PDCWolf

As the title implies, your goal is to land on the roof of the KSC, however, this is not your every day land on the roof challenge: Tight engineering restrictions make this a true challenge, one for the can-do-all types. You have to be good not only at engineering an aircraft that fits the rules, but also have the hands required to put it where I ask you to, in the way I ask you to. You might post any attempt with any craft for fun, but competing runs must adhere to the following: Procedures & Rules: •To create a fair experience for everyone, mods are not allowed for competing runs, in any form, save for information mods like engineer. Parts, physics or skill affecting mods (such as airplane plus, FAR/NEAR or mechjeb's autopilot respectively) are definitely not allowed. Again, for clarification: NO MODS - Even if not doing so with malicious intent or even knowledge, you might be gaining advantages over all-stock entries. With the tight regulation margins of this challenge, that's something I can't allow. •Create an aircraft that meets the following criteria •Your aircraft, once built, has to take off from the default runway without any kind of assistance (towers for example), and land at the two helipads on the KSC rooftop. The flight and landing have to meet the following criteria: Lastly, to validate your entry, your aircraft must meet the following criteria after completely stopping: As you can see there's no score system, a successful landing with a craft that follows the rules is all you need. I'll probably make a badge or something to include in your signature. TL;DR - Short, precision landing competition for "standard" aircraft, except the runway is the two helipads on the roof of the VAB. Have fun. You can post entries that don't follow the rules as well, but of course they won't count. My attempt, includes F3 screen to show that nothing fell off after that little slide lol: https://streamable.com/7r7mm

No word on this?: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/178960-reentry-modules-are-draggy-uncontrollable-garbage-that-will-flip-a-rocket-90-of-the-time/ Even if they are supposed to be launched inside a fairing, they are disproportionally draggy and unaerodynamic in general.

So, I removed FAR. Problem is still there. That makes me point to proc fairings, although they work fine on other rockets. ¿Payload with too much parts? ¿Too complex? Happens if I remove the inner fairings too, so nested fairings is not the problem.

That should clear up any confusion. Maybe.

I've been further investigating since I made the last correction to the description, this is what I got now: The problem not only solves by jettisoning the boosters, it also goes back to normal after jettisoning the fairings. So I suspect that it is some kind of procedural fairings/FAR interaction causing the problems. I'll be back in a second with some pictures to illustrate.

Been investigating for the last couple hours, still no clue. However I edited the OP with additional and corrected information. Seems to be related specifically to radially attached parts exposed to the airstream. Radially attached parts inside a fairing have no problem whatsoever.

Well, the problem is pretty simple to explain: Whenever I attach a solid booster or liquid booster, even the simplest (nose cone, tank, engine) , the game lags to hell and back. When I press launch, the game works at normal FPS until after KJR starts doing its magic. After physics are fully initialized my game drops to 10 fps. Once I jettison the boosters, FPS automatically jump back to 30. When they crash/disappear I get another FPS boost which takes me back to the normal 40/50. Happens with anything radially attached and exposed to the airstream (not with things radially attached but kept inside a fairing). Happens when the parts are attached either to procedurally generated parts, stock parts or mod parts. Happens at all symmetry levels, even x1. Happens with any radial decoupler Happens even If I'm not using decouplers (i.e. non detachable boosters) I don't know how long this could've been happening so I can't track exactly which mod caused it. I normally build mono-column rockets without boosters. Mods I'm using: LOG: https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=output_log.txt

Thank you!, it is actually the Copenhagen Suborbitals LES, the first one in the image.

