Bluejayek

Hello Enture, I realize you are new to this forum, but it is generally seen as bad practise to "necro" a thread by posting in it months after it died. That being said, I find a good way is to kill velocity completely while still 1000m up or so, and then descend perfectly vertically. Wastes fuel, but better success rate.

Allright, I can see it in the settings menu, if I go Settings > My Account > General Settings it shows "You currently have 0 reputation" below the toggle for showing reputation or not. Also on the settings page I see a "Latest Reputation Given (Reputation Power: 1)" with who I have given reputation to. However, I cannot for the life of me find this Reputation tab on "My Profile" page. I see tabs "My Activity" "Visitor Messages" "About Me" "Friends", none of which show reputation. Sorry for being a nuisance, and thank you in advance for the further help. Love your profile picture by the way.

For example, try launching this craft, or even just looking at it on the launch pad. http://www./?lalg0b5hcuxsv1n I believe there is an asymetry problem around stage 15 so you probably won't be able to fly it on an interplanetary trajectory or anything. EDIT: I tried flying it again, and I believe the problem is that I don't have enough struts on some of the stages and it begins to oscillate more. Fixing that to bring your framerate down to 0.1 or lower will allow it to fly better.

At risk of sounding like an idiot, how exactly do I tell what my reputation is? I understand the green/gray bars gives a broad idea, but as per the actual number of points, or who has given me reputation, is there somewhere to see that?

Canada actually. Canadian dollar is about at par with the US dollar, but stuff tends to be a bit more expensive, but yeah, probably similar. As per spending the money on spare capacity, yes, I personally would. I have had two built PC's fail because of power supplies performing underspec, so on my latest build, and in the future, I will not compromise on the quality of the PSU and will go for a buffer. It is always useful if he wants to tack on a second graphics card later or something. However, your right that he probably should upgrade the graphics.

Its called the infiniglide glitch, and there have been numerous threads about it. I'm not sure if anybody has come up with an explanation for exactly what is going on though. My favorite experience with it was with a craft for the sub 1000m air speed challenge. It was basically a long with with SRB's interspersed throughout, with no strut support. This made the wing very flexible... and I found that after the SRB's ran out, I could glide forever. However, much more itnerestingly, once I landed I could flex one with up off the ground, and it would accelerate me along the ground. I had a lot of fun with this until I got going too fast (~100m/s) on the ground, hit a bump, and exploded. Welcome to the KSP forums

I disagree with EndlessWaves on the power supply deal. As long as it is good quality, you can't go wrong with having too much power. The extra 40 or 50$ the 700W will cost you over the 400W, It is well worth it. I have had too many issue sin the past with computers crapping out from an underpowered PSU to skimp on that. I would reccomend corsair power supplies. Something like the TX750W or HX750W from corsair will do nicely. Also, don't expect to run KSP "without a hitch". You will still have a frame rame of 1 frame per ice age when you try to build a ship with 500+ struts. I second the idea of an aftermarket CPU heatsink. I originally bought my computer without (running an intel i7 960 no overclocking) and it was heating up dangerously under stress tests (~85-90 degrees or hotter). When I added an aftermarket heat sink, I got that down to 60-70 degrees max.

The challenge is to land a spacecraft (a capsule + anything else) on minimus using only the kerbals eva thrusters as the descent/landing stage. This means you must put a craft in a STABLE orbit around minimus, at whatever height you desire, EVA, and then deorbit and land the craft. You may re-enter the command pod to recharge your fuel cells as much as you wish, but you may not use any sort of propulsion on the craft such as RCS thrusters or liquid fuel engines. Successful entries will be ranked based on the number of parts their spacecraft has, and the mass for tiebreakers. Made it down from that orbit, to here But I wasnt able to slow it down enough so I ditched. It ended up with my kerbal landed safely, then back up to a 10/10km orbit, while my capsule continued orbiting in about a 3km/-1km orbit.

On these lines another thing we need is individual part ID's for the results screen. SRB #1 exploded would be much more helpful then SRB exploded, if you could mouse over in VAB and see which is SRB #1.

Challenge accepted.

As per mechjeb being available in the stock game in its full form, I would figure it should be the similar to how cheat codes exist in many single player games. They exist for those who find it more fun to use them, but there should be some slight barrier to using them, perhaps having to edit one line of the settings file where it says "Mechjeb="OFF"" to on, and then it will appear in the VAB. This would prevent ruining new players experience with a part that takes away the fun of flying, while allowing those who know a bit of what they are doing to use mechjeb when they wish.

Google search pulled up this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haversine_formula. However, using it I get a distance of 62km. Possible a lot of hills slowed your rover down. When using that formula be careful that you end up with RADIANS not degrees after the arcsin (which is sin inverse on most calculators). Conversion PI * degrees / 180 = radians.

