 DLC packs.

I don't mind if the game goes live at less than 100% of new features being enabled... What would be a huge disappointment to me though is if the game went live and our starting point is actually somewhere behind where the stock+DLC content (parts) we currently have in KSP1 is today. To me that's taking a step backward and I'd rather they just delay release until we are at least at the same level in terms of what we can build in the current game. I'd hate to roll into the new game and not immediately be able to build a SAR helo or a robot arm for instance.

If KSP2 is an improvement... And I do remain very optimistic in this regard. Then based on my past experience with other games, I would have no reason to continue to revisit the prior version. If I do keep playing KSP1, then it would likely mean there is some significant shortcoming to the newer version. In which case, for other games... it unfortunately led to the abandonment of the franchise. My biggest curiosity going into KSP2 is how the new craft files will be structured and whether or not they will continue to rely on a branching database as a way to define how the ships are held together. I'm hopeful that I may have a shot at scripting a conversion utility to port my craft files over, but I'll rebuild them if I must.

I would be the exact opposite on point 2... I don't really see where the part options for planes are biased (or even near) what is available for rockets. We don't really even have a Mk3 airplane cockpit. The singular shuttle cockpit being used for large transport aircraft is a stretch at best. The bias in this game is very much toward rocket parts and engines. Why would having more parts for space planes take away from your gaming? I maybe assume you feel there are additional rocket parts that are missing and somehow the existence of these extra plane parts is limiting the devs in some way from adding more rocket stuff? Up until the recent 1.7.3 BG DLC... I had always felt my space program was lacking rotorcraft for kerbal splashdown recovery. I also felt my space shuttle was missing a robot arm. For me, the game is finally starting to feel closer to complete in terms of parts, but still missing some airplane and helicopter stuff. Mostly cockpits.

I always seem to feel like whatever the latest thing I'm working on is just the coolest thing ever... and usually there's some sort of story involved. Right now I have a large rescue helo that can deploy a boat. So I'm of course trying to devise a mission plot/story that will require a search and rescue operation. So far, I don't have a very good reason to deploy the boat, because I can land the helo in the water close enough to any kerbal that needs rescuing. Sigh... but the boat is so cool. Ah well, I'm sure a mission idea will soon present itself. A self-imposed goal that I have in mind for my program is to never recover a kerbal unless it is at one of the 4 Kerbin Base locations. So far, I have craft that allow me to make that claim as it relates to kerbals. ...but not necessarily their capsule or equipment. It would be cool if one day I could say the same for the equipment they fall back to the planet onboard.

Yes, there is definitely a backstory for every member of you kerbal team! However, the stories are different for every player.

Yeah... it's a sandbox where people like to create their own stories and lore. So maybe the thread title is a bit of a misnomer. But as for puzzles, easter eggs, discoveries, random items scattered about the solar system... more is always better. I'd like to find stuff in the deepest parts of the oceans... or on the highest peaks of mountains, maybe a secret cave or two? Ancient or advanced alien voodoo tech possibly? Hidden branches off the tech tree related to reverse engineering? I'm all for sci-fi stuffs! ...but yes, there are many who would frown upon it.

It is difficult to post something like this and say something to the effect of "really, I'm not the typical fanboy asking for early access" without coming across as an a$$. So I get that. If there's another channel or route I'd give it a shot. Willingness to sign an NDA suggests I'd have no way to talk about it or post pics or divulge anythig at all, to anyone I had said craft or body of work... so just sayin post whatever ya got to make a case as a potential tester. That was all.

Well that's a fine craft... 2 questions though Why did you opt for the fixed pitch prop design? ...and under what circumstance would you want to reverse the engine rotation with action group key 1? Unfortunately, I was not able to fly it.

I'd be willing to sign an NDA if asked... maybe I already signed it? LOL who is Star Helix? did I miss a deleted post?

of course... which is why I said I was willing to rebuild them if needed.

I have boxes from Billund stowed that I have never even opened... I think I still have the very first Lego Star Wars set that was released (the small X-Wing) in an unopened box. It was around that time.

Actually, as I think about it... I probably have several that fit the bill. The DERP-X2 in particular comes to mind. I built it for one of several mission challenges related to a 2018 Kerismus Challenge that I never posted. One of the missions for that series of challenges read as follows: This was the craft I made that could do the Arch Angels mission... I guess what makes it difficult, is that you have to fly it out of the atmosphere, do an EVA, and then manage a dead stick landing. Preferably back on the KSC runway. So would the DERP-X2 qualify? The challenge was really meant for others to build their own DERP to do the mission though.