Vanamonde

I have read the whole thread, M Drive, and you're claiming to get anomalous movement out of a device which is so fraught with imprecision that the potential causes of error exceed the magnitude of the motion you're reporting. And since you asked, your proposed suspension test does not eliminate the wobbling of a device which isn't rotating uniformly around its center of mass, nor will the device be isolated from the atmosphere and thereby the possibility that it's generating some thrust by pushing air around, and it might even be generating torque on the suspension you're rigging, depending on how you rig it. Meanwhile, every post that you've submitted to this forum so far has been in this thread. Do you play KSP, or are you only coming here to try to sell people on your invention?

I played the game so long before subassemblies were added that I never remember to try them.

Before suggesting that you're on to a new physical principle, you need to account for what is called "causes of error." M Drive, your machine moves around so violently and irregularly that there's no way to know if it's propelling itself through some mysterious force, or just bouncing around. It doesn't make sense to challenge established understanding of physics when you haven't eliminated the possibility and/or influence of breezes in your apartment, a slight slope to the floor, about a zillion other things, and first and foremost, that the tolerances of your machine are wide enough to drive a truck through. Scientists spend 1% of their time coming up with new ideas, and 99% of their time trying to eliminate the possibility of screwing up when they test their ideas. It's that other 99% you're not doing before you try to argue that you're on to something new.

This request for add-on advice has been moved to the add-on advice sub-forum.

Two things, guys. You can edit a post to add another thought rather than just posting multiple times in a row. Also, please back off of the insulting tone you are taking toward each other.

Thread moved to the Challenges sub-forum.

There are already a couple of threads like this, so to keep the forum orderly, this was merged into the most recent one. Carry on.

Rover controls are a separate sub-menu on the game's settings screen. Just remap the keys. No need to edit files or anything elaborate like that. Though of course that's a temporary fix, and a better response would be to figure out how to orient the control part during construction so that it behaves itself next time. Oop, I see ScottyDoesKnow already suggested that. Anyway, I second the suggestion.

Please restrict the discussion to the subject of the thread, and avoid commenting on nature of each other's characters.

As always, folks, if you have a problem with something that's been posted, just hit the report button and let the moderators deal with it. Getting into arguments is unpleasant for you, and clutters up the forum for others. (And for the confused, I'm responding to posts which were removed.)

Since you are suggesting that the game's development should be reversed in a rather major way, thread moved to development suggestions.

Yup, this is on the not-to-suggest list. Closing thread now.

There are ships like this in the ship exchange, though you're right that people mostly post complex things they want to show off there. But keep looking and you'll find that some of us do concentrated on making simple ships for new players. Here are some of mine: Sandbox moon ship with walkthrough. Career mode low-tier ships with which to get started. A couple of stable planes which should be pretty easy to fly. A ship with which to practice docking. Anyway, since the ship exchange is the right place for shopping, I'll move this thread there now.

Trying to make something large enough to re-attain orbit, which can survive impact with the ground upon landing, withstand Eve's gravity after landing, and which is held together by docking ports and no struts because you assembled it in space? That sounds like a task the Greek gods would require of someone who had ticked them off.

The hint is in the name. They're boosters. They boost. The faster you get off of the ground, the less dV you lose fighting atmosphere and gravity. But it can be difficult to get a vessel moving from a standing start up to an efficient ascent speed, so, you give it a boost, a quick shove to help get the ascent started. Boosters are a cheap way to give your ship that initial shove. And they will become more useful when economics are added to the game.

Low and wide. That is the mantra for landers, and even more so for rovers. Heck, even this can flip if I drive it incautiously. The lower and the wider the better.

Hey BuzzAlderkerb. If you can do those things, you have the skills to do pretty much everything else in the game. It's just a matter of scaling things up.

How much is piled up on top of it, and what is the G load on the ship when it happens?

Pckrtplanesairways, write up what you want to be the first post of the thread and submit it here. I will move it to its own thread and set the prefix for you.

Okay, slavery, politics, insults, and all the stuff we asked you to avoid. Closing the thread now.

There's a logic to the order in which fuel tanks drain. If you really applied serious planning, you could probably come up with a way to get it to do what you want without fuel lines. But it would be an extremely tricky project, and I really don't think there's much need for it. Staging is usually only needed during the furious fuel consumption of launching from planets, so I think you'd be vastly over-complicating your mission to make it possible while already spaceborne. What is more reasonable is to attach additional fuel tanks to a drive core, and just drop the tanks when empty, manually moving the fuel around if necessary. After all, T/W and acceleration are not very important when you're already in space, so you can get away with many tanks feeding into one or just a few engines.

Hello Stephanie the Viking, and welcome to the forum. As some people have already mentioned, there is a list of subjects which have been set aside because they've been talked about so many times already, or tend to cause arguments. This is the What Not To Suggest List. We ask that people not bring those subjects up yet again for the sake of keeping the forum organized, friendly, and not as repetitive as it might be. So please feel free to keep offering ideas, but also please look over that list and avoid those subjects. Thank you, and enjoy the forum.

Please, let's not debate the morality of mods here.

This question about gameplay moved to the gameplay questions sub-forum. And while I'm here, are you suggesting an aerobrake maneuver which results in the ship making a hop to a higher altitude and then falling again for a final descent on the same orbital pass? Because I'm pretty sure that won't work. In KSP, the capsule will not be redirecated upward. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting.

This is a subject that many people feel strongly about. It's fine to disagree and to say so, but insulting other members will not be tolerated, so keep it clean. Also, thread moved to Science Labs.