TouhouTorpedo

It should do. The Plugin reads from KSP's joystick axis definition ingame. So if you can get a joystick to work for anything else in KSP, then it will work for this.

UPDATE! Pitch Vector Engine mod has been updated! and is now the first VTOL / Shuttle Engine mod with JOYSTICK SUPPORT. You can fly your advanced VTOL's and Shuttles using Joystick or action groups, but the action group keys selected will act like REGULAR INGAME KEYS! so holding pitch up or down action group will continue to move the part while held for instance. There is still 3 memory slots to use. And the set angle and Joystick inputs also mix. You can fly just fine using one or the other, or fly even better if you master both together there is also now a Jet Engine inspired by the Harrier's Pegasus engine and a stock (appart from this mod) craft included for experimenting with! http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/pitch-vector-engine/ if you are offline, the spaceport page will show the old image. Because it's spaceport.

Useful but very niche while a rocket engine. They needed to be something a bit higher ISP. And to that end I've started an update to the Pitch Vector Engine mod - Jet engines. More specifically, a two nozzle clone of the Pegasus Engine. the TT Pegasus! yeah its about 15 mins in if that. But hey, its a start. Be a while till its something usable ingame, but heres hype then. The plan is to make it much faster responding than the Pitch Vector engine. In theory it'd be harder to control for that, but I'm tempted to start looking into joystick support for it soon...

I don't really have any links per say, its just something I've learned doing Solid Mechanics (Structures) and Attitude Dynamics and Control as I designed a reaction wheel based system for a very low earth orbiting earth observation satellite. I didn't place position any of the wheels in the design, but only choose the product, axis, and how many were placed - since it didn't matter where they go, except from a structural and weight balancing perspective. Anyway those are two subjects I mentioned are neat places to look into for more information on how moments behave.

No, The torque on the object as a whole is a flat number, wherever the reaction wheels are. position of the reaction wheels only effects forces internal to the structure. The behavior as a whole remains the same.

It doesn't matter where a wheel is mounted. Torque is Torque. If you place it on a 20m arm or at the C of G, it still produces exactly the same amount of Torque for the power used. You're thinking force by distance being Torque, which isn't the case here. Reaction wheels just make outright Torque, so the placement means nothing, aside from which axis is effected.

Yeah, though now I recheck your OP I for some reason didn't notice you were specifically after going to Minmus. For lower planet orbits yeah you do this around 180 degrees. For going to Minmus, you'll have to find the right angles between the Mun and Minmus, or adjust your burn time to alter the angle of deflection you get off the Mun (which makes it all somewhat tweakable) But indeed for optimum, thats quite some trouble. I can see the math being a bit troublesome if done that way. (Though I'm pretty tempted to look at the math now) So in other words, ironically - Its easier to swingby to a planet outside of Kerbins local orbit than it is to one inside. (Ie Kerbin-Mun-Duna assist easier than Kerbin-Mun-Minmus)

ah right sorry, I missed that part somehow. Though I don't understand your meaning still. You either want a pWing that matches root to tip of the parent wing or you don't. I can't see why initially snapping and then being changable or not is a problem. Remember if it did autosnap, adding upright tails and similar things wouldn't really be possible, so making it do that isn't a good idea.

Typically the best way is to place a girder on top with your payload built off it. Then remove the payload off the girder and place inside. B9 does include a plugin that opens bays when attached. It should be possible to add that to the CFG's for these bays. To be fair, I should have coded one myself ages ago, its not exactly hard to do either. I'll keep it in mind and maybe add an option to do that later. But its always going to be tricky building in a cargo bay, due to the nature of the build enviroment. Build outside and then pull in is the most sure option.

You're running Solidworks, aren't you? My work wants those cards, but too expensive. They run GTX cards instead with RealHack. Though the reliability is a bit... meh.

I've got to be honest with you, I'm not too inspired to see obvious lag in the game at this early stage on the demonstration video. The graphics are nice and its a neat idea though. Hell you've even got clouds in a unity engine game. Proof that can be in KSP I guess!

Well, no to a lot of that. First off Airhogging, even with massive ammounts of clipping, is actually very possible without using the cheat interface. (infact I've done this before quite a few times, its quite easy) and also the Jet engine ISP is quite a realistic one at 3000 sec, so "ammount of fuel used for the power" is actually about right. What you do have right is the thrust possibly being too high, or the weight being too low. To give an example of some very high performance jet engines, the F-22 engines have TWR of about 8. The Harrier engine about 6. KSP Jet engines - about 20. I do disagree on what you said about "Jet hogging" as well as I don't know of anyone who does that. Air hogging, yes, Jet, no. Though indeed the returns for more engines are almost as great provided they have enough air. I think one of the reasons Jets have so much thrust in KSP though is probably because of the problematic aero model. I can picture if the jets had realistic thrust a lot of aircraft designs becoming useless in KSP, and then the funfactor quickly goes down the toilet.

