Aeroboi

I like this. One little irritation is that it is a rather small suggestion that fuels my desire to suggest a overall overhaul in terms of damage effects all together. The simple crash tolerance limit system has to be overhauled completely in stock that is. Also, engines should have a chance of bursting into fire. Oh, and if we go with birds I think monkeys, lizards and giraffes should come next. If you start with birds everyone will demand a eco system and there should be one. Of course there should be a build in menu setting allowing you to disable all these effects for computers accelerated by your roasted potatoe. Also add Volcanoes and Saint Elmos fire and make the turbine choke itself. Of course doing that kind of demands a stock weather system because why would we have pyroclastic clouds but no water vapor clouds? Maybe it is just me but such tiny little suggestions often are the catalyst to fuel all kind of related suggestions on the subject of in game effects also. The main question was suction and damage effects on engines, someone mentions birds, I mention volcanoes and Saint elmos fire and the conclusion might be a overal damage, effects system altogether? Hasn't Squad proven to be insufficient in terms of resources to grant all these ideas into the game already beyond the actual spaceflight related plugins which is the only category of content they have actually been working on over the years? Obviously this is going to be a new mod, now all that has to be asked is whether it is possible to program this. Just my two cents.

You can set the "decouple" and "undock" action group on both the docking ports also so it is always the right one that activates the un-docking mechanism. Also, according to the picture it seems the docking port is clipped in the radiator panel. But I cannot entirely make up whether this is true or whether that white ribbon square object on the last picture is a radiator panel in the first place. It kinda looks like it but maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me. Clipping often bugs the decoupling and parts with attachment nodes front to back which are close to one another like the Jr docking port often attach on the wrong side of the node. Detach the docking port and then make sure it is attached on the rearest node as you can attach the docking port on the front and on the backside of it even when it faces in the same direction. A pair of docking ports should only barely touch one another. If it fits beyond the outer edge of the hatch by facing into one another then it is the rear node of the docking port (the backside of it) that gets attached to the other one in the pair. In that case you have no docking mechanism at all, just 2 docking ports welded together.

Pictures? As the user above me pointed out, impact tolerance values designated in meter per second determine part crashes against the surface (water = surface) To put things in perspective: If a container ship like the Maersk Alabama travels at 30 knots and you view her in the distance along the coastline it's like it doesn't move at all. Your like, mweeh, "does it take that long to have my toys shipped across the atlantic" But if it is a road cyclist zipping across at the same speed 10 yards away from you you'd be like, "whaaat!? Is that peter Sagan? "I wish I would be that fast" Same is true in KSP. Small ship at 8m/s seems relatively fast in comparison to a bigger vessel at the same speed. The hull of a ship will break at only several meter per second (usually much less especially when loaded) against a solid object whether it's a small fishing boat or the Titanic. At high vertical velocities water works like a wall. Depending on how you'll hit the water 8-12 m/s is quite a hit actually, and it's very likely things will break on contact with water at those speeds depending on the weight and surface area of the object or vessel hitting it. Horizontal speed matters much less assuming there are little to no waves, not at all perhaps in KSP although I do not know that for a fact. Another thing you should take mind of is that your craft might have a very deep draft, so stacks of parts above the bottom parts will still accelerate into the water beyond their crash tolerances until the vessel settles around its floating point. You can cut the engines when touching the water gently, but within that moment the distance of one or more parts will freefall past their crash tolerance values while on your monitor it may look like your kissing the water. Solutions: I don't think parachutes will help you. But if your a para freak it is obvious you want your parachutes installed on the edges of your vessel as it are the edges that will tilt once settling on the surface your trying to land on . But the best option I would think is using VTOL engines. And when using a VTOL design only kill engine power once the vessel has settled close enough to it's floating point. Which is not when you make first contact but after it sinks slightly into the water. The best way to minimize crash damage on parts using a floating vessel like a large ship is to use a catamaran system whereby specific stacks of parts used for floatation will hit the water first so that anything above it doesn't crash into it. I use the structural fuselage and mk3 cargo bays mostly for this purpose coupled with Vector engines tugged away in the Mk3 cargo bays to be used as VTOL assist when my vessel gets into the big vessel categories. The other reason is that Mk 3 cargo bays have ridiculous crash tolerances that defy normal reality. They have a impact tolerance of 50 meter per second which is close to 200 Kp/h. Because they are also big and very floaty they usually protect parts that will float above the waterline if the Mk 3 parts are used for floatation but the Mk1 structural fuselage works very well to if they are to big for the craft you'd like to use.

