Vanamonde

This clears up one mystery (why the chase setting seemed redundant), but there\'s something about else about the camera settings that confuses me. I fervently hope this isn\'t a really stupid question, but what exactly are the settings doing? As far as I can tell, each setting has one fixed axis around which it rotates freely 360 degrees, and you can pan 'up' and 'down' relative to that axis, but only 180 degrees because it reaches a limit when you\'re looking right at the zenith or nadir (thumps to a stop). I think the axes are: Free: up and down relative to the world in whose SOI you find yourself. That is, 'down' is the center of the world. Orbital: parallel to the world\'s axis: its north is your north. Auto: baffles me.

At times I have forgotten to make my gravity turn because I love watching the sky fade from blue to black behind my rocket. It makes me feel like I really am going somewhere exotic and exciting.

I just tried a test of the situation I think you\'re describing. In screenshot 75 the canards are correct for turning right, 76 for pitch up (sorry, that one\'s a little hard to see), and 77 for roll right. Is that not what you\'re seeing? Are you rotating the canards before attaching them, because strangely enough, I found that this caused the reversed set to work backwards for pitch and yaw, but they still worked correctly for roll. (No, come to think of it, they\'d still 'work' properly for roll if they were 180 degrees off, wouldn\'t they?) Screenshot 48 is on another test ship (obviously ), but shows that the forward canards, reversed before attachment, are now working backwards in response to a turn right command, in which situation they\'d result in a sideslip/strafe movement rather than a turn (when working with the back set, I mean). I have no idea if any of this is helpful, but here it is for what it\'s worth. Good luck. I\'m going to bed now.

That sounds really weird, Stromko. I haven\'t heard of anybody having that problem. What does your ship look like?

Wow, it works, and that is really nice to have! But\'s going to take some getting used to. Every little wobble of the plane causes the view to jump around, so does setting the sharpness lower, how shall I put this? Attach the camera to the plane with a rubber band rather than rivets?

Sorry Sleepybean2, I overlooked your post until just now. Your Sturmvogel flies better than mine did, anyway. At first I couldn\'t figure out why you had fuel lines going to nowhere. It was not until that moment that I discoverd those black-tiled shuttle parts are fuel tanks as well as fuselage pieces. :-[

Oh crap. I\'m sorry, but for some reason I was reading your post as talking about a Sears card like mine, even though you quite clearly said Penneys. It\'s probably still pretty much the same, but you should check to be sure. :-[ As they say around these parts, derp!

Where has this thread been all my life? FLT_CAMERA_CHASE_USEVELOCITYVECTOR from true to false and FLT_CAMERA_CHASE_SHARPNESS from 1.5 to 100, and then the camera stays at the same angle relative to my ship as I manuever? But I have to be over 2000m altitude before it can be activated? Let me try that...

I was thinking of starting a thread like this. After you eject a stage or coupler, if your rocket wash moves over it, the discarded piece picks up momentum and rotation from the impact of the exhaust. I can\'t tell if RCS does it as well, but it wouldn\'t surprise me. Mun\'s surface includes newer craters with dark lava-flow floors and sharp edges, but also older craters with faded colors and contours rounded by erosion (presumably by the same micrometeorites that cause that effect on earth\'s moon). Somebody took the care to make Mun look as if it\'s been shaped by billions of years of natural forces. Have you ever driven a rover around KSC? The buildings are actually kind of cool-looking. Has everybody noticed that the radio dish on the tracking station rotates?

Oh yeah, I just remembered there was some fine print about that deal. Some of the services within Sears are not provided by Sears, or some stupid crap like that. They wouldn\'t give me the 20% off of my glasses from the Optical department. > Make sure what you want is covered by the deal before you commit yourself to it.

Dawn is a pretty scenic time for launches, too:

*** THESE FIRST THREE WERE MADE IN .15.2 *** Look further down for new .16 designs. First, here\'s the Tutor trainer. I made it when I was learning how to fly and wanted something that would stay in the air long enough for me to figure out how to operate it. If you like nimble fighters, this plane will seem sluggish to you. But for a newbie like me, the good thing is that it doesn\'t flip around violently while manuevering, makes stable, slow turns, and if you make a mistake, it gives you time to figure out what you did wrong and correct it. It\'s actually kind of hard to crash. It will take off by itself if you just turn up the throttle and leave the ASAS turned on, and it\'s stable at low speeds and so is pretty easy to land. Next up is the F2 Prodigal. He doesn\'t want your help, and he doesn\'t need your help. On takeoff, hit the throttle and ASAS and let him find his own way into the air, because he\'ll throw a tantrum and commit suicide by flipping on his side if you try to steer him. Once in the air, he\'s kind of temperamenal, but will more or less do what you tell him to do. But the cool thing is, I\'ve tested him from many altitudes, and he will land himself (assuming the ground below is flat). From level flight, turn off the engine and ASAS, then go get a snack or whatever you want to do while he descends at a level and steady 9 or so m/s, touches down, maybe porpoise-bounces once or twice, and then rolls. All you need do is apply the brake to bring him to a final halt. The Prodigal: you can\'t tell this kid anything, but leave him alone and he\'ll come home. Finally, there\'s the F1 Pilum. It\'s a little bigger and somewhat more stable and easy to fly than the Prodigal, but is faster. Flies well, but needs kind of a long takeoff run. There\'s nothing really remarkable about it, except that I think it looks kind of cool, and was my first successful plane design. As a wise man once said, 'For me it\'s awesome becouse I made it.' These are my first planes, and I hope somebody finds them of interest. Most of what\'s good about these planes is to the credit of the very nice people in the how-to and especially 'The woes of building a space-plane' threads. Thanks guys!