OP already said hes lousy at math. A general description would seem to be pretty much what hes asking for, even if it does say "calculate" in the title. Not a lot of people really pull out a calculator to play KSP. (I have before, though) getting DV to compare these things wouldn't be too complicated. just make a maneuver node for with assist and later without. And the best way to do that would be to start with a general description, or better still - an illustration.

in the OP.

There are several mods that do this. B9 and my own MK4 Fuselage mod have this for instance. I'd rather it didn't become standard though. Its useful for lowering part count and doing wing mounted engines, but not everything (Fighters, tail engined craft, VTOL, etc) is built that way. Not a good idea for stock at all.

Each intake produces drag now. So I very much doubt this.

Theres more knowledgable people than just Scott Manley out there, you know. anyway, heres a rough diagram of how you can do what you're trying to do.

Nah, each extra intake taking less air just makes making bigger planes impossible, so thats not going to help anyone. If you're saying "only each extra intake" how exactly are you going to prove that each extra intake is not related to another engine, how would this be implemented? What if the user isn't using intake clipping spam and is placing them along the length of the craft? Heres a better idea - we know squad has some capability to bake a mesh thats perpendicular to the flow direction (Re-entry effects) so if this was done just with intakes, then it should be possible to work out how much area from the intakes is exposed to the airflow. Preventing overlapping intakes from having any effect whatsoever (but slightly overlapped intakes still providing some air). But, I do agree with the "what benefit" philosopy. You either think this is cheating, or essential to the game. I do use intake clipping on some craft, on some I don't. I choose when I think its appropiate, and then no fix is ever neccesary.

I'd much rather they didn't. I've checked your PM and you're using Safari to try and download it. Spaceport isn't the most stable place ever, so I'd more recommend you try another more mainstream browser first. Get Firefox or Google Chrome and try again. They are all standard Zip and far as im aware, no one else has had a problem.

It didn't need updating. As long as you still put it in the same legacy type folders (Parts folder, NOT gamedata) then its fine. Thanks for sharing! Let us know when you do find that idea application for you!

I think we have a bright career ahead of us as Space Crash Investigators Bunsen. Though, I've gotta admit I'm not entirely buying the "Gyros backwards" thing here. It doesn't make sense why it would correct its course rather than just pile into the ground upside down. It could be a result of Kalman filter feedback saying "I expect to be here" and finding its gone the other way giving such a command, but I'm not 100% sure if it would behave that way. Whats for sure if there is such a filter in the system, it should have been able to spot the sensor errors, giving the option to discard those inputs via software. Theres pretty much implications across the whole board regarding the Proton rocket and program after this.

oh wait, I thought there was a problem with an above post. Didn't notice that was 3 HOURS not 3 minutes on the left, lol. You waited a fair old time before starting!

A crazy ammount of skill with what... magic? well timed burping and farting RCS? I'd watched this live as well with my family after looking up the event and the expected procedure, such as this "direct nose down dive" that he was supposed to do the moment he left the balloon. Knowing there was going to be almost no atmosphere (therefore no control whatsoever) I instantly knew that wasn't gonna happen. I said hes gonna spin, family wasn't so sure. What'd he do? Spin, lol. No ammount of experience could have prevented that. He'd have to be dropped already pointing downward with no rotation to have even a hope of avoiding a spin. In which case, Felix's live TV broadcast would have had him hung off a rope by his legs like the catch of the day before release. The reason I knew this is unlike the planners of Mr.Felix's jump it seems, I'd heard of the NF-104A starfighter, an astronaut trainer aircraft which flew up to similar altitudes and was fitted with RCS, because the aerodynamic control was a lost cause at 120,000ft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_NF-104A

0.6 is backcompatible with 0.5 saves and crafts. It adds parts and removes none. However you will need to add engines onto vehicles to make them work though, unless you are using landing gear (which now have electric motors and small batteries in). So basically your craft and saves will all load, but some of your craft may end up helpless and unable to move, due to not having any kind of engine fitted. You also MUST delete the old plugin files from Multiwheels 0.5 and replace them with the single plugin file.

You're thinking of Fairing Factory I beleive, and you're wrong if so. Fairing factory is external to the game. pFairings would be actually made ingame.