Nao

Yep, jak w grobie tutaj haha, nie wiem może jest inne (prawie) oficialne Polskie forum KSP (koło wersji 0.13? ktoś zakładał polską strone o KSP, ale linku nie pamietam, może tam polaczki siedzą )... pozatym może 95% urzytkowników forum poprostu zna angielski. No nic, pozdrawiam edit: łokurka, właśnie zauważyłem zkąd te 13 postów masz hahahaha, MASTER NEKROMATA Z taką armią nieumarłych wątków to świat można podbić...

Polish society in general? Nah, we are probably very much alike . Maybe not on the same page wallet or government wise but most of the Poland is pretty liberal in general (but with a good dose of stubbornness and quarrelsome nature that makes us fight for silly things like that). My family is building a house in rural area and people there are even more forward thinking than the ones in some larger cites . The problems described are only common in specific areas like close to the eastern border or, in general places with high/invasive church influences.

Your CPU is still quite ok IMHO. Do your wallet a favor and get it overclocked to 3GHz or more if you specifically lack CPU power (at most you would have to buy an ~160zł radiator and maybe a ~40zł thermal paste). (but really that C2Quad should be enough for most applications even today)At this point your cpu (considering single thread apps) is only half as good as for example something like this: http://proline.pl/?p=CORE+I5-4670K which still costs a lot of money (at least here in poland ). If you really want an upgrade, get up to speed on your graphics card as 630GTthat is not even a dinosaur but something like algae it's like 6 times slower than common good value mid range card like this: http://proline.pl/?p=VGAGIGATI0214

@PakledHostage lol mostly harmless haha well said <3 I have allergy for apples! Whenever i eat one (i love them, and polish apples are awesome) my lips are getting bigger and whole mouth feels hot and itchy. Oh and @Redjoker or @TimoVM, could reaction (runny, itchy nose, shorter than standard flue etc) to dust from dry cut grass could be signs of an allergy to some grass pollens? My friend works at an airport as ground marshal (there is a lot of grass around), and never had any alleries/problems with this but this year he had an reaction to it and it looked exactly like my allergic reactions to grass pollens. I was also wondering if some of the irritations from grass dusts etc could be caused "mechanically" rather than "chemically" (like with asbestos, mechanically is a bad wording too but idk better hehe) and could that be also called allergy (since some people are sensitive to it and others not).

@MrOnak the 11500m/s (or 12000m/s) is from the Eve sea level. If your guy is on higher area, the mission could require less deltaV. Speaking very roughly, you could assume 45m/s of Dv per 100m of takeoff altitude. So if the kerbal is sitting on a 3000m elevation, it will take ~1350m/s less than launching from sea level (a little above 10000m/s) But as Nedal mentions, TWR is the key! These deltaV numbers assumes ascent at a speed close to terminal velocity (which is painfully slow in low Eve atmosphere). The required Eve TWR of ~1.8-2.0 is almost 34m/s^2 of acceleration, without it the delta V requirement will be bigger.

Where is the whackjob seal of approval when we need one... Awesome job! SLSLSLSLSLS lol

Sooo.... "Year 4 Day 140 Arrive back on Kerbin before this date, and add 5 points per day, deduct 5 for every day afterwards." If i launch at Y1 day1 (using 2200m/s dV transfer) land on eve around day 125 and launch immediately for a (3400m/s transfer) to arrive on kerbin at Y1 day 418, that's worth 5000 points. Now Kerbin -> Eve transfer will take ~1200m/s more than optimal but by using nuclear engines it's not that big of a number And Eve -> Kerbin the ship will be super light so the ~1600m/s more dV will not be a problem (assuming we left "command module" with nuclear engines in orbit to dock, apollo style). With properly build ship i wouldn't be surprised if somebody managed below 300d trip from day1 of sandbox. Is this intentional? Because this transforms the challenge from ascent from near eve surface on minimal cost, to who can do the trip fastest. The tremendous gain in points from speed, also trumps any disadvantages like part count and mass making this a "who has better PC to launch ridiculously big ship" challenge. (I'm not really complaining thou, just rising the issue.)

