Broco

We'll see if it works, I just launched the mission in my main game. As I said, I have a tanker stationed at Gilly, shouldn't be much of a problem

Damn, @Red Dwarf's station looks amazing. I'm more pragmatic in that matter, after building many stations with hours upon hours of tweaking, multiple launches over and over the last 5 years in KSP I went back to simple designs, I wanted to put stations into different orbits for refueling purposes but also to house some Kerbals and process science. I came up with a one-launch Space station that houses 23 Kerbals, has 2 big Kerbodyne (S3-14400) tanks and is able to move its position if needed but also can be complete stationary (as in "station") if you drop the engines. Also It works for most space station contracts (it's too expensive if you just want to finish the contracts though, I recycled all my stations and kept them in use). Here is one in Ike orbit: Here's the complete launche vehicle: And since it's a one launch only station I can provide the craft file. As I said, it's not beautiful but it's practical

I love this plane, childhood memories, my father was a mechanic in the military and worked on that plane. They cooked eggs on the wings once. And he said nearly every mechanic cut himself once on those sharp wings. Though "Very maneuvrable and stable." is not very close to the original. Looks fantastic though!

"Complete the Ultimate Mun 6 Expedition" 6 words that meant pain and suffering for the last 2 days. I didn't read properly before I accepted so I missed a little 3 letter word in the mission description. "We need you to land on the Mun, Laythe, Eve, Ike and Minmus and finish on the surface of Kerbin using a single vessel." Basically for these "tour"-missions I use one of my spaceplanes and refuel it at every planet system, I have mining stations and/or space stations at Minmus, Ike, Gilly, Laythe, Bop and Pol so I usually really don't need multipart vessels. This time KSP got me. I didn't finish the mission yet since I will have to do it in between my other missions but I finished building and testing my vessel in sandbox mode (Thank god for Hyperedit). Since Eve is on the list I thought maybe I could build an Eve lander around one of my modified spaceplanes. I spare you the details of hours and hours of building, optimizing, tearing it apart, rebuild, optimize.... Here is what I came up with: Part count: 966 Weight: 6015.7 tons Price: 2,563,633 (Mission Reward is 4,122,260 + 618,030 Advance) Craft file: EVE-LanderJet.craft The Images are from 2 flights but I did it in one, the Jebediah flight landed in an Eve ocean though. This is the spaceplane I wanted to bring to Eve and back up: And this is what I needed to get it done: Since I cannot embed Imgur albums anymore here is the link for more images: http://imgur.com/a/bEkEs It looks like I'm stranded in Eve orbit now but in career mode i have a tanker stationed at Gilly that makes it there easily. This was pure Sandbox-proof of concept. Morale of the story: Never just click accept on missions.

Wow, these look so cool. Shut up and take my money!

Not yet, but in my opinion it should and it was meant to be implemented so that as soon as you close them you reduce drag. Before 1.0 it was the case but the aerodynamic model got changed a lot so that for example angle of attack now plays a huge role. Intakes should have a little bit less drag once they are closed that's why this function was implemented in the first place. I think it just takes some development time to adapt it to the new aerodynamics model. I'm a programmer so when I design something I plan for it to work in coming patches In theory this craft should work even better once closing intakes reduces drag unless they take the opposite approach and increase drag on open intakes.

Thank you. Well, I tried a lot of different setups, what you see here is the end of a 3 day long trial and error run. Basically I started with the design generally set up, since I built a lot of spaceplanes before. But having a spaceplane being able to carry all that additional weight, while being flight stable, having no flameouts and be able to lift the entire craft just with VTOL required a LOT of tweaking. I had to play with different intakes, different fuel tanks, realign engines etc. until I had a craft that was able to lift off barely with just VTOL engines and make it into orbit. Dealing with flameouts was also a huge issue, since when you fly vertically you don't gain intake air. One older version is this one but it didn't make it into orbit but was easier to fly at Kerbin: But then again: Too many intakes, too much drag, not enough rocket fuel to make the final burn. One hint I can give anyone who tries to make VTOLS though: create one section in your craft that holds all main VTOL engines in a line so you can realign them without having to fine tune every single engine every time your center of mass moves due to changes to the craft, just move the whole engine set into the center of mass.

