r_rolo1

As someone that have gone by rover to the South Pole from the KSC ( going to the North one is somewhat easier ), I can confirm that this is 100% accurate Atleast you're using landing gear and not the actual wheels ( that sometimes get glued to the ground and have some very glitchy behaviour as soon as you get to a jagged terrain area ). Just remember to not pass 50 m/s and to not brake with the front wheels

Hum, I sincerily hope that their "hydrazine" is not carbonated. 5 atmo compression on one of those will surely give out some monumental burps as soon as they get back to 1 atmo

I sense a "Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit hidrazine" joke aproaching fast

Well, I don't think that this is the issue. It is not like the next window for a Hoffman transfer to Kerbin is just in a few days ... That said, refueling in the ground is a major PITA due to the lack of stock fuel hoses, so I can see from where the desire of making the least ground fueling operations possible comes :/

I meant equatorial perimeter ( God, am I getting dislexic ? ). And OFC, it was tongue in cheek

I think that Kuzzter will land up to 2200 km of Bill (Disclaimer: The perimeter ( not diameter, for heavens sake ) of Eve is slightly smaller that 4400 km )

Hey, eveyone knows that Kerbals are not made of mono and ore .... they are made of Kethane ( good ol'Kethane mod had a Kerbal->Kethane converter ) And that Mortimer ... put a beak and a lucky coin in him and you can call him Scrooge McDuck He literally only seens funds in front of him ...

The issues you're having with staging , if I'm reading your rocket and your programming correctly( I might not ), might be because you're staging when the ship velocity is close of the speed of sound. In 1.x there is a huge spike in drag in the transsonic region and staging at that velocity ( in fact even keeping prograge if the ship top is convoluted enough ) ) can be hugely problematic if the top of your ship is draggy enough. There are three ways of dealing with that: giving your ship more control authority ( like you did ), reduce drag ( mostly fairings usage ) or to make that the separation occurs at a time the ship is not suffering so much drag. The last one can be done by either increasing or decreasing speed at separation if you don't want to change the ship, but increasing it might send you to too much steep launch profile, so IMHO it would probably be better to reduce the speed ( or alternatively reduce the TWR at launch a little so that the separation occurs a little later and higher : less air=less drag= less issues ). That said, I don't think you need to avoid the thermal gauges too much. In fact, due to the fact that KSP was forced to make their parts to heat up a lot more than RL because otherwise there would be no reentry heat to speak off ( Kerbin typical low orbit orbital speeds are just a little above Mach 9, so if realistical heating was up, you would most likely not see any heating at all until you got above Kerbin escape velocity ), thermal gauges light up too soon on launches and if you go by them, your launch will cost a couple hundreds of m/s in dV. My rule of thumb is that if I don't see reds, there is no issue On the code proper ... it looks good enough. I would add some sanity checks at certain points ( say, the typical 45ish degrees at 10 km high ) just to see if stuff is not going down the drain. Redundancy, is key

What I'm saying is that normally you don't want to stage all up in quick sucession until you burn all your fuel. Say, in most launches you'll hit suborbital flight still quite low in the atmo ( say, 30ish Km ) and you'll need to cut out engines until you reach Apoapsis ... it is very rare the launch where you burn all the thing in one go. Same OFC for fairings deployment ( you only want to do that high in atmo ) or the chutes, but those are easly action grouped as you said, so it is a minor concern. Ok, this one is my fault. I was actually saying you were doing it the best way, but also saying that if you really wanted, you could do the whole math based on the change of Isp with pressure, the change of pressure with altitude and your exact flight plan .... and in case of airbreathing engines in atmo mode, you also have to consider the speed of the ship ... in other words, the issue can get quite mathy ( and I strongly advice you to not go that way ). Now, onto the Report

So, basically, you're saying that if a Kerbfleet pilot wants a quiet cockpit during a problematic landing, the only way he can do so is to eject the rest of the crew and passangers out? Those hijacked tourists that are gaining "flight-hours" in their moored plane in KSC 2 should thank the heavens Jeb didn't had issues landing there, I guess

