Helmetman

This is the first time I'm gonna try KSPIE. I just installed it actually. And the first thing I wanna ask (after searching) Is there a guy vlogger or preferably a woman with a pretty voice who has a good KSPIE tutorial and/or playthrough? No Scott manley please, he's funny and all but way to offtopic and talks to much about beer, offside stuff while he's at it. Thanks...

@Geschosskopf He said he used stock propellers to 8km or higher even (who knows) Surely Nervs work better that high (1 atmosphere or there below) Although I to am surprised 5 nervs can push whatever that's left of that initial 28tons on Eve minus whatever he drops and burns by that point. But I'm sure he thought about that part. I to am going to experiment with stock props (never done yet) so I'll follow this thread to see how it goes.

But my dear @RedPandaz kerbal space program started as a indie game. (google the term I f u d o n t k n o w w h a t I t m e a n s) That said, they done great business getting the game on steam and for sale on most any console. They're not even into the depth of technicalities that most modders are. But they did great in general imho. So all Hail Squad, right here right now, (jk) If you want to expand the game you can use mods. Generally when a game says it's a version starting with the number 1 followed by a comma and a null that it is not going to be expanded much. As for most of your points, I just named the guys. Go to ksp mod release page. I made this very easy for you but it was actually 2 clicks from here. Don't tell anybody though. There you can download most of anything you wished for. Weather is a dynamic that is not properly supported by the game engine this game is progammed with. And can thus not be simulated correctly. Personally I think Squad has created a ill version of a atmosphere in answer to souposphere (pre 2015 or something) so I wouldn't be the one to recommend of them to add weather. Even if the engine did allow it I would go ask this on the mod page. Just my two cents... 3 or 4 cents actually.

@AeroGav I like LF only planes in general but that's a efficient little thing I tell you. Are these wing strakes really that drag efficient as I've heard? I'm kind of in esthetics on my vessels and can't always like the wing strakes (big S) but if they're that drag resistant and it leads up to 1 whiplash for sub 30 tons. That's just gold right there.

I support this! Just for everyone out there

It's clearly drag related, but I'm a bit confused as to how many points related to that. I can't exactly make up how you attached the quad center rapier engines on the back of your craft. Is it attached to a quad adapter or two bi adapters? Is the adapter attached directly to the Mk 2 tanks and moved with the move toolset into the Mk 2 fuselage? (as in clipped) I can't make that part up. Perhaps you could detach the engines and make a picture on how it is constructed. Congrats though, most people come here first without posting pictures on their first post for help. I hope you can spare another Assuming the connection points of the adapter is directly mounted on the Mk 2 fuselage you will have major drag problems. You should use the Mk2 to 1.25m adapter or Mk2 bicoupler on the Mk2 fuselage and put 2x TWR-200 stack bicoupler on the end of the aforementioned piece(s) Any attachment node (node=green attachment ball) when constructing in the SPH of a particular size needs to fit the same size. Otherwise you'd have a rear end mismatch and that will create major drag (yes, MAJOR!!) Even if you moved the parts inside one another that penalty still applies. Pretty stupid system, but that is how it works. The other problem is your choice of cabins and tanks. You used Mk 2 cabins and tanks. They are very draggy, and many people on this forum will not recommend it for SSTO flying. You can better use 1.25m Mk 1 crew cabins, cockpits and fuel tanks. Don't mix Mk 1 with Mk 2 if you don't know what your doing as the Mk 2 has more lift and DRAG but center of lift (CoT) doesn't show that at all in the SPH. Why the reactions wheels? A Mk 2 cockpit has enough torque to rotate the mass you'd ben ended up with once in orbit (whereas space is the first part you'd need them) useless mass, get rid of it ASAP. I see a command module between the Mk 2 crew cabin and the cockpit. Why? Does it need to be remotely controlled? If no, toss it. Struts also create drag. I see a strut part on the rear of your craft. There is a "advanced tweakables" function in the KSP menu. Enable it. When your done, right click a part and use the "autostrut" availability to strut things. Another important thing we need to know is which part of your flight fails. How far do you get exactly? If you needed quite a lot of liquid fuel to get out of the atmosphere to get to proper speeds it is quite likely related to drag losses in the atmosphere. So if you were to design your plane with above methods you'd probably end up with more fuel to circularize. You probably would be able to add fuel as you would need less rapier engines. I can get on average about 15 tons per rapier into orbit, and at times even less (20ton per rapier). So you would need 3, maybe 4 to get into orbit rather then 6. The fact that you need 6 rapiers kinda proves my point as per the above points. I'm also wondrous if you can pitch properly. If that's the problem you could use some forward canards.

