Corona688

I think this topic needs to be seen again. As does this, as I love it.

Implemented where, by whom?

Not going to happen. Random chance of things just failing for absolutely no reason especially is a ragequit feature. Realistic? Sure. But not the kind of realism that new players are going to expect or enjoy. "You died! For no reason. That's just life. Start over? (Y/N)"

There was a kind of solid booster rocket they "shut off" by blowing a hole in the side to force a slow spin, which would make the thrust average out to zero over a long period of time. It was used to boost satellites to a higher orbit. If it's stupid and works... it might still be stupid. but also works. sometimes.

Unless you're using modded parts, reaction wheels are so ubiquitous it's pretty hard to make a probe without one. If you insist, 0.05 tons for the small reaction wheel is pretty good - just a hair over a single RCS thruster.

Yes, that's exactly the thing I don't think needs further encouragement. It isn't, of course.

It wouldn't exactly. But looking at the things some people do with the game already -- adding animals would turn it into a violence simulator focused on cats, puppies, and horses. Not good for the image of the game.

The ant engine is amazing for what it's designed to do. Unfortunately they shoved it into the tech tree at such a late point that by the time you unlock it you're already done doing flybys.

The only real "standards" are the one the game comes with - ship, probe, relay, station, base...

For what? And how? Is there an appropriate way to use it we just don't know? Like many unexplained things in KSP, I think it's apeing something real, but we were never told what...

Pretty sure it only exists because people were screaming for it. I don't get it, but it finds use somehow.

KSP's built-in docking mode. I've never found any documentation for it, or seen anyone suggest it; it just kind of exists in a vacuum of uselessness. As far as I can tell it does nothing but deprive you of half your controls.

Did you respond to me by accident? Nothing in this is what we were talking about. You are obfuscating your error again. Move on.

I'm not going to assume you meant West when you consistently say East. I'm not going to assume you meant Energy when you consistently say Power. I'm not going to assume you meant Mass if you consistently say Weight. (That one is my bad - I have to watch that). It is a mistake. Words mean things. It is not pedantic. It is as different as East from West. Admit your mistake and move on

That is your answer? Consistently state the wrong units to an entire forum of rocketry enthusiasts and, when called on it, it's not "whoops, my bad"? Just ten pages of pointless mansplaining industry blather and "this is how we do it in the real world" (no you don't, not if it's still working, not if you're avoiding constant miscommunication). I mean, sheesh, I have my blind spots but I admit them when called on it. It's not going to kill you to admit a mistake. You've embarrassed yourself many times more by defending and obfuscating it.

Yes. KWH. Not KW. There is a difference.

Hmm. I'm not out of tricks just yet. First, good enough pilots or probes know hover-mode! They call it "radial out" -- specifically surface-mode radial out. It will keep a craft rigidly at vertical orientation and never lose track. Second, you can autostrut moving joints in grandparent mode and have them still rotate.

No. No there is quite definitively not. You are confusing and conflating the concepts of force, work, and energy. The blackboard is still relevant because physics haven't ceased to exist. I'll give you a hint: You do not receive your power bills in watts.

Exactly. It is sitting there on a single small hinge, because the only control axis I needed for equatorial orbit was yaw That is wonderful. I'm a bit sad that you hid the navball, I'm quite curious how you're flying it.

Built a functional stock+ autopilot out of a KAL-1000. To go to space, hit T, Z, space, then wait four minutes. Now, a KAL-1000 can't give instructions to a control pod. There's no action group coupling for "yaw right ten degrees". The best you can do is set it "prograde" and produce a lot of drag in the direction you want to turn, which means programming the bare fins and counting where you end up by trial and error. Except. Except. There's a loophole. A KAL can lie to a control pod -- by moving it! If it's set to stability assist, it will turn your craft "back" onto a "straight" line exactly the amount you turned it. THIS MEANS I CAN PROGRAM TEN DEGREES AND GET TEN DEGREES! YES! There's a few catches. Once you go past 45 degrees, it starts acting wonky. Stability assist doesn't like sideways-attached engines! It measures absolute angle. Meaning, it will be slightly loopy by the time you begin your gravity turn, and completely out-to-lunch after it. To compensate, I must turn off engines and heel the pod over so fast that stability assist loses track and "lawn sprinkler" it back into line with the rocket. That's the "fish-hook" halfway through the motion graph. Only in Kerbal Space Program, right? Well... Not entirely. They call that problem "gimbal lock" and, hardware or software, it still takes a lot of effort to deal with in the real world. [edit] Craft file https://kerbalx.com/Corona688/STOCK-AUTOPILOT-Valens-PRO2

Quicksave and alt-f12 it to where you want to go. Test, load quicksave, then do it for real.

I doubt it, but honestly don't know.

It wasn't really optional -- I was leaving engines on the runway 3 out of 4 takeoffs. Now it lifts off smoothly at 130m/s. I have to hope there's a way to do both. Maybe something can be done with 'deploy' in an action group. Just plain making the wings larger would help with liftoff, too.

You don't seem to have those feelings for landing gear -- of which I approve. My approach to clipping is that anything you could alter with an angle-grinder without immediately destroying it is fair game. Lopping off a few inches - or feet - of wing? No foul. Modular girder segment? That's what they're THERE for! But messing with engines? Real bad juju. Ultimately though, I couldn't fix the landing gear. I'd have to stuff a modular girder segment there to pitch the nose higher on the runway, which would be super ugly and cause lots of drag. I pitched up the wings angle of attack one ponk instead, and moved their COL forward a bunch for a much smoother takeoff experience.

Proved to my satisfaction that rotorcraft in KSP experience gyroscopic forces: This mun-gyroscope has been precessing for 10 minutes straight with no power to the propellers and no reaction wheel input. If you try to push it over, it resists and the rotors slow down.