samhuk

Hello KSProgrammers, I'll try and keep this short. Firstly, I think that now the game has seen the addition of career mode, they should try to polish that as soon as possible. However, what then? Well, I think KSP developers should focus on increasing the interaction between the player and their creations. And OK, this may have been already suggested from day-one of KSP, and yes, they tried (and did quite well!) will IVA and EVA, however they are rather quickly made, desperate placeholders and I think they are finally ready for a bit of an update. I'll just give a hint, what made Minecraft explode in popularity? It was the ability to almost live in the world you created, and share it with friends on a multiplayer map. If the developers want more enthusiasm on KSP, trust me, immersion is what is desperately needed, and that can be achieved by for example adding; "getting in and out of ship" animations, first person EVA view, ability to move around in single command pods, ability to move between several command pods internally that have been viably by docking port, or by direct connection. Any of these and more. For me, the engineering is where most of the fun is in KSP, but when you send a ship up, dock stuff, do other things... What is there to do? I hope this gets out there, it is one of the big aspects of KSP I think the developers just simply forgot about. Sam

Oh, I know what you mean OP. When you for example click on Kerbin from far out, let's say max zoom-ed out, you click on it and all the basic information, like (if your ship is orbiting Kerbin) the Ap and Pe; and a manoeuvre node you may have created; explodes into kind of a mind-map and you can click on the one you want. If you have ever played a game like the Sims, where if you click on something, all options to do with that object appear as a mind-map/spider-map of buttons. Maybe you mean something a little plainer, like just a menu appears, with you Ap, Pe, M.Node, Etc. Anyway, I would love either to be implemented, great idea OP. Sam

Hello ThirdHorsemann, What you have basically mentioned is the "flight-plan" suggestion, and it has been suggested since day-one of manoeuvre nodes. The problem is creating a flight plan would be very difficult to implement, as currently manoeuvre nodes are very simple instantaneous-thrust nodes, where basically a manoeuvre node shows you the path you will take if you thrust in an infinitely small time. Creating a flight-plan that is ever-changing would mean the game would have to check every fraction of a second how far off you are off course from the plan, this equals heavy CPU usage (ever used Mechjeb automated-launcher? Frame-rate basically quarters because of this fact...) Also, what you are referring to, "I want to create a manoeuvre node", is not actually a node. A node is a point, and since on launch it is a gradual accellaration (unless you want to pull an infinite amount of g's), what you should refer to is what I have been referring to, a "flight-plan". As a tip though, if you are finding it hard, you can launch when the ship you want to dock at is about 15 degrees behind in it's orbit to where you are on the ground, and launch. This angle usually get's you pretty close (dependant on your situation) to your little Mun ship. Hope this helps and isn't too ranty Sam

Yeah Uber. IMO you can literally do anything with chemical and nuclear propulsion currently, and ion drives in this game are just really for playing around. I would like for devs to implement the need for them, like in real life they are hoping to get ion-engines on the space-station so they don't have to keep sending up ridiculous amounts of fuel on every supply run to stop it de-orbiting. So to be honest, and this is to the original poster, IMO before you ask for new hyper-efficient engines I would suggest thinking a way to make them needed in the game in the first place. No point in adding something that has no purpose. This is why I think they should just push for some kind of really far away objects/require loads of delta-v, to create a need for hyper-efficient engines, because right now it is just way too easy to get to anywhere with current propulsion systems in-game. (eye's over to intersteller post, but hush, I heard any post with the word intersteller makes the devs go all and then I have to be like for the next few posts...) Sam

Meh, problem is the ion engines are already currently almost redundant. Chemical and nuclear propulsion is all you need. So adding an even more powerful version of the ion engines is just not needed and just over-bloats RAM usage. There is the hybrid ion engine mod if you are interested in ion engines with a little more thrust and a little less efficiency... Sam

Indeed... haha I am almost ready to post the even heavier version of this Super-Ultra heavy lifter, the Super-Ultra-Mega Heavy Lifter, and a little peek at payload... 650 Tonnes. Yes, 6...50... It is about 80% complete. I have figured out how to separate stages without seperatrons, using wings that create separating forces, and also acting as a launch-stabaliser Oh an total vehicle mass of this S-U-M Heavy Lifter... 5000 Tonnes. Sam