Sorry about that, couldn't embed the Imgur album like before, I just put down a link to the album now. And sorry it took so long, was busy. Ye sorry, forgot about that, I added it now. Please note, you just get it into orbit of Kerbin, you need to refuel it or drag it to another planet. I built it mainly to fly around Laythe, due to the lower atmosphere and less gravity it's way easier to fly there and rendezvous in space to refuel. + For fun of course

After some real hard trial and error sessions I finally managed to build a pure stock SSTO-Spaceplane with VTOL capabilities without any moving parts (aka no fancy docking port action): The BRI-Arrowhead! Action groups: 1: RAPIER-engines toggle 2: RAPIER-engines mode toggle 3: Supersonic intakes toggle 4: VTOL-engines toggle 5: Whiplash engine toggle 6: Subsonic intakes toggle Flight profile: activate SAS (T) and go to full throttle activate VTOL-engines (4) it takes some time for the engines to spin up, be patient activate the main engines (1 + 5) climb at an angle of ~15° (prograde marker) once you reach 400m/s speed, shut down the VTOL engines (4) and close the subsonic intakes (6) once you reach 10000m, change your angle to ~5° and gain speed. Once you reach 1200+ m/s, climb again at ~15° (prograde marker) switch to closed cycle after you reach 22000+ m deactivate Whiplash engines (5) and close supersonic intakes (3) once you reach 31 km, set autopilot to prograde marker cut engines once your apoapsis is above 100km at apoapsis, circularize your orbit More Images (sorry about that, couldn't imbed the album here, so I just post a link:) Arrowhead - Imgur Craft-File: BRI-ArrowheadVTOL.craft

They either use more advanced Garbage Collectors (Unity's is pretty old), they create less garbage, they use call the GC manually in certain events (example Skyrim: When you get in or out of a cave, aka loading screen).

I tried a different approach for my EVE lander. Just landing on chutes was too risky for me and I wanted to maneuver around a little bit while landing. So I ended up adding drills and resource converters in an extra stage. I would land on EVE, produce fuel, drop the mining parts and then start. I'm currently not at home for screenshots but asparagus staging was pretty crucial and try not to overdo on TWR because if you gain too much speed to fast your craft will evaporate due to the insane friction in the dense atmosphere. I also had one vector engine on my craft because I had the same problem as you with the flipping. You should definitely get rid of that docking port on top and put on the shielded one, it makes a HUGE difference in atmosphere. The better aerodynamics of the shielded port make up for the added weight tenfold. I had a middle section with a vector engine and 3 rings of 6 tanks with aerospikes around it, the first ring burnt symmetrical and the rest was asparagus.

I agree. I would totally use docking mode if there was a docking camera that shows the approach from the docking port and you can adjust angles and speed and directions from that but the way it is now its just not practical, i just use IJKLHN as Plusck said. No annoying switching required, you have all controls at your hands.

Can you provide a screenshot and/or the craft file for your rover? There are mainly 4 reasons for this: - you have no energy source on your Rover - the wheels are clipping into another part and thus blocked - there is no control unit on the rover - you start with brakes on

Actually thanks for the hint, I just edited the XML to prevent checks :-) Deleting is such a rude act.

It works fine in 1.1.2 for me, despite the message. Tried fiddeling with the config but couldn't get rid of the messagte, but since it just pops up at the start I dont really care much, so no need for stress here. By the way, great work!

Sorry for the weird title but I didn't know how to summarize the problem. I have many vessels that use the Big-S Delta wing since 0.9 or so. Just to make sure It's not an update issue I rebuild them from scratch. So here's the thing: They work perfectly. Example my SSTO here: I can fly it into space, save, reload, switch to other craft etc. But when I refuel this plane it explodes the next time I reload the save file. Let me guess: Invisible struts on the gear? Because here's the fun part: If I edit the save file and remove all fuel from the wings and the Mk1 liquid tanks on the wings I can load the vessel. It wobbles a bit but it doesn't explode. I can then dock to my space station, refuel it and fly on. As long as I don't change the vessel it works like a charm.