Thanks to you nhnifong, we have found a bug! It looks like the base part rotation pitch controls are reversed, while shifted fine controls are fine. I've posted the issue on the support forum, but it would be nice if somebody could confirm this too. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/78715-Part-rotation-controls-remapping?p=1134151#post1134151

That's Awesome! (i totally forgot ion engine was in the game haha) Did it take only 13 minutes ?? I mean at 2m/s vertical velocity 10minutes is only 1200m.

Yup, it was fun . Although i believe at this point, tavert hit the design celling with his rocket. I managed to get 19.143t craft to orbit with 7m/s left in 5 stages but the design is almost the same: a pancake with 48-7S-es. It does require 7500+m launch point, and since both crafts are already quite efficient i guess the 8700m/s dV ended up too low to have a useful Eve ascent craft. edit: added a picture if anybody wants to see the difference in designs...

@tavert I hate you... i hate 48-7S more thou >_< <3

Bawhaha , Now that's a Kerbal design! Does the crew has long enough ladder thou? As for getting to eve, I'm lazy and use Hyperedit mod to teleport the ship into the Eve atmosphere at some height (~10km) and just free-fall them down. There is a nice flat 6500m area at -24.51 -162.09. But word of advice thou: it's best to make your first several landings stock and then use hyperedit, as the mod sucks up the fun from the game. Unfortunately, quoting the OP: Your craft is not far off, just put a capsule on there, and expand it a little .

Take that! ... And That!... and that... (1st one used every part available once to get to space, 3rd one actually worked as SSTO and 2nd... was fun ) Hmm *maybe* from the tip of the tallest mountaintop it could ascent. The craft looses too much dV on the last stage as it is underpowered, (ascent from 6500m had maximum vertical speed of around 400m/s in vertical flight, if the ascent from 7600+m can get that to 600+m/s vertical velocity before the last stage then *maybe*. I don't mind dsq really but currently my craft is in compliance with rules posted by OP. If we were to use altitude rule, it would be best to make another thread. 3000m/s or lower would be a better number as even 3km is hard to come by in some areas. Kasuha made a pretty nice relief of 3000m+ locations on Eve here in this post: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/77512-6-KM-or-higher-locaitons-on-Eve?p=1111818&viewfull=1#post1111818 Late edit: Uahh missed that post... sry Honestly i have no idea, but there are three things about infiniglide: first: it only really works when the control surfaces are being deflected (biggest amounts of infini-power is generated when they are flapping) second: there is some residual phantom forces when at high static deflection of control surfaces (idk how much, but from experience it only works when on ground) and last but not least its the mass ratio, around ~1 control part per ton is barely enough to keep the plane flying with maximum flappage. (when the mass approches zero this happens:- 8km/s at sea level) That said i like to build high lift planes (including hundreds of control surfaces) and the infiniglide problems only comes when the plane is really unstable so the surfaces flap under automatic controls. Since I fly mostly with stiff ships and without MJ / ASAS, this was never a problem. On a side note, delta deluxe winglets provide as much lift as the big delta wings, at almost x4 less weight, and are easier to put on the craft with big enough numbers. That's why i like to use them when possible.