1.3.1 for mods. 1.4.1 for Stock and MH. 1.05 and 2 pre v1 versions for bringing back nostalgia once every month or so when I'm bored. I can't recall I had use for v1.2 I think it depends on certain older mods that may only work under said version, if that is the case for some you will find these people to respond most likely.

Oh absolutely. I'm talking about spaceplanes to LKO only. I see little reason why to send winged aircraft beyond LKO besides a few other destinations that is. What I was getting at is that I expect many rapier designs will have their rocket mode ignored since a Wolfhound is clearly better especially considering it's low relative weight. It's still 800-900 M/s after Rapier flameout to LKO. My argument was especially targeted for being able to build much more efficient SSTO's with less capable jet engines from earlier tech nodes. However, this calamity with the Wolfhound engine is not something I'd expect we have to discuss much longer as it clearly seems the Wolfhound and Skiff statistics issue is going to be fixed soon and we won't have to argue about this any longer I'm very happy to have learned this is just a silly coding mistake. Let's hope the first update fix comes along soon. I like this one very much. I think it must happen. But I don't expect it's gonna happen You are forgetting Xenon which makes it 3 flavors. Not rendered as a fuel in game even fissile material is a fuel. So somewhere in the LV-N and RTG is something that is considered fuel also, just not visible or numerically used in the UI of the game. To my knowledge all monopropellant engines have terrible ISP, no mind ranges that go as higher as our mystical Wolfhound engine or anything that burns LF/O like the poodle.

I got a overclocked I7 8800k to 5.1 Gigahertz on a Corsair H150I cooling unit while running in Windows 10 having shut down about a gazillion of unused background apps and services to limit single core/thread cpu performance to a minimum and a 700 part ship will make me run for the hills. Also take note that many movie makers on youtube use slowmotion techniques just for the sake of capturing their monstrosities on video with reasonable framerate. The FPS seen in videos is not the FPS experience during the actual recording. I call it movie making sorcery

I wonder how aerodynamic The FL-A215 and FL-A151L fuel tank adapters might be. People have typically been using either Mk3 to 2.5m, C7 Brand adapters or Kerbodyne ADTP 2-3- adapters for their Eve ascent vehicles and the new adapters look more Aerodynamic compared to all aforementioned ones. But I know what seems in KSP isn't always what it actually is If it is just a gain on that part then a overall result will be marginal, but it's the only first thing I could think of. On the Kerbal wiki there are no stats yet as the aforementioned MH fuel adapter parts apparently haven't gotten their respective pages yet. Maybe they work a little better as a knife through soup compared to the original adapters we've had so far, although I'm fairly sure they wont contribute to making a SSTO viable without a magic engine. It's ultimately the engine requirements that anchors you to Eve's Suborbital boundaries so I cannot figure how it would enable SSTO's all of a sudden. But obviously I hope I'm wrong about that because I'm never the skeptic and I want to see. About these adapter names...

Made a topic of my own that aimlessly orientated to conclusions in similar respect considering the Wolfhound. Having read this now it all makes sense. Not to ashamed for having it posted as it's clearly a very over the top error in coding and it's only healthy to clarify it outside of a single thread. My findings is that it would make early spaceplanes way to easy to build since you have a engine of ~400 ISP in the Jet flame out territory already acquired in the 90 science node. If the stats were to be remedied according to real world application things will really make sense.

Ah, makes sense And I also see that other topic now discussing this, I missed out on it so far. I thought the J-2 had ISP of near 450 though, so still not a replica but probably a healthy ISP nerf for a KSP edition if that is their intention with it. Errors do happen and I hope it gets fixed soon. As long as it's ultimate TWR is not to great to make concepts of spaceplanes to easy as I described then I'm fine with it. Very true statements. It depends per design certainly and I would never make a SSTO using LV-N just to get into orbit either. While it has been said that numbers are switched between the Skiff the Wolfhound also produces more thrust per unit of mass compared to let us say, the Swivel engine, coupled with that higher ISP and I'm certain many spaceplane designs alike will benefit from using the Wolfhound, very effectively to be exact. Not against the idea for a heavier more powerful monoprop engine. Especially if it can be used as ports to work under RCS to dock certain monstrosities together.

