Klapaucius

Can you explain what you mean by that? I was just using the stock Mallard (with added cabin space) which according to the Kerbal wikipedia entry is considered a seaplane. So I was assuming it would all be fine. I've taken off and landed on water with these before.

So I landed my Mallard and picked up my crashed Kerbal, but when I reversed thrust to gently back out from the shore, it flamed out? What's going on? Could I have sucked water in the intake? How do I get this thing in the air? The picture shows it at full thrust, but I actually started with the throttle all the way down and nudged it up. The aircraft probably moved half a metre and died.

Perfect! Will it work in 1.4.3?

Thanks both of you. That clarifies things. However, it does make around the world flights rather long.

Can someone explain to me why timewarp seems to alter flight characteristics? In space flight, the timewarp simply accelerates you to a certain point by a certain factor (or at least, that is how it seems to work). But if I am flying a plane around Kerbin and I turn on timewarp, I find that often the plane will start turning for no reason, start shaking, noses down and/or come apart. I was flying the stock Ravenspear, and when I turned on timewarp the engines kept flaming out. With the Albatross and when I turned on timewarp, the wings warped considerably. It is almost as if my time acceleration is more like simple acceleration and all the forces acting on the aircraft are compounded. Thoughts?

That is thinking outside the box I guess I will have to create two classes: Anything goes and manned and winged with wheels to land on.... (Having said that, I had all that and I still arrived in pieces.) What the heck, exactly, is that?

Ground clearance is the least of the problems....

I was using the Gee Bee principle.: all engine and little else. Like the original Gee Bee, it crashed. I have not succeeded in landing this thing yet.

Whoa, that is impressive. I got going at a pretty good clip (with a few different designs), but I could not get near where you did. Yes, heat control seems to be the key. At a certain point it just loses power. This stubby, slightly Battlestar Galactica thing (in two variants) was my most successful:

I'm sure this has been suggested before, but since I tried and ALMOST did it today, I thought I would put it out there. In celebration of the new 1.4.3 release, I decided to fly around the world via the poles from the new desert runway. (And it seemed like a fun thing to do while listening to Italian Language recordings). Being a fairly crap plane builder, I just took a stock Stearwing, modified it to hold lots of fuel and then stuck and extra pair of wings on it because it would not get off the ground otherwise. It's not going to win any beauty awards, but it did the job. I managed to get all the way around with over a third of a tank of fuel left. Total flight time was about 5:58:00. (I mostly flew with stability on and timewarp on as well, so I did not sit here for 6 hours) I'm not sure exactly; the clock reads 5:57:17 on the last screenshot I took on approach. I then crashed. Argh! So, the challenge: fly around the world on a polar route, non-stop, and post your best time and show off your craft. You can start from any runway since the distance will be the same, as long as you land on the one you started on. I suppose we should put a ceiling of 12,000 on this as well. It should be flying, not orbiting. Oh, if you land intact, that's a bonus!

I reckon with the new parachutes, you could try getting there that way.

I really like this quote. I am new to KSP., having started a few months ago, actually somewhat by accident. I work in public library and we have programs for kids. One of the programming guys wanted to put this together and I had to learn the game. I've never been a gamer, and while I was keen to help teach, I had to be dragged kicking and screaming to learn this blasted thing. I was constantly flying by the seat of my pants until one weekend I just sat down with a set of tutorials from Nerdy Space Man (who, I think, for an absolute beginner, is the best there is at getting you up to speed) and got myself educated. Fast-forward to today, and I am hooked. It is a very fun way to spend time when I just need a break from other things. And while the game is of course not 100% analogous to real life, I have nonetheless learned a ton about orbital mechanics. It is encouraging me to get back on the Khan Academy, dust off my very rusty math skills, and start doing some proper calculations. Bugs or no bugs (and yes, the landing gear issue was really annoying), I was happy to pay the initial $30 (or whatever it is in $US) and happy to pay the extra $15. More importantly, the developers realized they had stuffed up and made it right, and they took the time to add some new features at the same time just to smooth things out a bit. So, if some guy who was not even into gaming can pay a total of US$45, surely those into gaming can pony up. I've already spent about 300 hours; that works out to 15 cents per hour. The Last Jedi cost me $10 for 2 hours. A days skiing, even with a discount pass, is at a minimum $60. A beer at the local pub cost $10. I do video editing and made a documentary film. Subscribing to Adobe costs me $20 a month. In short, KSP is small change especially considering just how complex this is. This is not online Mahjong, or Tetris. And if they were not charging for it, how would it survive? Incidentally, that film I made cost about $20,000 to complete. It was posted online for free, but I was able to do that by crowdfunding and biting the bullet with out-of-pocket expenses. If you did not pay for KSP upfront, someone would have to in some other way, either via Patreon or Indiegogo or something else. PS. The Mission Builder may have been ostensibly designed for creating missions, but I find I spend a lot of time just playing for myself with it. It's a great way to set up challenges for yourself, such as building ships you can launch directly from the surface of Eve, building planes to fly around Laythe, etc. It's a brilliant test-bed.