Tell me about it, after I updated I switched to a Spaceplane that I used since 0.9 and that worked like a charm for ages and now it just explodes. This workaround is something that I would expect from a poorly written mod, not from the game itself. Talking about poorly written mods, yours is none, great work and I'm so happy the KSP community has so many creative people with cool ideas like you.

Actually I have this song in my playlist when I play KSP I also got a nice theme you might now for the final approach and landing: But for real guys, ever heard of licensing? Music is art, art costs money, so unless you don't come up with open license music this is never gonna happen but feel free to use a brand new software called Winamp. Or iTunes. Or Rhythmbox or whatever and you can play whatever song you want.

Naaah, I'm just whining.

158 MB of garbage in 6 seconds. And this is just mainly because of resources calculation. But I guess I'm just whining.

At least @SQUAD is aware of this issue as you see in the patch notes of 1.1.2: Yes and no. I'm with you on the point that I think it can't be done in a short amount of time. I mean every programmer knows this issue: You write your program and when you're finished you start fixing bugs, adding features, etc. and then you find out that you handled something substantial wrong in a class that is referred to by 90% of the rest of the code and you can't just rewrite this without changing how this class (or a function within it) is called by other functions. This mistake causes an error in some special cases you didn't think of in the beginning. OR: You used the wrong way of addressing something in every single function that addresses something. In both ways you have to put a lot of effort into fixing something that doesn't cause many problems in 95% of the cases but in 5% it has ugly consequences. So regarding KSP basically there's 2 options: 1) Wait till an engine release comes out that fixes or optimizes it. 2) Rewrite all those garbage creating functions. If option 1 would be happening in a reasonable and especially fixed amount of time nobody would complain about it. "It's a bug that is gonna get fixed in 4 months." I could live with that. It's a long time, yes but in this case it wouldn't make any sense to put manpower behind a problem that is going to fix itself in the future. But sadly this is not the case here.

This, a 100% this. That's the point I wanted to make all the time. I would also be willing to PAY for it to be fixed.

I will no longer reply to your comments because you obviously don't read what I write. Case closed.

Dude are you kidding me? There was even a MOD written to investigate this issue, how much more technical help do you expect from the community, Squad know EVERYTHING regarding this bug, they don't need logs, they know exactly what causes it they just don't think it's as urgent as we think it is. And this threat is not about "whining" about a release coming to early or to late this issue has been around for countless versions now, for lots of people. If you're to lazy to read about a topic, don't comment on it. Again: This issue is well documented, affects the majority of users (after a certain amount of simultanious flights) and Squad know about it and it is known how to fix it. And please stop making comments about it if you don't know what you're talking about. "Memory wall." Oh and before you start a excrementsstorm: I hate being put into a pool with people of any kind. I experienced this issue and found out more people have it and it is known for a very long time. I provided info to the bug tracker, I found out that many mod creators like @Padishar helped investigating it, too and this has nothing to do with "whining". Also you should check who you are replying to before you make comments. I'm not a person that flames in the forum for every little bug. You could've found that one out by checking my profile, see my join date and check my post count. I've been with KSP since the very beginning and I will not reply to any more comments going the direction of questioning the need to report issues.

I really didnt try to bash somebody but this is a problem that has been around for ages. The thing is that every person has different preferences or things that are important for them. E.g. some people complain about the wheels, some want more features, some complain about krakens. I don't really understand what you want to achieve with your post because "focussing on the technical issue" is something we could only do if KSP was open source. As much as details of the problem go, I think Squad has enough information by now to adress this issue. As a developer you have to decide which things to adress with your limited time and we just want to achieve that they focus more on stability and performance before new stuff is introduced. E.g. I don't care about the wheel problem, you can work around it. But I can't do nothing about my stuttering except deleting half of my flights which I don't want to do.