Levelord

I still find no difference in engine performance when using these things. They weigh as much as bricks, don't provide as much intake, take up space, doesn't provide much fuel and doesn't radiate heat as effectively as dedicated smaller radiators. I've been scouring threads and googling them up to see what the community has said in the past about them, but never got a straight answer... What exactly, are the uses for engine precoolers???

If you are interested I have an old 1.02 SSTM (Single Stage To Mun) vehicle using 2 RAPIERs and a NERVA. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/122688-Something-doesn-t-seem-right-here/page2

You could try a ring that attached to the top of a space plane which makes things easier. This was mine in 0.9. The idea should still work, minus the VTOL capabilities.

I use both.

Currently we only have heat shields that come in 3 sizes for the 3 main fuel tank sizes. However it's not possible to make any larger (or smaller) heat shields like the ones you see in the movie Sunshine with the ship Icarus. The current heat shield sizes also assumes that the ship attached behind it is in a linear configuration and doesn't leave a lot of design options to make the ship more controllable by moving components in a flat configuration and thus shifting the CoM. Thus I propose having procedural heat shields added to the game. I have several points on why this is a good thing: 1. Stock procedural fairings are a positive proof of concept where you can procedurally cover portions of a craft to protect it from heat and aero forces. The same can be applied to heat shields. 2. Having procedural heat shields allow for more diverse ship designs and to allow for landers to have encompassing heat shields. Small probes will have heat shields that match their size too. 3. Procedural heat shields reduce the part count. There will be no need to spam heat shielding on the bottom of crafts to cover every protruding part. You could have, only a single large heat shield to cover it all. (This of course increases the weight the larger the shield is). 4. It is aesthetically pleasing on craft, even when not used for heat shielding, they can be regarded as meteor shields. It's nice to look at What does the community think of this? Yay or nay for procedural heat shields?

As much as I am one of SQUAD's greatest critic when it comes to updates, I am willing to pay for (this supposedly free) DLC to support them. I never agreed with the community bullying SQUAD into providing free DLCs those years ago when it was a hot topic. Sadly there isn't an option to donate?

I've been saying this for the better part of this year, but unfortunately the KSP fanbase thinks that asking for SQUAD to make a decision and commit to it instead of being inconsistent and changing the core physics of the game on a whim, as an irrational request. So I'm just sitting on my ass at the moment watching what changes, because as far as I'm concerned I'm simply wasting my time playing this game when my progress is always being reset to zero and my knowledge accumulated from the fan-touted 'more realistic' physics rendered obsolete because the fabric of reality keeps changing. I'm not even asking SQUAD to not change the game or improve it. I just want them to be consistent and have a clear goal and commit to it instead of having a see saw of increasing drag/lowering drag/increasing lift/lowering lift like a clueless schizophrenic. I'll quote an older post I made in another thread which sums up my position: 13th June 2015, 10:24

and how exactly does GOG supposedly quality test a KSP patch?

I use Photoshop...

I appreciate the post, but with SQUAD changing the nature of the aerodynamics almost every update, the biggest problem players face (at least for me) is trying to master a certain type of aerodynamics, only to have it invalidated and entire ship designs obsolete next patch. I can deal with realism, but I can't deal with the nature of reality changing on a whim. This is why I've stopped playing for the moment until SQUAD has come to a permanent decision on what it wants it's aerodynamics to be, otherwise I'm just wasting my time learning and trying to master the game.

If they are changing the aerodynamics yet again I'm going to be so annoyed and disappointed. :I

For that specific problem I've figured out the reason why. It's due to the intakes being placed using symmetry mode. For some odd reason it causes the mirrored part to take in less air than the root part, which in turn also causes unequal drag and engine thrust. I've solved it by changing how I design planed by first for example, placing an intake on the left side, followed by a jet engine. Then later on place an intake on the right side, followed by a jet engine.

In b4 elitists start telling everyone that this method is 'unrealistic', overpowered and should be nerfed despite the fact that the space shuttle does this anyway.

The only thing that's garbage is the poll itself. Seriously... only 2 options and they are extremes of each other.

Well... Then maybe you should try harder.

Even though I started playing KSP since 0.17/0.18, I have some archived versions of KSP versions 0.21, 0.22, 0.23, 0.24(x64, x32), 0.25(x64, x32), 1.0 and 1.02.

I have some ongoing research threads dedicated to optimizing SSTO designs with the help of the KSP community. Recently I have managed to build a SSTM (Single Stage To Mun) capable craft based on the accumulated knowledge. I hope they may be a useful resource for you: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/122574-Radial-mounted-parts-on-atmospheric-flight-performance http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/122688-Something-doesn-t-seem-right-here?p=1978057&viewfull=1#post1978057

This happened to me too, but in a different game...

I don't know about you guys, but it's just celery for me. I'm addicted to the taste and have a ton of them in my fridge. Sometimes I go through an entire bundle in a sitting.

Part of the problem comes from using a mouse + keyboard compared to using a joystick. The limitations of using a keyboard is that KSP only recognizes binary inputs from it. A key press is either 100% in that direction or 0%, which predictably causes a rocket to over-steer and flip itself. This is partially solved by toggling fine control (caps lock) on and off, though if you'd prefer more immersion you could invest in a joystick.

Fascinating. Perhaps I didn't let my rockets high enough to see if the tail connector would catch up again.

You only seem daring, but it's because you have rockets to bail you out if anything went wrong.

*Shrug* I'm using the forum's default settings on the number of posts to show per page... - - - Updated - - - I believe at lower speeds where drag is less of an issue, the lighter craft travels faster. When you get closer and over the sound barrier, the drag becomes significant enough to overcome the weight advantage and slows you down more than a craft that has less drag. This is why I now optimize my craft for drag, it might change again in 1.0.3 though... *groan*