I joined since recently. I have been a long time lurker on here, reddit, youtube and steam community and talk with one mate that isn't here but also plays a lot KSP in real life. I'm only a simple car and bike mechanic but like enhanced nerdy stuff. I'm really into making things that fly through air. Planes, spaceplanes, VTOLS, you name it I make it I'm more a concept creator then someone who tries to make a space empire but I do have a career save to play with from time to time that I like to expand using umbra space industry mods with OPM combined with various spaceplane mods. I also toy with realism overhaul from time to time where I tend to replicate existing rockets. I understand how to go about it but there's always endurance involved with RO/RSS concepts that I tend to to begin with and never finalize thereafter. I hope people keep posting wonderful builds and playthroughs like ya'll have been doing for years and I am not to shy to share some of my own. I don't have a lot of questions in terms of gameplay anymore but may be tempted to answer some of others if I'm bored. Happy rocketeering and aviating to ya all mateys and glad to be here

I recently bought MH after already playing KSP for several years. I recently posted a showcase of a early-mid tech SSTO in "What did you do in KSP today" and "SSTOs! Post your pictures here~" topics. In there I showcase a very efficient SSTO for hauling cargo with early tech parts. The Wolfhound engine is one tech node further in the tree based of on the tech requirements of my spaceplane. Making a design with said engine will make considerable further leap in Payload capacity to orbit. For people not easily capable of building space planes it is a easy engine to enable them to build one on their own during much earlier career phases then your regular SSTO which are designs with at least whiplash engines typically. A blessing for some people who wanted a gap filler for spaceplane SSTO designs, overkill to others who are oriented towards gameplay balance and I join among that latter group. The Wolfhound has a ISP of 360-380 in between 13-15 Km altitude, a typical altitude to enable rockets on a panther J404 based SSTO as they tend to flame out around there (actually that is dependent on specifics not further specified) And... EVEN MOAR ISP for the Wolfhound using a Whiplash based SSTO that goes even higher before flame out. Do the R.A.P.I.E.R.S. still have their function with their rocket mode if a better ISP engine like the Wolfhound is better combined with the Whiplash/Rapiers jet mode discarding the Rapier rocket mode altogether. If so, the Rapier rocket mode will never be a option anymore as you acquire the Wolfhound much earlier. I'm not sure how this equates into actual gameplay, I have to build a test vessel but considering the stats certain gaps between engine combinations are filled that make certain engine modes obsolete in my view like the ones mentioned. I don't know whether it makes the Rapiers rocket mode obsolete therefore and whether it does so completely in every spaceplane design, but this is a question that is on my mind and it should be tested, allow me to be the first to bring it up. I'm also a little lost in what this engine is reminiscent of. The Apollo CSM engine is what it looks like. But it has a ISP of 412.....what? What fuel mixture ends up with a ISP of 412 that is reminiscent of a CSM engine with a vaccuum optimized nozzle? I'm not someone who argues that KSP need engine replicas out of real life, although MH is clearly based of such a idea. But if you go there by using models reminiscent of real life engines then why get fictional by adding non corresponding numbers to their statistics? As for the Wolfhound, why then the controversial ISP numbers thrown in? For balancing purposes in the scale of distances that Kerbins solar system represents I'd expect lower ISP engines, not ones with greater numbers if anything, unless Squad intends to replicate Hydrolox resembling engines. These by the way aren't Vacuum optimized engines in real life either. They have sufficient but poorer TWR at sea level and become more efficient as they climb. In space Hydrogen leaks away so it can't really be a vacuum optimized engine if it is to resemble a Hydrogen engine. Yet the Wolfhound hangs in between RP-1/LOX and Hydrolox fuel mixture ISP ranges. So what is it that it burns? Kerboloxillium? If the philosphy behind this engine is a exotic fictionalized fuel mixture as I jokingly put forth that is there to make the game easier, okido, I'm with that idea. If some people want that then who am I to judge? Personally though I'm against that philosophy also but at least in that case I can buy the argument. Nobody made the argument for the statistics choices of this engine yet, but I'm clearly signalling that someone in charge could tell me because I want to know and the reason behind these statistics seem mysterious to me. I will remain mysterious towards this until someone can clarify, which is obviously one of the developers in case they have an answer and might read. Put the Wolfhound further up the tech tree please! I'm gonna make a case for suggesting to move the Wolfhound engine further up the tech tree. It is a 90 science node after all and only requires R&D facility level 1 but has stats that should have it on the last science node. Also, what looks like the CSM engine should act like a CSM engine IMHO if one were to ask yours truly, so I think a Isp of 315 is in order. If it has to be better then current Terrier or Rhino then that is fine. I'm not against a step up the ladder from our top tier LF/O efficient engines. But a area of 400+ is a bit silly if you ask me.