Gonna take a break now, but I got a WIP. I only need to install the bombs. I hope your pc can survive a 227 part ship minus the bombs when I put it on KerbalX. Gonna get a vid or slideshow when I'm done, maybe today... It must obliterate all of the KSP and the inland KSC, I'll see where it goes. Bombs will be put on decouplers on the underside of the belly. Hency why I made a lookalike mechanical shock abosorber on the front wheels so it can carry loads being heigthened. screw cargo bays.

@sevenperforce I get your point, it's a different challenge after all. I would still wonder if people would go for a modern Eve rocks challenge. Scoring on maximum amount of kerbals to Eve and back. I know it's simpler these days and without mission restrictions people could do quite a few things to pull it of. But I would still like a rebirth of that challenge if someone can come up with the proper rules for it. Personally I'm not against such a large scale undertaking myself. But if other people aren't then that definitely draws the line.

@TheGuyNamedAlan Gonna work on this now. Just a question.... Is it a problem if I fair the bombs for better looks? Maybe remove the cones themselves (fairing is heavier) I'm a aesthetic kinda guy. probably weighs more but idk

You play to much KSP when you throw away your Sims 4 collectors edition and start Playing Sims 4 in KSP... Originally created by forum user "katateochi"

@Laie I would also find it a interesting challenge to go to Eve's mountain top, land as many kerbals there as you can and go back to Kerbin. This will limit the Eve goal to óne location (makes things easier me thinks) The only hassle is building something that can get to that specific location. You'd need to glide there or use a trajectory mod if this challenge is going to allow that. Cloud mods obscure the location so it would be difficult to glide to if installed. Ofcourse one would use a new install for this... I only send a max of 3 Kerbals to Eve and back from surface level, and that was quite painfull to accomplish on a somewhat small design. @sevenperforce I've only read those threads from a while back, but there was a "Eve Rocks" challenge a long time ago. These contesters had no problem going from Kerbin to Eve and back. So why is it necessary to lower any bars these days? But 'if' your argument holds true then I have to agree with this. We don't want people running for the hills.

I get some kind of brainwave impression that the posters that ask these questions have their own conditions to what is cheating. That's probably why they ask this. I think that's fun to discuss though in a way. Although I would not call it "cheating" more like... "What rules do you practice to limit yourself?" This is simply because the word "cheating" is just, meaningless in the context of this game. And I don't want the English language changed because people forget and/or warp the meaning of the word. The whole concept of KSP is what goes against the meaning of cheating. The same even goes for if you were to play GTA (any version) and freeroam the city in singleplayer. There are no rules. Only when you enter the story mode are you within the contest of the game. You would be cheating something as there's a sudden objective you could achieve against the tools of the story and game concept. The same goes for Multiplayer as it would suddenly be against other players. Ironically the game industry calls it cheating regardless of the context but does everything to deny cheating in multiplayer sessions where the definition of the word holds true :facepalm: This also confuses me why all those game "cheating" menus and "cheating" tutorials on the internet are called as that because I find the context and the setup of the specific game to determine whether there's a cheating element to it. Why do games not call it the debug panel or toolset panel like in KSP. Rep to Squad for sanity. People think it's cheating when you use autopilots and/or vessel information in game because they're rigidly aware of their own piloting and calculus skills. While some people are bad pilots and don't want to calculate Delta-V. It may be a easy sum, but not everyone is the nerd (#Ilike nerds) that's willing to throw in the same calculations for every vessel launch. There's also the saying, "I cheated death" So if I lithobrake my craft with landing gear at several dozen meters per second and I survived I have also cheated. My guess is that's not the context you were looking for huh? Still it's true, so I bet everyone has already cheated outside their own constructed norms of what cheating is. And some of the comments were pretty funny tbh.

