theflyingfish

Sidenote: If you're using FAR, you just turn prograde as fast as possible without flipping your rocket (maintain Angle of Attack < 5 degrees) until pointed East, and thrust till orbit.

FAR has a well known bug where for some reason the Center of Lift isn't symmetrical, even if all the wing and tank parts are. It's only visual. The CoL is actually aligned, its just a display bug in KSP. So the Center of Lift isn't the problem. If it's a problem on the runway takeoff roll, it's probably your landing gear setup doing something wonky. Make sure your main gear is right behind the center of mass, with your nose gear far forward. A picture of the problem aircraft would help. If it's a lateral stability problem in the air, that could be a serious issue with your aerodynamic design. Again, post a picture and we can help.

One trick that I have found much use for is putting a maneuver node on the point where your projected orbit intersects the ground, and using it to zero out your dV. The game will figure out when you need to burn and will put you just above the lunar surface if you plan it correctly. It takes the guesswork out of a vertical descent trajectory.

On C7's devblog video, I remember him saying something about how the new ASAS doesn't use the root part to determine the orientation, but the center of mass. In the previous system, on large ships you would see oscillation in the root part, which is often why the ASAS would freak out. But I think that this version uses the rotation around the CoM instead, which sees much less oscillation and is much more stable.

Ferram Aerospace has been updated and is working. Procedural Wings hasn't been updated, but still works perfectly.

What are the parts without good descriptions? If you list them out, Squad can probably try to fix them in the next update. Also, shouldn't this be in the Development thread?

Make posts about opinions/grievances/etc, but for the poll I was just wondering whether it was installed or not. I was making sure people understood that even if they only used the Mechjeb info displays and not the autopilot functions, they should still answer yes in the poll. You can post whatever you want in the discussion. Sorry. Bad wording on my part.

Added. 'Twas an accident. I'm just wondering whether you have it or not. Not whether you use the autopilot function.

Just yes or no. Trying to put hard numbers as to the portion of the current community that uses the Mechjeb autopilot. Opinions/grievances/observations go below. EDIT: I'm just wondering whether you have it or not. Not whether you use the autopilot function.

Orbiter veteran, awwww yeah. *fist bump* I still remember all the MFD settings and everything... Someone should totally make a mod that replicates the Orbiter Docking MFD. That MFD UI was so helpful. I would use the XR2 and DGIV to ferry food and fuel to the ISS... Good times, good times... /endnostalgia But Orbiter was basically hard-mode KSP, rendezvous-wise. Sure, your instrumentation was so much better, but the dV budget was a lot tighter. After Orbiter, KSP docking seemed much easier by comparison. (Hint: Translation RCS is your friend.)

Those medium lander legs have always been pretty unstable. Landers "shimmy" around on them with the slightest provocation. Not to mention their small size almost prevents their use with anything but the smallest stack-mounted engine. Shortly after landing legs were introduced, there was a hotfix (i think) to increase their connection strength or stiffness or something. It helped, but they're still very unreliable.

I just go to the main forum page, click Harv's name in his most recent dev blog post, which takes you straight to his member page where you can see all his posts. Just remember to click "Harvester" in his member page so you see only his posts, not all his friend's posts too.

That V2 clearly does not have enough control authority, and is very unstable. As it goes back and forth, you can easily see the SAS in the bottom corner trying to control it, but doesn't have enough authority. I suggest you try Harvester's Aeris 3A test. Take a video of that and tell us if SAS is broken.

I believe that these stats only affect how their animations react to different situations.

I love how at one point at the right side entrance to the hangar, you have three loading cars perform this insane, Die-Hard style maneuver, where all three of them come impossibly close to hitting each other at very high speed but still miss somehow.

I don't realise why a "realistic" mod post doesnt include Ferram Aerospace Research or Procedural Fairings. They fix what is clearly the most unrealistic aspect of the game. Check the PF changelog. It now works with the most recent version of FAR. I run Procedural Fairings, Procedural Wings, and FAR with nothing else and get an excellent stock experience with more realistic aerodynamics. For me, PF, PW, and FAR form the "Realism Trifecta". There are no conflicts between the three, and they complement each other perfectly. I try to keep my mod loadout as light as possible. I feel that once you fix the borked aerodynamics, KSP is at it's most realistic running almost completely stock. More mods tend to introduce overpowered parts, or just clutter up the parts screen even more.

Don't listen to anyone above. Uncommanded roll in any KSP craft is usually caused by structural flexing due to improper strutting or bugs. The common roll often seen with asparagus staging is because the parallel stages are flexing back and forth, causing the thrust vector to change, causing roll. Every rocket with parallel stages will roll a small amount, regardless of struts. The problem is, because KSP's gimbal algorithms only calculate pitch and yaw, most rockets that rely on engine gimbal for control have dramatically less roll authority, too little to counteract the roll caused be flex.Almost every single KSP aircraft rolls slowly to the left. This is caused by a bug in KSP that makes the left part of a symmetrical group have lower connection strength, making that part bend more, because in KSP, connection stiffness is proportional to connection strength. It is more apparent in large, heavy aircraft, where the structural flexing is more pronounced. To reduce the roll, strut your wings more to reduce flex.

The real problem is that jet engines are very OP themselves. They produce an incredible amount of power for very little fuel, and that needs to change. Reduce the power of jet engines, and jet spamming will be less effective.The overlapping of intakes isn't a real problem. Just turn off part clipping and air hogging becomes much less effective. People using the cheat interface are doing just that; cheating.

The only one seems to be Moho, and mold doesn't make any sense really. I know that Pol's name is a reference to it's appearance being similar to a grain of pollen. And Minmus contains the prefix min-, which means smaller or less than, as in minority, minimum, minuet (a dance with smaller steps), etc.

I know what the White Knight + SS1 combo is. I was referring to the fact that you said that your replica takes off at over Mach 1. And looking at the smoke trails and condensation effects in your second picture, it does indeed look like it's moving along at a substantial clip. How did you get a captive-carry cargo aircraft to Mach 1 in the first place, much less take off with it?

On No. 2. Dat foil.

Wait, WHAT.

First, I would like to say that i love this mod. For me, it has singlehandedly saved the spaceplane aspect of the game, which was beginning to feel stale after so many repetitions of the same design using stock wing parts. Especially with FAR, pWings has revolutionized spaceplane design. There is one, small cosmetic aspect that bugs me, however. When I change the root scale of a wing, it not only scales the wing lengthwise, but also thickness-wise, so that the wing keeps the same general cross-section. While this makes perfect sense (the root of a tapered wing will of course be thicker than the wingtip), if I'm trying to create a delta-winged SSTO, with the wing root running the whole length of the aircraft, the wing root will sometimes be about a meter thick! The problem is exacerbated in the B9 pWing, which is already super-thick to begin with! In other words, could it be possible to make the wings scale only lengthwise, rather than length-and-height-wise?

No, ground effect isn't simulated. And it won't ever be, because it will take development time from other features, it will be another physics calculation that will decrease performance, and no one really cares about it. Basically, if Ferram hasn't done it yet, Harvester will never do it.

I'm rather pleased with the performance of KSP, especially considering all the calculations that your CPU has to do. Think about how many physics calculations that the engine has to crunch every second for a 700 part craft. KSP is simulating physics on every single one of those 700 parts. Have you ever seen a persistence file? That's a lot of data that's being modified dozens of times per second.