Finally made my early-mid career spaceplane SSTO that hauls up to 20.6 Ton into LKO very efficiently using only Panther engines, 2 swivels and 1 Thud with a remarkable payload fraction of 28.5%

I have been trying to make the most cost, MET, fuel and overall efficient SSTO spaceplane to haul cargo to and from orbit using only early to mid tech nodes. Album: https://imgur.com/a/BMTKW The vessel has stats that are on par with your typical cargo SSTO that uses rapiers, but this one only uses Panther J404 engines and early rocket motors. Meet the Airskipper Super Libra SL72 [Fully stock] in her MAX cargo setup. She only requires these tech nodes I Can swap the inline cockpit for a service bay with probe core to bring allowed cargo up to and over 21 Tons for a 29% payload fraction to orbit with one extra tech node. I'm perfecting this vehicle furthermore and I am considering putting it on KerbalX for people to play with. But I will postpone for some time as I intend to create several pre-installed cargo versions and a probe core setup before uploading her for ya'll to play with. I'm just interested what people think of this one. The allowed cargo in weight and volume allows installation of typical 2nd stage terrier powered modules which can be single staged from there on for a crew of 3 to reach Duna and back that includes all science experiments brought with you also. It can easily launch up to 7 satellites into orbit to fulfill 7 satellite contracts at each time with enough fuel to reach Duna. But draggy cargo must be put in a fairing at the back. I will create a pre-installed version with a fairing node at the back before she's put on KerbalX so she can accommodate all types of cargo's required without you scratching your head on how to install it on your own. I intentionally scaled this vessel to the weight limit and cargo capacity since it allows to bring all types of cargo typical contracts require during the career phase it is in. But that does assume you can build your cargo stages a.k.a. vessels effectively like I can. Most people on here can I figure. This vessel has been optimized over several dozen iterations and latter iterations have been tested for 50-100 hours to achieve full proof handling across all phases of flight. NOTE: This vessel requires runway, SPH and R&D level 2 facility upgrades. These facility upgrades allow vessels up to 140 Ton to be launched. I'm aiming for a future heavier version that is likely a scaled substitute of this design that weighs ~140 Tons that includes cargo possibly up to 42 Tons if done right. Maybe a lot more if I create a working design using the Wolfhound. But I'm aiming for a version that doesn't require the Making history expansion so it is probably without the wolfhound. For reference: A 140 Ton version scale of this vehicle will allow... It takes quite some time to build a vessel with these stats so I take my time for this and a heavier version won't come anytime soon. I initially did this to test how efficient I could make a cargo SSTO for my own and while building this vessel was tedious it has been enormous fun and learned a lot about spaceplane refinements in the process. Eventually her use is limited to the mid career phase so further gratitude can only be acquired from sharing this craft with other living people. I will make a few alterations still and make a few pre configured setups of this vehicle and will then upload her to KerbalX. I'm just curious if people are interested in her which is why I showcase her before actual uploading as its use is likely limited towards the mid career phase, assuming you can make more efficient spaceplanes with later techs that is. Here is a imgur album link that showcases her potential https://imgur.com/a/BMTKW Vessel facts!

Since recently I became a owner of a new computer that has a Gigabyte Aorus GTX 1080 TI graphics card on the new Z370 platform with a 8800K by the way. I like the this over pouring of graphical juice in my videogames and it works nice on my Acer Z35P Ultra Wide Quad HD monitor which can display 120hz nicely. Unfortunately, KSP does not like this graphical setup, for whatever reason that is currently unimaginable to me. My experience and knowledge goes as far to try out the spare variety of graphics drivers from the Nvidia site, but beyond that I do not know what to do. Whats your issue at hand mate? Whenever I play KSP (that is beyond the main menu) my monitor starts signalling in and out randomly, as if the physical cable were disconnected. It then stays like that for 5 to 7 seconds or thereabout and then the signal gets back again. Sometimes it happens several times in a row. So the monitor signals out and in again and repeatedly. This is completely random, I say, completely. However, when I then at the time of incident put the displayport cable in another port it always remedies the problem, but again, for a random given time and then it re-appears again, on any of the display ports I must add. This happens only in KSP, not any other game, application or graphical environment does suffer from this anomaly (at least those programs that I run) Hence why I registered on this forum instead of some computer help site or Steam since it's then clearly KSP related, am I right? So I tried all the latest drivers for the GTX 1080 TI. I tried putting my display port cable in all 3 the display ports on the back of the videocard, and I used a secondary display port cable to see if it was the cable itself. Which can't be as logic tells me because then it would be reproduceable in other games also. The same goes for the argument that it may be faulty ports. Which it can't be because then all 3 of them would be faulty and isn't that just to unlikely to happen on a new videocard? I think it would be. I know you and I like plentiful of information in troubleshooting scenarios but I don't know what to give, so just ask me. I currently play 1.4 but I got my new rig still in the 1.3.1 phase and both versions have the same problem, my bet any version before that also.