Mr_Orion

Try using a lower throttle when you ignite the rockets, maybe 1/2 throttle or so.

You are using the plane tanks; I\'d recommend that you replace them with the rocket tanks, since all engines you are using are rocket engines and eventually the fuel types will be split into 2 different types, meaning this design wouldn\'t work. Also, the rocket fuel tanks actually hold more fuel. You could probably reach orbit after that. However, that isn\'t actually a fully-reusable spaceplane! You are jettisoning boosters!

Here, try the attached settings.cfg file. I\'ve added a new 'Very Low' terrain setting that\'ll run at around the same speed as 0.14.4. It\'ll still look decent, and it\'s actually the same as the normal 'Low' setting, with the exception that now now the water is a much lower detail. Be warned - it\'ll bring back the bug in 0.14.4 that meant the water didn\'t line up properly with it\'s visuals. I\'d like to note; this doesn\'t actually lower detail settings. It simply adds another option, with lower water detail settings; the 'Low', 'Default' and 'High' option are still there.

I believe that despite that being the time warp 'limit', in the games code it\'s actually 70 KM.

No, it\'s because the first public version of KSP didn\'t allow stacking fuel tanks. It\'d only drain from one tank. Fuel lines weren\'t back then either.

Gotta make sure it disables the stacking of fuel tanks, eh?

Well, gotta admit, that was a bit over-dramatic! Also, when I first got KSP, I couldn\'t look up at the Mun. It wasn\'t there yet .

Drop it. The argument\'s over.

I don\'t think this qualifies. It uses the rocket fuel tanks, which weight a lot less, despite having so much fuel. This difference in weight makes the increased efficiency apparent. Not to mention that eventually the atmospheric engines will have their own fuel type.

Go into your settings.cfg, and change 'FLT_CAMERA_CHASE_USEVELOCITYVECTOR = True' to 'FLT_CAMERA_CHASE_USEVELOCITYVECTOR = False'. The reason it had that cinematic, floaty feel, is because it was following your velocity vector, instead of where you are facing.

I believe this is inaccurate. Although this would be the case in real life, in the game it currently does not support this. I hear a new wing and control surface module may come sometime, however, with more realistic physics.

It\'s not really worth showing us how easily it can pitch upwards. You have to show some turning!

Go into your settings.cfg, scroll down, and change your OceanPQS maxdistance variable to 2 or 3 or so.

Just a note; people don\'t like it when every single picture is in it\'s own spoilers marks. It means you need to click a lot; I suggest you have a single spoiler with all the images inside it.

Aha; I shall give you a little tip; use angled fins on your bombs to keep them spinning and stable.

Sorry, but not all of us were brought up with imperial. I was actually brought up in a mixture (I live in britain, an officially 'metric' country, but many things like road signs and over major things are still in imperial), and although I am decent at converting feet to metric mentally, it\'s still not exactly the easiest system to use, especially considering that the game counts in meters. To be honest, you mainly seem to be avoiding showing it in meters because you want to somehow prove that imperial is better.

Jeeze, C7 needs a LOT of balance still.

A sea-plane...?

...why? That just excludes and confuses people, this is a Community Mun Base.

You could, however, see the little purple indication over it since it\'d be less than 100km away when directly over you.

For rule 8, why do we need to land it in a working order? It would be very interesting if we could have a broken (yet safely landed) craft near one of the bases, and give each base a certain amount of resources depending on it\'s size. So, for example, if you crashed a ship, you\'d have a certain time to save them before they die (Seanoog would end the flight and announce this). The amount of time could depends on the amount of ships, and the amount of parts per ship. For example, for every command pod you\'d get 4 units of fuel, and for each fuel tank you\'d have 1 unit. 2 units would be consumed per day per ship, one unit at 12:00 AM and 12:00 PM. So you\'d have more time to save a pod at a big base than another smaller. We could also have resupply missions, where an official landing craft pad is chosen, and other spaceships have to land on this pad or ring and decouple fuel then get back. It could make a slightly more dynamic experience.

NAN errors can\'t happen anymore; the game automatically deletes NAN orbits now.

I\'ve always hated the compensation, it makes it feel sticky... anyways, you reach unrealistically high speeds with it. Couldn\'t the actual weight just be increased a bit?

Haha, I can\'t tell you how annoyed and ready to scream about inaccuracies when it said 'Solid Rocket Booster Separation'. - It said 'Side', not 'Solid'... Sorry! ??? I wish we had longer-burning stock boosters! For Deimos III, are you going to remove the rocket on the external tank? It might take some balancing wonders, but hopefully you can utilize the magic of gimballing engines. Maybe if you use a tricoupler the combined gimballed power would be almost enough to keep it somewhat stable; anyways, the proper Space Shuttle has 3 engines. Also, try to remove the little fuel tank on the shuttle and replace it completely with rcs; it\'s a bit more accurate to the proper shuttle. I know it\'s not meant to be an exact copy, it\'s just I\'m wondering how possible these things are with our current stock parts.

I have 0.8... I don\'t need your fancy-schmancy 'struts', or 'symettry', or 'placing parts next to the rocket then putting back on instead of deleting everything'. But I can\'t find 0.7 anywhere here... :\'(