BubbaWilkins

I'd say most "efficient" turns start fairly low, below 10km. Problem is that doesn't mean your craft can actually manage it. Most of mine tend to lose control unless sufficiently high in the atmosphere. I blame FAR and DRE.

Grizzly: can't view your screenshot, but was inspired to make one of my own....which lead to making several other craft. Two words: Spruce Kerbal. Snjo: I've noticed something that seems to be consistently hitting me. The radial engine is prone to spontaneous destruction when a craft with them is in physics range, but not the actual active craft. I was trying to set up a screenshot with all the different craft I was playing with this weekend and after 4-5 planes were placed, the radial props would explode violently on the parked craft when an active one approached. I was arranging them on the tarmac in front of the SPH, so I don't know if it's a craft problem or a world problem. Seems to occur around the point where my active craft gets within say 500-1000 meters.

Guess it's just me then. I kind of like the challenge of keeping stresses below the redline.

It's not that g-force damage is bogus, but that it's a reasonable approximation for sub-component failure beyond the actual stresses being calculated by at the connection nodes. I think a lot of people are blaming it for structural failures which would occur even if DRE was not installed. If you see "Mechjeb 2 exceeded G-force tolerence, thats a DRE thing. If you see "Structural failure..etc etc etc..." That's a KSP thing The latter would occur if you didn't have DRE installed.

that was fun to watch. Haven't seen a launch live in decades.

Since when do engines fire at all in either assembly building?

Chevron covered most of it. But if it flies at all, then the first and foremost issue is landing gear placement. Your rear landing gear need to be near/slightly behind the CoM. This allows them to serve as a pivot/leverage point for your control surfaces to push the nose into the air. With the gear configured in the images, all your control surfaces are doing are pushing the landing gear into the ground harder.

Jrandom, Sometimes. Torm, I don't claim to know the inner workings of DE, but that might be a question to pose there. I do know that structural stresses even in the stock game are calculated individually and exceeding the load on a given node results in failure. Given that all forces are in fact calculated individually on each part, and that momentum is part of the equation, than it only stands to reason that deceleration from a high velocity is going to induce more compression stress on a component then acceleration. Clearly this in line with the observed behavior in game. Either way, the topic is really better taken elsewhere at this point. Ferram, About to test it on my Firespitter craft! I'll post my observations on the props and such. UPDATE!: Multi engine bomber flies real nice now! Single engine planes also fly nicely although feel a little on the slow side, but that may just be in the engine/mass department now as much as anything.

Which is no reflection of the internal stresses on the craft.

If you don't like it, take it up with Sir Isaac Newton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

It's not the same because momentum is not a static value, it's the product of mass and velocity and has a direction. Flipping the craft over puts your engine thrust in direct opposition to the momentous forces of the craft. Therefore, the stress being applied at the structural connection of the engine is much higher decelerating than it is accelerating. The net change in velocity is the same, but the stresses on the structure are much higher when it is moving in a direction different than the one you are trying to accelerate in.

Landing gear attached to wings will flex along with the wings while holding the craft's full weight. Make sure you strut your wings to prevent this. Also, try to configure your gear so that the nose is either slightly higher than the tail... OR that the rear gear is sufficiently near the CoM to allow the craft to nose up... OR You have forward canards which will bring the nose up. Completely level gear often make craft harder to take off because you can't force the nose up no matter what speed you're going.

I just challenged you to do better which will directly lead to a better playing experience. I'm not the one complaining that the performance is below my expectations to people (squad) who have no ability to do anything about it. The limitations are well known at this point as is the fact that Squad pretty much can't do anything about it.

There isn't a machine out there that can run KSP unrestrained. If you know that 300 parts is your limit, then accept that as a technical challenge and design your crafts accordingly in the 50-100 range. Find mods with bigger parts and eliminated multiple small ones. Part bloat is no different than code bloat in that both lead to inefficiency and problems. You're not being creatively hindered, you're being technically lazy. Think small, build small. If you need and want bigger, than find modded parts packs that have bigger parts. Don't use 5 tanks when you can use 1. don't use 30+ wing sections when one procedural wing will do.

I've found that larger craft need to be limited in acceleration between 15-25m. The sheer amount of weight of the craft combined with the full thrust of the engines is usually more than enough to exceed the limits of the connection nodes. I've also had to limit my larger craft to not do a gravity turn until after 25km of altitude due to the FAR's aerodynamic forces on my vehicles.

With the testing and design phases complete, the Munar exploration missions were launched in ernest. Initial mission profile included three of the 2nd generation, Munar Explorer II's equiped with both enhanced Kethane processing services and crew accommodations. The platforms were deployed to separate Kethane fields to serve as refueling hubs. The Munar Hopper with belly slung truck was then launched. Munar Hopper coming in for initial landing and refuel: Landed near a buried monolith with truck deployed: Due to the nature of the Munar surface and the limited fuel and range of the Munar Hopper, it was not always possible to land at the anomalies directly. In most cases, suitable landing areas had to be found in the general area which may have been some distance from the anomalies themselves. This did provide ample opportunity to observe the heavens... Of course, no visit to the Mun would be complete without seeing the Armstrong Memorial. Although it was launched decades ago, this is the first time it's actually been seen since it was placed (crashed). Truly a feat of Kerbal engineering to have placed it on the surface using nothing more than high explosives and minimal guidance! Landing near the Munar Arch.

While design and testing was on going for the upcoming Munar missions, Jeb got some of the older toys out of the hanger.... Buzzing the tower in a biplane... Taking the K-51 Kustang into the nearby mountain ranges... And landing on the roof of the newly constructed VAB: Just to show that Jeb was not all play and did some work as well, the new shuttle was launched for a test flight: Re-entry went smoothly:

I'm hoping more for a "simulator" so that you can test your various crafts/rovers/satellites. I hate building a craft, launching it, getting it to the target such as the Mun...and then discovering that suspension on the wheels of my rover are too stiff for Munar gravity. Or that my RCS is not quite balanced. Or that my lander doesn't have sufficient thrust to take off or land safely. Or that my probe core is on backwards. Or that I really needed to add a ladder.

I'm going to assume its not the game that is glitched, but that all his crafts are from a previous version and are no longer compatible. Without a lot more details, we really have no idea what's going wrong.

Avast is well known for blocking legitimate downloads on the basis of the hosting site alone. Since Majiir hosts it on his own server, that's probably why you're getting the warning message. Hell, at one time it was even blocking Blizzard's WoW downloader.

Just because the parts are the same size doesn't mean they have the same stats. I'm guessing you're exceeding the structural limits of the Mk5 cockpit utilizing it like that. The B9 stuff has different breaking values than the stock parts even if they have the same impact rating.

Space Programs ran by governments do not sell advertising space. Company ran space programs do not sell advertising space either at this point. There is no basis in reality for requesting something of this nature and it is a fundamentally bad idea to implement it in game. Every game that has done so has suffered for it. Bottom line for KSP is it breaks immersion and is just a horrible idea.

I'm not aware of any that exist that aren't, so that would probably work just fine.

My main point isn't that your re-entry profile isn't optimal...its suicidal. By your own admission, you were travelling at 600 m/s at 3000m of altitude while Lexi was nearly half that The bottom line is you were still going to fast when your chutes fully deployed at 500m. The resulting jolt ripped your craft apart. So you either need to figure out how to slow down before, during, or after re-entry. It's that simple.

Control surfaces react dynamically to the location and orientation of your command pod and the Center or Mass. Only trick I know of to get around this is to add a probe core facing the right direction and control it from that location.