Good job so far. I also agree that the two For loops do not seem optimal, but I really don't see at a glance how could you do better. OTOH , why that particular limit on the vertical speed to the TWR adjustement ? I understand the idea behind ( basically, it is just saying that you want some velocity between you and the ground before starting messing with the throttle ), but magic numbers are evil and you want this piece of code to work in all of your takeoffs, no matter in what planet. For a example, 50m/s is more than the escape velocity of Gilly and more than 1/4 of the one of Pol I know, work in progress, like all the staging occuring when you have no fuel at all ( not optimal if you want to have chutes working ), just pointing out stuff you need to take care in the future. Just another point I wanted to remind you about thrust: It does not change with altitude, it changes with presssure. Better said, Isp changes with pressure and the math can get wicked at that point if you want to be rigourous. It would probably be better to just ask the engine what is their thrust at the moment than to try to calculate it while in atmo, especially if we are talking about jet engines, or worse, dual mode engines ( in game ATM it is just the RAPIER ). Anyway, I foresee liberal use of the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation in your near future. Brace yourself

For heavens sake, the Kerbfleet personnel is not taught to keep their mouths shut up when the pilot is landing a plane ? Geesh, a guy can keep his mind focused when trying to land a plane without any brakes? P.S And Gene, you just don't sledgehammer the fourth wall like that. It is bad sport, especially after being so concerned with the lack of runway just some panels before

Good grief, is Kenlie making a collection of cringy tropes ? And yeah, those Lookies are Evil! Evil, I say ... P.S So it is now official that lil'Enzie was part of the Duna mission ? That patch is not the fake version Jeb and co gave him ( it only has 4 kerbals , unlike the fake one that had 5 )

Good work so far Now let me try to help to the extent of my knowledge of kOS ( admitedly not very extensive ) Well, I really not sure on this one, but I think ( take this with a pint of salt ) that checking for Liquid fuel avaliability is a bad idea, due to the change Squad did on liquid fuel routing in 1.0 ( basically, jet engines will act like RCS engines and check for LF in all the ship, regardless of passing through parts that don't allow for fuel flow, so maybe kOS is being fooled by that ). Maybe checking for other consumable would work better ? Well, circularization is the first big hurdle on using kOS, simply because a good general method for it requires you to juggle around with orbital mechanics and not just code. Let's divide the issue in some parts: a) As you know, the time you need to burn to any manouver depends both of the dV you need and of both the Isp of the engine at the time ( I'm assuming just one engine , for sanity sake at this point. Also note that Isp of engines can change with exterior atmo pressure. Beware ) and the rate the engine burns fuel. Isp and fuel burn rate are engine parameters that IIRC can be called by kOS on demand ( or, in worst case scenario, from the wiki ), and if you also know the dV needed, you can use the bread and butter of rocket equations, the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation to know how much mass you need to burn, and as consequence, the time needed to burn it. Now, how to know the dV needed? Remember that, before anything else, dV is a change of velocity, and, specifically in this case, the diference in velocity needed in Apoapsis before and after circularization ( since the velocity in both cases would be colinear and in the same direction before and after circularization, it is just a diference in the module of the velocity before and after ). You can get the velocities you need by the liberal use of the Vis-viva equation ( remember, the semi-major axis of a orbit is (Ap+Pe)/2 if you measure both Ap and Pe from the center of the planet you are orbiting. Say, a Ap of 70 km around Kerbin as displayed in game is actually 600+70 = 670 Km from the center of Kerbin .Also, while the mass of the planets is not given directly in game, you can get G.M on kOS via calling "Mu" IIRC ) So in somewhat pseudo code: 1) You call the Ap and Pe of the current orbit ( it might be a good idea to check if you are out of the atmosphere before doing this BTW ), calculate the semi-major axis of your current orbit and using that you calculate the speed you will have in your current Ap using the Vis-Viva equation 2) You do the same for a circular orbit with the distance between the center of the planet and your current Ap ( remember that in a circular orbit the semi-major axis is equal to the radius by definition ) using the same equation 3) Use 1) and 2) to calculate the dV needed for the circularization manouver ( basically the speed you will have in a circular orbit minus the speed you will have in your current Ap if you don't burn. Also, in this point you might want to check for the signal here because that will tell you if you need to burn prograde or retrograde ( because you might want to circularize from a orbit higher than the current one ) ) 4) Get the engine Isp and fuel burn rate of your engine ( I assume you can get both via calling partmodules IIRC. Again take this with a pint of salt ) 5) Using the Isp from 4) and the dV from 3), use the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation to get m0/m1 from that equation ( the mass the ship had at start of burn divided by the mass the ship will have at end of burn to get the desired dV out ) and , from there, m0-m1 ( aka change of mass ) 6) From 5) and the fuel burn rate you got in 4) , calculate the time you need to burn the fuel you need to burn , aka the burn time you wanted to know ( P.S I'm assuming 100% throttle. If not, you need to make the apropriate corrections ) Yup, it is hard work. But well, rocket science didn't got it's fame of being hard work for nothing Again, orbital mechanics to the rescue You can calculate the orbital period if you know G.M ( aka "Mu" ) of the body you're orbiting and the semimajor axis of your orbit ( I assume you read the above answer ) via the use of the Kepler third law ( some pointers on this ). If you know the orbital period, “warp ahead this many complete orbits†becomes "warp ahead for this number of orbital periods" or, in other words " Warp to n*"orbital period" after this moment"

