White Owl

Concerning engine resource balancing, I recall one of the old SABRE mod engines... maybe as long ago as two years, I think? Anyway, instead of directly using intake air with the fuel, that one was configured to convert intake air into oxidizer. And that's actually closer to how the real SABRE works, if we consider oxidizer to be liquid oxygen. That change would simplify the problem in one way, since you'd need only one ratio of H2 to O2, whether in atmosphere or vacuum. But also adds the complication of adding the intake air conversion. I suppose it would simplify changing engine modes too; as soon as you climb high enough that intake air can't keep up with the demand for LOX, then it would automatically start consuming LOX from the internal tanks, so just close the intakes and go to max throttle for the climb.

Fair answer, thanks. Yes, it was the part directly along the centerline, top of the stack. And then the part underneath it. And the one under that!

PlanetShine has the functionality of Ambient Light Adjustment, plus more features. But you definitely need one of them. Or add a whole lot of lights to absolutely everything.

I designed the Talon to do exactly that! Granted, that was stock aerodynamics and stock scale Kerbin... but it worked. I've been making lots of notes and writing up a whole rulebook for a sort of career mode, loosely inspired by the Construction Time mod, but not installing that mod. Also have ideas for a series using these house rules in a storyline driven series, taking place in the current 6.4x save, tying together elements of the old abandoned Chapter 2 series with the lost message from the monolith. So right now the current plan is to do some more work on Project SOAR, then use those developed vehicles in the storyline series. I think I can pull it all together.

I always use FAR. Sometimes I forget that others don't. You're right that I should've stated this was with FAR. Also using RSS 6.4-scale, if that matters. Yeah, launch and orbital velocities are higher and I expect temps to be higher too... but why was stuff inside the fairing burning up instead of the fairing?

Just tried this, used the default normal settings, and launched a rocket. Parts inside a procedural payload fairing caught fire and exploded during launch. I reverted the flight, changed to the legacy mode, and relaunched without issue. Is the new version not compatible with payload fairings?

26,300 km is Kerbin-stationary orbit. I got it wrong in one episode, and a viewer very kindly demonstrated how to calculate it.

WOO! Not sure how to get the most accurate fuel/intake air/LOX ratios for both engine modes, though. But I'm real happy it flies.

All airplanes takeoff from a runway like this. Of course the Skylon must. Oh no! You can try this in KSP very easily. Just build an airplane with lift in front of mass, takeoff, and watch the airshow stunts! CoM must be forward of CoL, always. This ain't a jet fighter, and KSP control surfaces aren't smart enough to emulate true fly by wire trickery, so our airplane has to be stable. It's a glider.

Looking at this beast, it seems clear that keeping CoL behind CoM, but not too far, will be a pretty delicate balancing act. Obviously the CoM at takeoff needs to be just in front of the landing gear so it can rotate. And that also puts the CoM in the middle of the cargobay, so payload doesn't change the balance. But the Skylon has a whole lot of wing forward of that landing gear too, not to mention the canards waaay up in front just to make things difficult. The official manual mentions the difficulties in balancing payload mass and aerodynamic pressure. Says it will work if payloads attach at the forward part of the cargobay, so more weight is forward. And of course all that heavy LOX is centered around there too. I bet this bird takes off with the CoM only barely ahead of the CoL. I bet it burns fuel from the rear tanks first, to shift the CoM forward in flight. At supersonic speeds the lift will move backwards, so that'll help. Of course, not a factor in stock aerodynamics. And moving mass forward will also greatly help keep the thrust vector pointed at the CoM, so those offset engines aren't as much of an issue. I think I'll put together a Procedural Wings and Procedural Parts mockup in stock aerodynamics. Play around with fuel balance and whatnot. If you get the CoM farther ahead, then maybe you can make the delta wing ailerons into elevons. That might help.

In the real world, even a perfectly round fuselage produces some lift. It just needs to meet the air at the right angle of attack. I'd say there's no cheating at all to give your fuselage sections a lift factor. Being larger but rounder than the stock/SPP fuselage pieces, maybe it would be reasonable to start with the same numbers? MODULE { name = ModuleLiftingSurface deflectionLiftCoeff = 0.6 dragAtMaxAoA = 0.3 dragAtMinAoA = 0.1 } Whether you go with that solution or not... not getting the nosewheel off the ground points to either the CoM too far forward of the landing gear, not enough lift from the canards, or both. Tweak the CoM by adjusting fuel and oxidizer balance since in this case we don't want to move the landing gear.