Hi SuperBig, I use normally a 10km gravity turn and a turn shape of about 40%. I know that you can use a little less delta-v, I have done some research into that, and basically on a good launch you can get into 100km orbit with 4450m/s with 10km and 40%, and you can get it down to 4420m/s with a shallower ascent profile. However, that comes at a disadvantage, you are in the atmosphere for much longer, and so creates greater uncertainty/variation in the amount of time taken to launch. I have a space station that I always send stuff to, and the quicker you get out of the atmosphere, the more closer after orbital insertion you will rendezvous with another craft in orbit. In short, shallower ascent = small saving on delta-v, but greater uncertainty with rendezvous. I choose to spend the extra 20 to 50m/s of delta-v to get a much more constant time-taken to get into orbit. Hope this helps with your orbital rendezvous/construction antics EDIT: Oh, and I am already working on an even heavier launch vehicle, with another asparagus layer. This... ...Is just the beginning... Sam

It does have landing gear Virindi, it is just folded away. And just before the SRB's run out the SAS is almost fully down, when they do run out, the SAS is completely the other. It has a 10.5deg gimbal on the shuttle rocket motor, that provides a lot of torque. Also smaller engine on the big orange tank (seen in the orbital insertion image) helps with the balance. It flies rather well in air, however it is recommended to burn atleast some fuel before landing, as one has to be very skilled to land it fully fuelled, because it is very heavy. Ah, and Astraph, you have to go into your KSP folder, into Gamedata, into squad, into parts, into engine, into a part file, into the part.cfg file, and edit the gimbal value within. It doesn't work for all parts, however I got the novapunch bearcat (the main shuttle engine for my case) to a 10.5deg gimbal. Don't forget to rename the title of the part, inside the cfg file and the actual name of the file, as it will over-ride the original, and trust me, you don't want 10.5deg gimbals on normal vertically stacked rockets; it'll wobble like it's in disco 1965/break-apart and explode. Hope that helps. And the KSP wiki is ridiculously out of date, as KSP isn't exactly as popular as Minecraft or something (whose wiki page is basically updated like every second with every little bit of news about MC)... Sam

I would like that too, but in real life you can't just move fuel around at mad-quick paces like in KSP in real life. On the NASA shuttle for example, the orange tank is feeding the shuttle engines, then it runs out, then burns it's on-board fuel, and is only one way, and the flow is not controllable. However, in-flight, engine-discrete, thrust altering, is a real desperate need for KSP, as everything has to be perfectly symmetrical and even, or have gigantic gimbals (seen the Tiberdyne shuttle gimbal? LOL!). Although there are mods out there for it, they can't get 'round SRB's and other things, so they don't really work for much. I hope too that they develop some kind of other control other than SAS torque, however something tells me it is low-priority/not-planned since they may think that this would make things too easy if everyone could design some horribly asymmetrical spacecraft and it still fly because of discrete-thrust-altering SAS. Don't forget, there is great fun in achieving something difficult, like building a working KSP shuttle. If it was easy, would it be as fun when we get one eventually working? Hmmm indeed. Sam

Hello Fellow KSProgrammers! Here I present to you a pretty large lifter rocket. It can send approximately 320 Tonnes into low kerbin orbit (100km), and is surprisingly reliable for it's size. Although I have seen larger lifters, 400 tonnes for example is one I have seen before, however this lifter is so smooth and easy to launch that you'll forget that your CPU is about to explode and the 32-bit thread shouting at you for using too much RAM and going on strike (/crashing). I have used KWRocketry mainly, as they have nice 3m parts and powerful enough engines to go with them. I have used asparagus staging, which basically makes this feasible (without it, it only get's something like 3900m/s of delta-V). You may notice I have Mechjeb autopilot on, and before you click on reply and do a anger-crazed message about how it is game-breaking, I only use it when I am doing a screenshot launch, as I cannot do all the lifting and manoeuvring while moving the camera angle constantly at the same time. For most of the payload's mass, I have just used 2 big orange 3m tanks and 1 little one from KWRocketry. Anyway, here's some pic's for you to enjoy and maybe get some design ideas from: Hope you enjoyed reading, and as always, any questions, rocket-ramblings, or boasts of your max payload mass achieved, leave them below! Sam