This one. Today! I'm pretty new to Kerbal, so this was exciting. I decided to take a flight from the standard runway to the new desert runway and just happened to fly over this.

Flying on Laythe:

Does this mean that the exploding launch pads and craft misplaced on launchpads in the Mission Builder is sorted? For example--a test I was doing, just with a stock plane to see if I could roll it off the launch pad. It exploded half a second later:

It looks like this will be fixed. Here is the thread on the new patch: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/173831-patch-143-to-be-released-next-week/

I don't know the answer to that, but bear in mind that alternative launch sites are only accessible via the Mission Builder. Other than Woomerang, there is no way to have alternative launch sites in the regular game, whether sandbox, science or career.

Have you found a solution? I have a similar problem. I was using the Mission Builder and created this flyer for Laythe, which I placed as a landed craft on the Laythe polar region. It started bouncing like crazy. Oddly, I did not have this problem at another location, but on the Laythe pole it went mad.

Thanks for the help. I made it work. It looks like the problem was my GIF was too large. Check this out: On the top, is my original image. Notice the URL options on the side. On the bottom is a lower resolution version of the image. Notice I now have additional options, including "original GIF link". So, using the "original GIF link" option, I was able to upload it. Thanks for the help and proving it was possible. It forced me to rethink this. Cheers.

I'm building an aircraft in Mission Builder that will fly on Laythe. I'm using the Fat-455 large wings. They hold a lot of fuel, but only liquid. Is there anyway, therefore, to have other tanks be oxidizer only? I realize I can drain liquid fuel out of tanks to save weight, but that still leaves me with a lot of bulk. I'd like to get the most oxidizer in the least amount of space--approx 1200 units--to match what the wings will carry. Also, it needs to be stock, because I hope to share this mission and want to make it simple for others to use.

If you have the Mission Builder, you can launch from the bottom of the ocean. Of course, without ballast, you will float to the surface, but you can do. This plane is actually a work in progress for a Laythe flyer (a bit rough around the edges, and in the first image grossly underpowered for Kerbin), but I just moved it to Kerbin to demonstrate. You can also see the giant cliff that is the edge of the polar area. You can, with enough power, launch from the bottom of the sea (my first day noodling around using the stock slim shuttle):

I use IMGUR for images and have had no problems in the past. I was trying to post in the tech support forum about my bouncing landing gear issue. I created a GIF file to demonstrate the issue, but I cannot seem to upload it, no matter what URL I use, be it right clicking and copying the image address or using the options IMGUR provides. The best I managed was a static thumbnail. I see others have done it, so what am I doing incorrectly?

Thanks for the help. I got it to work. I deleted the two little tanks on the front, and that seemed to do it. I noticed when I click "control from here" there is no indicator that it has been engaged. And the button does not change to some indicator saying, for example, "now on docking control". Again, thanks so much

I've been trying to create a mobile refueling rover. However, I cannot get the ports to work to attach my craft for refueling. I figured maybe I attached them incorrectly or something, so I went back to the sandbox and pulled up the prefabricated crater crawler, which have built-in docking ports. As a test, I have two of them (with extra fuel tanks) just off the Kerbin runway. My plan was to test the concept and see if I could transfer fuel from one to the other. However, I cannot for the life of me get the ports to work. They just bounce off each other. I have set one as a target; I have tried "control from here" and no luck. Earlier, I had played around in a different scenario, where the ports would attach but upon decouple, would explode. This time around, they won't even go together. I am very confused. Interesting, as well. It says they are 5.8 meters apart, but they are touching. Is that distance figure based on the command modules and not the ports themselves?

I see what you are saying, but I was responding to @Zeiss Icon's post which specifically mentioned that it would be useful in career mode, so I was thinking in terms of the way career mode plays and having to work up to it. But yes, you make a good point that in regular sandbox mode, it would be nice to just do it in the way you do in Mission Builder.