I think it's similar to what Bewing suggests but we will only know with pics. You could also drag the booster using the move toolset in the vab/sph so that the top end of your booster is attached to the decoupler. Then grab the decoupler and reattach the boosters at a proper spot. This will make sure that the ejection force is to the top of the booster making the boosters curve to the outsides and requires no fin. But you might still need one if this is not enough, it usually is though.

@SpricigoYes you can get to any inclination from a equatorial orbit and do the same for less. Launching anywhere from but the KSC (90 degrees) is more demanding Delta-V wise. That said I got a little of track in my previous reply. But I tried thinking ahead a little and perhaps it's actually easier for some people if they're exposed to inclined orbits from the get go by launching in such directions. New people where I refer to Reddit, some videos show inability of people or lack of will to learn themselves inclination changes, and mind you that I'm not that much of a master at it. I rather use gravity assists from a 90 degrees parking orbit around Kerbin to get to places. Adding this my way however may launch people into learning about matching inclinations in game, maybe supported through a in game tutorial right from the start. Thinking about it a 2nd time, a polar KSC might indeed be a better idea. I like to visit the poles atleast once during a career play, it will also be good for what you said, so it be good if I could launch my vessels straight from there.

It's all on you my friend. One can build stock propellers (see U tube) that also work as boat propellers one could use this on a empty ore tank submarine and I've seen good working replicas already. They're actually eye catching if you give it some thought/work and they function quite well. If that's to worse for ya one could always use mods. Give it a few days planning on your own and some craft builds and you'll be fishing the kraken from Laythe's sea bed before weeks end. No reason to die horribly when you can be your own superhero today OT: I know the Delta-V requirements are slim compared to real life and that kerbins angle is 0 degrees against the ecliptic. So my initial argument would be to place another launch site on a latitude at a inclination that would match somewhat closer to specific planes like moho and dres if launched from said location during specific times of the year. If that would actually be helpful, I don't know. Just a thought. Ofcourse this wont get you there but might send people in a more favourable departure orbit so these destinations can be easier navigated towards for players still in the ksp learning curve. This might also be a little bit more efficient for spaceplanes as the intial departure burn will be less and you wont have to turn in the lower atmosphere wasting LF for said destinations. Maybe it will actually complicate things for people. I don't know, but it seems handy to me.

@qzgy The glider is a Mk 1 cockpit with a fairing clipped over the nose? Is that aesthetic only or actually a improvement on the aerodynamics? I always thought the Mk 1 cockpit had less drag then a stock fairing but I might be wrong here.

@JhorrigaI really don't know man. But you should think whether you'd want this yes or no. Launch towers are completely different per rocket since a different rocket needs a different launch tower. Makes sense? Basically every rocket in KSP is user build so you'd need some kind of auto rendered launch tower per rocket being constructed. That is if you want things realistic ofcourse. Each different launch site has different launch towers in real life. I saw a video of a very old version of ksp before it's beta release (v0.1x) whatever it was. It had a cosmetic launch tower just outside the deployment zone of your rocket. Problem is, people build quite large rocket these days that would over encompass the restricted deployment zone if there were a launch tower.

Wonderful thing this. But please, change Kombat into Combat. And tell ya, it's my own two cents. You decide obviously. But the cynical K word abbreviations are getting old. KCS sounds symphonical, while KKS sounds like I need to thrust a dead ferret through my esophagus. Hope point was clear enough. I'll see what you do with it.