Hum, your "gravity turn" function looks somewhat iffy due to the stepwise nature ( also , forcing pitch ensures you're not actually doing a gravity turn: you only do a gravity turn when you let gravity turn your rocket ) and if you used it in a more flexible rocket, if can lead to laggy response, or worse, ressonating oscilations. Also, it might get you in hot water in the 1.x atmo , where sudden changes in pitch during ascent can lead to disastrous results. How about getting a if-else cycle ensuring that the prograde is never too far away of the velocity vector? Also in the throttle department , you might want to consider to look on keeping a stable TWR. Locked throttle can give you issues when going trans-sonic in the 1.x atmo ( aka rocket flipping upside down ). P.S Other Chemist around ? Yay Atleast they taught you C, instead of Matlab

Well, Dilsby, it could be worse: You could be on Dres Atleast sometimes people remember Moho and they could stumble on you , but who on it's right mind would go to Dres?

On a side note, I can only think how Chairkerb Mort will explain to the Board of Directors all of this "Well, on the issue of the M7 launch of a a unknown loacation ... hum, err... we're trying a dry run on franchising the "KSC" concept. Yeah, that's it ... And we chose that location to make it easier to make launches to polar orbits"

Hum, may I remind Mortimer that one of the biggest part providers for KerbFleet is Jeb's Junkyard? If Jeb wants to put a ship on Eve he probably can do it by himself and he probably can arm wrestle the Board of Directors to submission just by menacing to up prices

Well, congrats on the landing .... And well, let's see how this one closes and how will Jeb and co escape quarantine to go to Eve save Bob

Well, it is not Valentina call to have or not a second ship waiting for them or even the landing decision, but from Mission Control, so you have to blame the brass on the ground if the landing gets bad ( unless Val has not relayed this intel to Kerbin, which would be criminal ... ). As for the command transfer, well, Bill is confused about who is in command , so surely he doesn't feel there was a clear transfer of command ... and in spite of the rules of command tranfer in KerbFleet being more lax that in RL ( in RL there are 3 calls ( Pilot A: "You have the flight controls" Pilot B: "I have the flight controls" Pilot A: "You have the flight controls" ... Kerbfleet apparently only uses 2 ) in consensual command transfers, apparently they use the same 1 call system than RL ( Pilot B: "I have the flight controls" ) in case on non consensual transfers , as Val herself showed in the Duna emergency. Given this, there are 2 mistakes in the command transfer in the Kerbin reentry by KerbFleet rules and one in flight protocol ( as far as I understand it ): Val keeps control of the ship after entering a atmosphere, when the protocol is that Jeb is the atmospheric pilot, and even hints to Jeb for him to take control, but without formal transfer ; Jeb assumes control without formal control transfer and only requests it later ; Val does not formally give control to Jeb in a non emergency situation ( note that the emergency is only detected later ) but also does not assume it. Both are to blame, OFC, but IMHO Val is the one with the biggest share

Landing as in " something getting to land" Not necessarily in one piece, and as Bob is eager to point out A LOT, it is not that the KerbFleet pilots put structural integrity of the vessel as nº1 priority

The interesting part is that the problematic part not only does not provide lift, it also does not provoke drag. It is almost like the aero model of 1.0.x is simply not seeing it. Maybe it thinks it is inside the cargo bay? I would almost recommend the pilot to open the cargo bay doors, but as the landing is already done ...

Oh God, they've run out of koffee!!!! Seriously, I think you have enough fuel and control authority to keep this bird flying controlled ( if the nozzles don't burn out, that is ... but they shouldn't in a non hyperbolic orbit with the Pe above surface ). In fact I think the lack of coordination between the two pilots is a bigger danger Right in this moment both Jeb and Val are assuming control of the ship ( better said, Val has not still passed it out, but clearly she is not the one in control ) and that is HUGE non-no ...

Good luck for that landing, Kuz... er, Jeb

The only thing that I have to point in the trailer is the existance of regolith in the Mun. Can we actually have that in the game, pretty please?