A lot of people seem not to realize how sparse a real asteroid field is. They think of things like the asteroid field in Star Wars, and believe that the asteroid belt is like this. In reality, there is a LOT of space between asteroids. Such that, not only will you not have to attempt to dodge asteroids, you will have to make a significant effort to fly by one intentionally. Computational/memory limits in the game itself probably will require that they make an asteroid belt that is even sparser of small bodies then reality, although I wouldn't be surpised if they made some small ultradense pockets for fun. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-science-fiction-movies Also, I use keyboard exclusively, simply because I have no joystick. All default keybindings.

Unfortunately for your suggestion, I believe the devs are trying to stick more or less to real science. I don't see any way a moon could exist within a gas giant.

kerb, the point others are making is twofold. 1) There IS a fuel bug in the current version. Aparently the thrust produced scales linearly with throttle, while the fuel used scales quadratically. So essentially if I am at 1/2 throttle I get 1/2 the thrust for 1/4 the fuel, or at least this is how I understand this. 2) "Targets" in orbit is almost always not a specific location, but a specific location/speed. It does not good to get up to the position of orbit if you are going 1000m/s too slow, and therefore it is not a fuel savings to be going slower at this point. That being said, I entirely agree with you that even in the absence of a fuel bug sensible throttling in atmosphere can save a lot of fuel. I go by the rule of thumb that you want to cruise at about 100m/s until you are out of the lower layer of atmosphere (10km or so). As per mechjeb, I don't use it. I prefer doing things manually, although I am considering installing it just for the extra orbital information it provides, and simply not using its autopilot functions.

I've had the opposite experience. Currently running a radeon 5870, and its given me quite a bit of grief with unstable drivers, random display issues etc. Avoid the 5000 line if you can. I suppose its a bit outdated now, but still.

I was testing a design I had for an interstallar craft, attempting to launch this craft into orbit. Unfortunately, when I got to about 2000m altitude this happened. However, by some happy turn of fate my upper landing stage was unneffected and I was able to safely parachute down while the rest of my rocket crashed and exploded into the ground below!

I was testing a design I had for an interstallar craft, attempting to launch this craft into orbit. Unfortunately, when I got to about 2000m altitude this happened. However, by some happy turn of fate my upper landing stage was unneffected and I was able to safely parachute down while the rest of my rocket crashed and exploded into the ground below! [spoiler="Parachuting"

I see your request for a measly few gigabyte picture, and raise you this 150 gigapixel picture of the milky way. http://djer.roe.ac.uk/vsa/vvv/iipmooviewer-2.0-beta/vvvgps5.html

Since there is no atmosphere anywhere else, it isnt a fair challenge if you include the Mun or minimus. On kerbin at low altitudes the atmosphere is very dense and so there is huge drag at higher speeds; thus you need a lot of thrust to get to these speeds, as shown here. One thing I found odd while doing the challenge, is that I could not attain the same speed by going up to a high altitude, say 500m, and doing a powered dive as I could with a level flight path. It is possible there is some sort of lift bug that is gaining me speed.

Score 474 score 425 Personally I think you need a higher curve up in score with decreasing altitude. Skimming at just above the surface is much more difficult. By the way, does this count? score 552 If not, score 541 Your rules need something about level flight in them. While these I've shown arent too bad, they still are a bit belwo vertical, and I would suspect some people could get absurd velocities on a powered orbital dive.

Yes, it was complete stock. However, I have a newer and greater entry! This one did not pop past 1000m altitude, maximum was 915m. Maximum speed 656.1m/s. Pure stock. The ship is rather amusing and dangerous to fly, as when you are gaining altitude the wings flex quite dangerously and you end up looking like an ornithopter. While the crew technically did not survive, I did land them on the ground safely. However, there was some funny infiglide bugs going on. If I tilted one direction half my plane would lift up and I was accelerating quite rapidly on the ground. While playing with this I eventually got going too quickly on the ground (over 100m/s) and exploded. Thanks dark. Answering someones question is never off topic.

462m/s. Maybe its not allowed, since I did breifly go above 1000 ( 1175 maximum altitude) However, as you can see the maximum speed was at around 900m. Crew did not survive. Didnt quite manage to glide back home.

a) The low thrust engines are worth it; I get further with then without. The radial decouplers now weight very little, 0.025. While this was a serious concern in previous versions, it no longer is. c) If you look at my screenshot, you can see in the staging that they are staged symetrically in pairs. All engines run off the fuel tanks of the first two, I eject them, and then repeat. They do NOT all run out at the same time. In this thread you appear to be taking great pleasure in tearing down other peoples submissions for no good reason (e.g. calling somebody a liar and a cheater for having a flight time 16 seconds too long). If this is all you are going to do, I would appreciate it if you would stay out of this thread.

Is it cheating to get out and push with your kerbal after burnout? 4.95MJ/kg without this. Staging was messed up though, and I have a terrible T/W ratio, so I think I can do better. 352km altitude, 4161m/s. 8:10 flight time