I did something similar. With most cards (all?) they don\'t charge you anything on any month in which you don\'t buy anything, and if you pay off the full balance of anything you do charge on the first bill, there\'s no interest. I\'ve had one card for 17 years and a Sears for around 4, and it hasn\'t cost me a penny more than it would have if I\'d paid with cash or check. (I\'ve never used the Sears, because like you, they kind of misled me into it.) Of course, you really should read your paperwork to be sure, but I don\'t think you have anything to worry about. If you\'ve changed your mind, by the way, the paperwork should tell you who to call to just cancel the thing as soon as you pay off the current balance. Basically, they just gave you 20% off of your current purchase in hopes that you\'d be dumb and just keep charging things. If you cancel it as soon as you pay off your current card, you haven\'t lost anything, and came out ahead by that 20%.

Is that why this happens? I was wondering if the inner engines were working harder because they bore more of the weight, or something like that. Nice to know.

By the way, how come some of that plane\'s parts are white and some parts are gray?

It reminds me of the X47B. (It would help if you could zoom in closer on your plane when you take your screenshots.) Happy first post!

Are you asking if parts can have more than one connection point? If so, each part only has one 'sticky' spot that you have to place in contact with an existing part in order for it to be part of the vehicle. (Except for struts, which have a sticky spot at each end.) That part won\'t stick to anything else, though other things can stick to it. If you\'re trying to make those wings stronger by connecting the panels to each other better, one panel\'s short side will not stick to another\'s. Your only option is to put struts between them. (Was that helpful?)

It seems to me that there\'s a problem with the structure of the poll question. As far as the work the developers have to do to make it, a gas giant with 10 moons would really require the creation of 11 worlds. It\'s not like a choice between one apple and one orange, but more like a choice between one apple and a box of oranges. I mean, the gas giant+moons is the one I voted for , but it\'s not likely to happen any time soon.

There\'s nothing wrong with your rocket, though it is kind of big for this job, and is pretty much guaranteed to break off some legs. Many players can land ships that big, but I can\'t, and it would be much easier with a smaller one. It takes a lot of power to get away from the gravity and air resistence of Kerbin, but once you land on Mun, a surprisingly small ship can get back home from there. So land only as much as you need to get back. This ship of mine is even a little bigger than necessary, but I like to have a little extra fuel and the RCS system in case I run into trouble. If you\'re a better pilot than I am, you could do without the ASAS assist, the RCS tank and thrusters, and maybe use the smaller fuel tank instead of the big one. (Crap. Wrong pic. Just a sec. There, that\'s better.) Oh, and I still don\'t know about the shadow thing, but I don\'t use it anyway. Do you have 'terrain scatters' turned on through the graphics option screen? That puts scattered boulders on the surface of Mun and Minmus. After some practice, you become able to judge your height based on how the rocks look.

Through our innovative development paradigm of whining to people who are better at this and then stealing their ideas, Yeahletstrythatdyne Aerospacedyne anxiously presents, our first non-embarrassing product line: The F1 Pilum. It takes off, handles reasonably well, and lands, without exploding even a little bit. It may not break new ground in the science of (simulated) aeronautics, but as a wise man once said, 'For me it\'s awesome becouse I made it.' Three-quarter view, side view, and jet exhaust frying chickens in the barnyard. Yeahletstrythatdyne Aerospacedyne: if we could make it better, we would have.

Exhaustion?

It would help if we could look at your ship. Do you know how to attach or post a screenshot? The legs are very fragile, and even experienced pilots sometimes lose one or two depending on the terrain. If you\'re keeping them all when you land on flat ground, then you\'re doing about as well as everybody else. Slopes are just harder to land upon. But the legs are very light, so it doesn\'t hurt anything to give your ship a few extras so that there are still enough to keep it upright after a mishap. Any ship part of any kind will explode after breaking off and hitting the ground. That\'s just how Kerbals build things. I\'ve knocked a parachute off and it went kablooey. I can\'t help with the shadow question. :-[ Mostly it sounds like you\'re doing fine, and yes, KSP is both cute AND very hard. Happy first post!

Is that how one can tell him apart from Alan Alda? (This thread is kind of surreal.)

From what I understand, the MiG-15s and 17s were actually quite comparable to Sabres performance-wise, and even better in some ways, but the US had better pilot training.

Wait? Where\'s the plane? The runway looks empty to me. Oh! That is the plane!