Yeah, I tried to stick to as many real-world shuttle aspects as possible, I first tried to get the main tank with no engine, but in KSP Buran-style with an engine on the main tank is the only way to make it work without employing giant gimbals that are just inefficient and looks rather odd. If you don't mind going off the conventional design, straping two SRB's on the side of the space-plane is a lot easier, as there is pretty much (like you said) no uneven thrust vectors. TBH I don't fly my shuttle too much, it is very sensitive to errors and adding on little bits onto the shuttle, I prefer to SSTO with SABRE engines...Like in this... http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/56427-Crew-Visit-Module-Single-Stage-to-Orbit-Spacecraft There is a lot more freedom in an SSTO spaceplane IMO, you can add all sorts of junk everywhere on it and it'll still crawl it's way to orbit somehow... Anyway hope I have helped somewhat, oh, and when I said make an engine with a 10.5deg gimbal, I meant simply just copy and paste a part, rename it somehow, and edit the part.cfg file, changing the gimbal value to 10.5 or something, it's what I did with a novapunch bearcat engine . Sam

Hi Cyclonic Tuna, Try making an engine with a 10.5 degree gimbal like the real shuttles. I have made a thread about a really good shuttle I made not too long back. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55733-Half-Stock-Half-KWRock-Realistic-Good-Lookin-Space-Shuttle It is very hard to make them, but it is possible without thrust altering mods, just lots of trial and error and rocket-smarts! Sam

Hello KSP'ers, Just thought I should share probably my most efficient spacecraft. It can send up to 10 kerbals to low kerbin orbit (<110km) using just one "32" tanks of fuel. It has a large SABRE engine from B9 Aerospace, and two turbojet engines. It is reusable with KAS and if you load it up with kerbals on the ground, however I have never done this, I don't like having loads of parts right near where I already launch 32-bit annihilating, KSP-crumbling, CPU-apocalypse-causing, 500 part interstellar rockets... Anyway, here are some nice photos for you to enjoy, and maybe get some inspiration from... Drop me a question if you have any, and if you want, leave some feedback. SamboUK96

Just fixed the imgur album, I am new here and there is no correct info about how to embed albums properly. I got it working eventually, now you can hopefully see the awesome orbital insertion screenshot with just the main tank! Sam

Hello Kerbal Space Programmers, I have been playing KSP since 0.17 and this is always something that I have wanted to do but could never get right. Well, let's just say after about a total of 4 hours of trial and error and making the shuttle not spin and explode, I have done it, a working, not that hard to use, non-modded Space Shuttle, based of the NASA structure. Of course there are a few additions, it is more like the Russian Buran, as the big main fuel tank also has an engine to increase Thrust-to-Weight ratios and balance things out. And trust me, everything on that shuttle is absolutely necessary for it to be easy to fly, and efficiently. I initially tried to make it look more like a NASA design, but that quickly became an impossibility, as KSP's fuel flow system and no individual engine control made that absolutely impossible without employing massive gimballing to about 45degs, which is just looks ridiculous. I have employed on both large liquid fuel rocket motors a 10.5deg gimbal, like the real NASA Space Shuttle, and that seems to be juuust enough to make the shuttle not spin out and explode. Let's just say the thing, in real life and now KSP, launches on the absolute pinnacle of feasibility, and constantly is about to spin out and explode. Well here it is... Space Shuttle V2 (V1 was the one I tried to make look like a real one, which is impossible without 45deg gimbals) Thank you if you read this and please comment, it would be great if you could give me feedback, and/or have a discussion about rockets, I love those! If the design gets enough attention I will upload it to things. EDIT: I forgot to include what mods I used: - Mechjeb - For TWR and delta-v analysis, and before you go nuts, mechjeb can't fly this so no, I am not using it to fly it! - KW Rocketry - Used for the bigger parts, and the pretty nosecones, like the "Thor" SRB's and the main fuel tank - B9-Aerospace Pack - Wings and nice shuttle-like cockpit (the stock one has a stupid shape that fits nothing) - NovaPunch Pack - I could have used the big orange Rockomax engine, but this one looks nicer, and has lower thrust which was needed. Sambo