Ah, that forum crash was really unfortunate indeed The exposition thou, meeting with astronauts irl is really cool, especially with both old and new generation I'm jelly. The ride was as you would expect, rough . Tried taking off from 6500m flat area, was short 950m/s off orbit Still some of that craft concepts are great, although i did not use double tapping 1 but tweaked engine power mid flight, (this made unbalanced fuel load at 3rd stage from top thou). Still it was a fun idea! Nice work! Although i think you have a little too much thrust there. But i know how hard is to divide the thrust with bigger engines... that said our friend bhauth here had none of it with hilarious results. Landing precisely at that 7500m point is *very* difficult with parachutes in normal mission. Even landing at that flat spot of 6500m nearby is quite tricky. I guess he wanted something that could be actually used.In the mean time I went on ahead and improved on the plane lander. 25.805 t before takeoff, 8815m/s deltaV, 7536m start height. Finished with 93m/s left in 100.5x101.5 km orbit (848kg final mass) And this is the extension of the above craft with top drop tanks, it can ascend from 5000+m and weights only 35,035kg (MJ is wrong in VAB) (since the OP really wanted to have a more versatile Eve ascent vehicle) I really love rocket planes on eve, much safer landings, as it's possible to cherry pick a spot, including mountains. And its really easy to add detachable rover wheels and just drive from sea level landing to some sufficient high mountain to ascent from. The wings on top of the droptanks are there more as a balancer to thrust not pointing on the CoM. Its very well possible to install them on the sides without any wings, and still have normal flight characteristics. Since i'm lazy both ships have MJ module installed. http://www./download/5ejlw8db958l9w8/ (The first ascent vehicle - VAB) http://www./download/96uate8ebaibegx/ (The plane with droptanks - SPH)

"OK" ! >>cue Danger Zone<< Tom "Kruise" Kerman, starring in Top Eve Launch mass 28t and 15kg Twr 0.81 "I'm off!!" "Maverick where are you? I'm in space Ice!" (I know i bended the rules a little, but this is just technology demonstrator... it's possible to make it better. (it's actually much better starting from lower atmosphere, I've already tried versions above 100t liftoff mass with some success.) e: added one more picture

Tried your rocket, and really liked the drop tank, very well vectored thrust. Only managed 106x81km orbit with it(too ascent shallow, as usual for me) hahaha Wonder if switching the type of engines around, with LV-T30 (two) staged before aerospike (one) (and rebalancing fuel per stage to match TWR) could bring benefits. The LV-T30 and aerospike are pretty evenly matched on eve but the spike wins in longer runs. Also, did get some MJ glitches? My current TWR kept changing randomly between ~2.6 and ~1.8, so im wondering if its bug on my side or in MJ... e: Ahh, and what happened to your account? There is no way you could have 20posts by now

Beaten by 71kg and in 2 stages less hehe The ship has 202m/s dV in orbit and with some tweaking could break below 29t at launch, ill wait for others to submit before repeating the flight. Cheers! Edit: sorted out the album link... Is there way to pick what image will be displayed on page load when using the "[ imgur ]" code?

I remember the SEAV! It was great fun. Only 8478m/s expended from 6500m, that's some great piloting. The mass at liftoff is really low too. Great work, my hat's off!

Agreed! I love data too. And having that in the game would allow to finally drop the stupid MechJeb As an implementation idea we could have these data readouts available only when there are certain parts present, or just as selectable upgrades to existing parts (pods). That way we would have the vanilla no-data option, and it would make an interesting twist on progress though research tree. I would love to reaserch and add parts like "radar altimeters" "terminal velocity calculators" "auto stage-ers" and such.

Images are funky, but some of the content is quite modern. You won't have Higgs boson in it but it has articles as fresh as 2000+ discussed in it (most content deals with ideas and technology from around 70'-90'-ties probably). And while there is sci-fi to some extent, the site tries discussing it in a semi-realistic manner.Regardless of realism some articles/sections are not that good, but some are really good, based on current technology, informative and thought inducing. It's a question of finding the right ones. edit: Hold on, there are KSP pictures there (as a help tool for understanding spacecraft controls), it looks like the site is still being updated! edit2: Oh i know, this side is roughly how "XKCD:space and beyond" could look

This site might interest you It's a pretty interesting and fun (if you don't mind some simple maths) read about theoretical space combat and in general about starship designs. It has cool pictures too