@wumpusWell, no they don't use it. It has a lot of smaller raptor engines on the 1st stage, I wouldn't even know how they'd fit fiarings on the 1st stage of the ITS. just as the N1 had smaller NK-15 engines versus a few very big F1 saturn engines that are very big in comparison. Also in the ITS animation the nozzles are concealed as it sits on the Launchpad. Nice discussion on the aerodynamics of shells, interesting read though. I can't think of the best types of planes myself but would it benefit any form of tail drag as it leads over the skin of a jet nozzle? Jet nozzles look quite aerodynamic by themselves. But since it's air that creates drag and airliners are there all the time I would wonder if such a benefit would be worth the airline industry. Obviously I'm not the first one as for almost everything. Planes don't got them so I'm sure there's a clear answer to that one.

My new stock VTOL with floaters made from ore tanks to navigate on water that includes a submerged rudder and 6 panther engines for vertical lift and 5 whiplashes for forward thrust and can go to mach 3.2. Can land and maneuver to land on the VAB helipad. Didn't realized I was in Orbit view.... stupid Now I'm gonna work on my cargo version to drop submarines wherever I want them.

@mikegarrison You are very right, and it wasn't specifically to make fun of them. But reading about this myself for some time already and the topic replies covering the implications, lack of need, maybe net loss for required infrastructure (runway) and everything else gets me annoyed about the fundamental priorities of this project.

I'm sure if people throw me a graph with numbers that my next argument is going to be debunked. Although it's more based on experience rather then numbers I have closely compared myself. But unless you have a considerably slower CPU from much earlier gens I find that KSP basically runs as good on any computer I've so far used. Although I did find I could build a scale larger on my own faster Ivy bridge cpu compared to some other computers I tried. That said it's always better to tweak your pc optimally. But basically AMD is worse then Intel for most things (games included) I could also recommend Linux with a low system requirement user interface. This will save you some extra clock ticks that windows or some of your detailed GUI or other background processes might have used.

Will stratolaunch fly/launch? See user above me... I find it more a farce that some entrepreneur with a big bank account without any or *some knowledge gets his business *cough* engineering company running without a idea, concept or ambition to do it properly (*some knowledge = not enough) So B747's and lockeheed L1011's did this and can do this still? So what's the mind, personal or companies limitation to build this then if it was already done before? Is it just to get a few ton to orbit that can be done cheaper with regular rockets concerning the runway, industry and certifications they'd still have to go for? This sounds like some of those bureaucratic CEO's with science and engineering ambitions without knowing what both words mean and think they can be von braun or korolev 2.0. Sad to say, but even Kim Jung'un seems on a route for more kg's to orbit then these guys are. And while I'm at it, screw the guy I just mentioned. Thinking about what I just said, I know now what stratolaunch can be good for...

I watched a video about Scott Manley one day that tried to shoot a prograde orbiting and a retrograde orbiting vessel against one another by matching their close encounters using 10x time decceleration with the timewarp mod. I did this using some high diameter vessel with tanks and structural elements (some kind of square half cubic looking space station) I tried smashing it into my KISS station [Kerbal inventory science station] A station I thought that was my science and assembly station. The assembly part is due to the KISS name referring to the inventory system mod and had containers with KIS cargo bays and such. The thing is, I use abbreviations for all my sattelites and stations to organize it better, said strategy backfired enormously. It seemed I had another station called KISS [Kerbal interplanetary solar settlement] It's some kind of kerbal habitat with a lot of solar panels and some Nervas for propulsion. It had 43 Kerbals onboard. In terms of crew only 3 x mk1crew cabin modules survived and contained 5 Kerbals. 38 Kerbals KIA... [Bob is on the KIA list] Obviously I quiksaved several seconds before impact so after I reloaded I found out I couldn't do anything to stop the catastrophy without editing the save file... Dear me.

@MajorMushroom www.imgur.com and then the "New post" button. The rest is self explanatory after that.