I've avoided posting here so far, simply because I'm not a modder and don't know enough to help you solve these problems. But I just gotta say damn that thing is gorgeous! This is one of the very very few times I'm so interested in using a complete prebuilt vehicle mod instead of designing my own. You say it won't take off at 140 m/s. Will it at least lift the nosewheel? I wonder how long a runway the real bird is supposed to use. KSC's runway seems pretty short for something Skylon's size. Edit: I know nothing about part modeling, or why things wobble, or why they don't. But I understand KSP-style aerodynamics and changing part configs to make it work. May I try to help? Edit #2: The real SABRE's are going to burn liquid hydrogen, which is significantly lighter than stock liquidFuel. So your Skylon is probably way too heavy when full of fuel. I know you want it to work in stock aerodynamics... are you opposed to using a mod fuel?

Best part of the whole movie, and I don't give a damn that it doesn't actually make sense that Endurance was deorbiting.

I was feeling silly, so put together one of those "two videos at the same time" thingamabobs. Here's one of my best emergency mission saves, set to the music from Interstellar: clicky

Does this pack still have those excellent high detail struts? Those were great for making structural supports. Edit: Okay, I see this does have improved strut connectors and they look great. But I recall a different model that looked much less smooth, more industrial. Is that style gone for good?

Exactly the same way you learned how many fuel tanks to stack. Take a first guess and see how far it flies. If it doesn't fly, remove some fuel so it's lighter. If it flies too far, remove a little more fuel. If it doesn't fly far enough, add a little. Just like those simple little 2D artillery games that were the fad several years ago.

We always have Kerbals for scale. Build a completely procedural/dynamic/welded/custom contraption, stand a Kerbal in front of it, and people instantly know how big it is.

In my wildest dreams, I'd like to see the vehicle editor become a full 3D modeling program. Like launching Blender from inside KSP, with everything preset to the right format for the game. (Hopefully a lot easier to learn and use than Blender, though.) No static parts at all. Total freedom to design however you like, with configs for as much realism and/or silliness as you like. All these procedural parts - which you of course started - are a great first step toward that kind of freedom.

I greatly enjoyed the movie. The spaceflight looked great. But... the spaceships themselves all looked ugly. I'm not sure why you'd want to replicate them ingame, when you can make something similar in purpose but much more stylish, like those cool spaceplanes earlier in this thread.

Not a very well worded poll, since the Kerbal nature is not understood to be the same thing by different people. Really, just cut to the chase and ask "do you imagine the rockets you design are built out of junk?" I am vehemently opposed to the junk parts idea, and always have been. Kerbals are excitable, willing to try crazy ideas, love all forms of flight, and don't particularly mind exploding from time to time. But aside from part description text, nothing in the game has ever pointed to this whole scrap metal idea. Until now. The junkyard parts notion must have seemed like a good way to get people interested in the game, waaay back before KSP got big. Back when the concept was something like "a less serious Orbiter", and facing the fact that not many people will ever play Orbiter, wondering how best to communicate the difference. Junkyard = silly = less serious = fun. But the game got popular on its own merits, with nothing at all looking like junk! All parts ingame currently have a smooth, clean, well designed appearance. And people love them! (I may have voiced a harsh opinion or two about the aerodynamic nosecone, shielded docking port and sepratron... but that's because they could all easily be made more aerodynamic, not because they appear to be made of corrugated tin and baling wire.) Players fell in love with KSP when nothing ingame looked like junk. Therefore, the junk aesthetic is not necessary for people to fall in love with this game. Will adding a literal rusty junkyard and scrap metal buildings to the early KSC cause potential customers to not fall in love with this game? There's an experiment I would prefer not to try.

Repost what I just wrote at my channel. Interstellar is like 2001: A Space Odyssey, only the ending makes sense. Go see it! KSP players watching this movie have a different experience. Most of the audience around you will think "Oh crap that looks spectacular and dangerous." KSP players think "Oh holy crap I'VE DONE THAT and it was spectacular and dangerous!" Do your best to ignore the technical inaccuracies. (Seriously, does the Ranger spaceplane have an antimatter engine or something? And why didn't they hire me to make it look cool instead that ugly wedge shape?) Enjoy the story and maybe the best looking semi-quasi-realistic depiction of spaceflight to be seen yet in a movie. Gravity looked good, but the story was terrible. Interstellar looks good, and has an engaging (though predictable) story. Go see it!

Before I get a chance to try these things out ingame... anybody know whether FAR recognizes there shouldn't be any drag in the retracted state?

After all the cfg editing, rescaling, attach node adjusting I've done with the stock gear bay... never again! All those problems are now fixed. I see there could still be a need for both larger and smaller scale versions, but as long as they work just like these it'll be perfect!

Oh hey, this could be reconfigured to Real Fuel's liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, right? How does the mod handle determining where you're likely to find water ice?

The little fender for the retracted wheel looks good. Makes sense, and matches the stock part. I'm going to vote against the fold-out covers on the cupola. Those may be realistic, but the asymmetric central lid just doesn't look good. Take a look at how the cupola window covers work in FusTek. Not as realistic, but unobtrusive and good looking.