J Paul

I have a feeling that the magic boulder isn't actually a celestial body. It's not mentioned in the game's configuration file where the terrain settings for all the other bodies are stored. It could be an object in space somewhere, but like a model or something like the terrain scatters or the KSP, since it seems to have no defined terrain. I wonder if it has a SoI or any gravity at all? Because I remember there was a plugin someone made that allowed a part to have its own gravity well, maybe it's something like that.

Oh I don't know how it works exactly, but I just relocated the same fuel tank to the inside of the cargo bay, and it stays attached. Maybe it has something to do with the collision inside the bay being all internal as opposed to things bouncing around outside the bay, knocking into it and breaking the attach point. But I've upped the mass all the way to 9 which is the same as the full 2m large tank, and it still spins around at like 10k. I don't quite know how to make it fly well in an asymmetric thrust spaceplane configuration, it probably flies better on top of a conventional rocket.

I fixed the disconnect issue by moving the fuel tank to inside of the bay. Reduces available cargo space, but the fuel tank stays attached. But you're right, the craft does indeed start spinning between 9k and 10k. I'm going to try editing it as well.

Hi, I don't know why, but for some reason, every time I launch this vehicle with a fuel tank below your (awesome) cargo bay, the bay always disconnects from the fuel tank at around 48 seconds into the flight, no matter how many struts I use to try and keep them together. I even modified the breaking force and torque to ridiculous amounts and it didn't help anything. It might have something to do with the attach nodes which is something you would know more about than I do, so here's the craft file. Loads in SPH, should be all stock parts except for the cargo bay.

Yeah but if you\'ll go ahead and re-read what I typed, you\'ll realize that the game is the game and reality is a totally different thing. The orbital data tables will still exist and make just as much sense when you\'re using different units. What I\'m saying is, it doesn\'t matter what the names of the units are, because you\'re only going to be using them to talk about things that occur in-game. Like the orbital data table applies to the game and only to the game. That means it could be written in kilokerbals, bum-dingers, hoop-whingers, it doesn\'t matter. This thread is about imperial vs metric, but what I\'m saying is that whole argument misses the point that it doesn\'t matter how the units relate to real life because you shouldn\'t be relating a GAME to REAL LIFE.

What I wonder is why does it even matter what units of measurement the game uses? I mean height could be measured in a made-up fake unit like Keters instead of Meters, what difference would it make? Hell they could just call them 'height units'. The planet isn\'t earth, the inhabitants aren\'t earthlings, and nothing in the game is at all real or even slightly realistic, so why does it matter whether or not it uses a certain earth standard of measurement? Standards of measurement are meant for comparison and communication, but you shouldn\'t be comparing anything in this game to real life, meaning there\'s absolutely no reason to use any kind of real life units.

Does it fly? If so, does it generate its deflection lift by detachable wings, or is it one whole model that acts as a wing? Even if it doesn't fly, I can strap some wings to it so no worries, looks awesome by itself though.

I've read quite a few books about the Energia-Buran system, and it's always been one of my favorite launch vehicles. Yours is looking pretty awesome there. Here's what I would do, though: Use a larger fuel tank (since Energia is comparable in size to the STS), and use (or design if one doesn't yet exist) a 1x3m-4x2m coupler so you can attach four of your engines to it. Also I really like the solids in your pack, but is there any way to make them liquid engines? Maybe make the solid booster three parts; one whole solid for when you want to use that, one liquid tank based on the upper portion of the solid, and one liquid engine based on its lower portion. No real reason for having you do all that work other than I LOVE throttling And now that I see what your parts were originally intended for, I think I'm going to take a crack at making an Energia in Vulcan-Hercules configuration. Also now that I think about it, the configuration you've designed with the single engine is actually more correct to the Energia-M, which had two Zenits and a single engine on the core stage, rather than four Zenits and four engines on the core stage like the Energia configurations used for Polyus and Buran:

Well, it helps that they are some quality parts. Especially the linear decouplers, they should be integrated into the base game as a replacement for the laterals. Also, I just noticed that, if the altitude meter in my screenshot is correct (and the launch pad isn't too high above sea level), the in-game Soyuz is almost exactly as tall as the real-life Soyuz!

Based on a Soyuz-like design I saw on Facepunch. It's a really simple rocket, but it's also very reliable. I've used it to get into orbit a few times. Most recently, I made an orbit with an apogee of 58,070m and a perigee of 57,705m, which is fairly circular. I also have enough fuel left to change my orbital inclination to anything I want, and after doing so, I'll still have enough fuel to de-orbit. So while it's not the best heavy lift vehicle out there, it's perfectly capable of quite a lot in its own right. http://www./?agi2nm5r446292b Requires newest SIDR, Sunday Punch, and I used the SAS from the Lunar Lander Module 0.5, all can be found in the projects section. If you make any modifications, be sure to pay attention to the staging. It always resets. The center liquid engine should fire at the same time as the solids, so it should be tied to the bottom stage (but its fuel tanks should stay where they are) and it should be constantly at max thrust. If it's not, when you separate the solids, the fuel tanks will still be too heavy, and you'll slow down tremendously.

It wouldn't necessarily be too unrealistic to have the command module somewhere inside of the orbiter. That's essentially the role of the crew cabin. What would be nice is something like what Darrknox was saying and build the orbiter around the command module, and have the command module buried within it somewhere between the mid deck and the flight deck, sandwiched between two pieces of orbiter which conceal it completely. It would be hell to try and get it off the ground, though. First just designing it so that it could fly would be difficult, but once you have it together, the thing will probably topple over nose up without a special launch pad. The flat surface we currently work with in the game just won't cut it for a shape as odd as the STS.

My joystick is also not usable. It registers in the configuration utility, but the game makes no notice of it. Would you happen to have an Xbox 360 controller? Because that's what I have, and I believe that this could be part of the problem. The wired 360 controller in Windows uses a new standard called xinput. It is possible to make it work with the older directinput, but it lacks certain functionality like separate triggers, vibration, and the use of a headset that can be attached to the controller.