Hmm, returning to topic more. Your comments Claw got me thinking, because it is indeed possible to lift ~10tons on one engine and two ram intakes SSTO to a reasonable speed. After some testing it was revealed that backward installed intakes change efficiency with speed for some reason. They have around 80% efficiency at rest and only ~20-25% at 2000m/s. I'm not sure how that works, but at first i suspected that the base of "100m/s" that the intakes have when at rest is added for normal facing intakes and subtracted from airflow speed on rear facing ones. But at 2000m/s it is only 10% of speed difference. So unless there is a "increasing trend" (need better word) in a speed - air scoop efficiency curve of intakes, it doesn't make much sense. And also from little testing i had time for, it looks like the efficiency does not change linearly with speed. :| Welp i've found many interesting glitches concerning intakes thought the earlier patches (like free engine power increase/flameout blocker from closed intakes, that kind of became stock in the 0.23) but it's the first time I see this... wonder it it was changed recently or was there all along.

Yes wings can work the same when placed backwards just fine. Control surfaces don't thou I think. They still produce lift (possibly the same scalar value) but the direction vector can do some weird things (I haven't tested this properly but I'm pretty sure placing cannards backwards make them work differently). On that note the amount of lift the wings produce is proportional to the longitudal vector component of such wing, that is if the wings is rotated 45deg along vertical axis it will produce less lift. One important thing coming from that is the yaw problem. If you place the wings symmetrically rotated i.e. backwards (giving them more sweep) they will not only work at reduced efficiency, but they will create roll forces with any amount of yaw, since one wing will produce more lift than other (yawing right will roll the craft right with positive wing sweep). The same thing happens IRL but since in KSP wings don't produce lift when sideways to airflow, the effect is stronger) Other fun fact about wings: they produce lift at the center of mass, and for most wings it is at their base, so for example if we have two wings, one angled up, one down placed close to the roll axis, one on each side, they will produce small amount of roll torque, but if we just flip them around, attaching by their tips, the torque will be huge even thou the wing surface is roughly in the same place.

There is a lot of silly stuff going on in KSP stock aero model... For normal wings i agree on 25deg being the sweetspot, although i continue to use that pitch at high altitudes if allowed by design (the decrease in performance on normal planes is probably due to engine and intakes working at an angle too, rather than inefficiency of wing itself). As for control surfaces, they are crazy (reach highest lift at 90deg pitch, lift vector seems to be not perpendicular to wing surface, infiniglide etc) Welp Circular have 80% efficiency of rams, and the point of that craft was to be a replacement for Aeris4A in BSC challenge (never submitted), so it had somewhat too much intake air for the mission to allow room for piloting errors.Oh and i've just remembered where i tested the info about drag that sdj64 mentioned: (Water increases drag value many times, so it's easy to see changes with different intake positions/states) So the thing goes like this: If the intake is closed it has little drag value (0.02 i think) that doesn't change with pitch at all (forward/backwards/sideways - no change). If the intake is open, drag coefficient increases with speed but the intake facing again doesn't matter, even thou the amount of airflow generated will vary. The drag value in tooltip is probably based on separate equation not connected to physics, and nobody bothered to check it for all states so it tends to show wrong values when working outside of intended purpose/direction.

Yeah, I'm in a bad mood today, so sorry about the bad tone.But the thing is, if you are using intakes for ascent of a plane, their efficiency doesn't usually matter in low atmosphere, while high up where lift is smaller and you pitch up the plane the AoA effect on intake efficiency starts to be important factor. And as i've said rear facing intakes can have the same efficiency as forward facing ones working at an angle (~30deg which is also around the best glide angle for wings) So unless you angle the forward facing intakes downward (or angle wings upward) rear facing intakes can work just as good, and doesn't mind you doing any maneuvers (or being used almost horizontally). Yes the plane is an airhog but to get up a mass of ~13t into orbit would take 10-16 forward facing (circular) intakes not two. edit: Agree with your second post 100%.