Well, some of you may remember me, others may not. I'm the guy that made the perfectrons and one of the first launch escape system mods. Of course, that was long long ago (.24.2 being the last version I updated my mods for). Since then, I made very few advances and a few new parts too, but never got around to finishing them. I also kept myself from posting in the forums (lots of things going on at that time with the forum, arguments here and there about cancelled features and whatnot). Also there were way better mods at the time that did the same as my parts, so there wasn't much point in keeping them alive. Even the mod linked in my signature is dead. Long story short, I never updated my mods (sorry to the people that kept waiting for them) nor did I made progress with the things I had been experimenting with. So here I release all the parts I had been working with to the public domain. Included are: Perfectrons, all 3 variants LES, the 2 released variants (Apollo and Soyuz) and an unreleased, WIP, Copenhagen Suborbitals model. A radial engine I never got around to finish The ARES based SRB (the Kickback didn't exist back then) The A-RCS, a high powered, 5 direction RCS specifically for rocket control (see THIS video, around 0:18 and 3:35 to see how they were supposed to work). Vernor didn't exist back then either. The BPC release candidate, a fairing system to convert the mk1-2+LES combo into a good looking one. Cancelled because sumdum heavy industries made its glorious entrance. Not included in the file: Textures (They were horrible, and never got around to fix them) Configs (For obvious reasons) UV Maps (some models have theirs set up, but I highly suggest you re-do them) So yeah, the file only contains .MAX and .FBX files to import into 3DSMax or any compatible software (I think blender can import them? never used it really). The techniques used are pretty average ones, nothing to be proud of really. Note: some of the files are actual scenes ready for render, and scaling may be wacky in some cases. In some cases there is a stock mk1-2 pod. Some pictures (they are too big to hotlink, and are not in an album, sorry): About licensing and derivative works: They are now in the public domain. you are free to do whatever you want with them. Giving credit is most definitely not needed (although appreciated of course). LINK: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hpebuwt9cubkk2g/unreleasedparts.rar?dl=0

I've been using this mod for a while now, got DRE configured and going (was burning up on reentry every time), and everything is great except for one thing: I'm not slowing down enough to open my parachutes, every time I reentry I end up going really fast (like 450m/s) near sea level, so I never slow down enough to be able to open my parachutes. I'm using FAR. Any ideas? maybe the atmosphere was not made with FAR in mind? Every configuration is default except heattweak.cfg, I'm only using stock parts, I've not modified anything. Edit: This only happens with the small capsule, not with the mk1-2

HD6850 1GB, still going strong after more than 4 years.

The barn was horrible, both in design and quality. It was a good idea to remove it back then. Even though the replacements are much better in quality, they still lack a lot and are still horrible, with lots of easily visible mistakes on them.

I don't use the stock reaction wheels at all. I use my own fixed versions with about 1% of their original power.

I can say I'm more efficient than mechjeb on everything, even launches. I enjoy flying everything manually and I don't even use mechjeb for the videos/webms I record.

Maybe it includes making the asteroid system interesting? -real- procedural asteroids? More mass/size/texture/etc options? new locations for them to appear?

Stop adding more myths to FAR, create planes that look like planes, balance them right, and they'd mostly fly. Recreate a cessna, recreate the oblique-wing nasa prototype, recreate a box with correctly placed wings and it'll fly. Even a cylinder with no wings will fly if piloted correctly and if given enough speed. You do not need to adjust stuff degree by degree nor do you even need to look at the graphics. Here, have another thread proving you wrong, I'll even give you the pleasure to throw any logical fallacy you can think of at this thread because you'll only end up making a fool of yourself. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/113324-FAR-from-impossible-2-Less-rules-more-fun-Open-indefinitely

Los requerimientos de dV son menores si te referis a eso, ahora hacen falta como 3500~ m/s de dV para llegar al espacio. En cuanto al resto:

En las ultimas actualizaciones se agregaron cosas como un modelo aerodinámico correcto y calientamiento atmosférico por reentrada (o simplemente ir muy rápido). Para poder enviar cohetes al espacio ahora hay que hacer un "gravity turn" hecho y derecho, y para reentrar hace falta una trayectoria correcta o escudos térmicos.

"How do you deal with interplanetary aerocaptures" I don't. I use gravity assists or burns. The biggest problems are moon-less bodies or very small bodies, which obviously require bigger efforts. I sent an Ion based satellite to the Sarnus (OPM) system and visited all moons with about 2000 m/s dV or less, contrary to the 17km/s dV that the calculator gave me for my braking burn alone.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107328-Far-is-hard Just a reminder that this was written somewhere between 0.25 and 0.90

They are, as developers, facing the consequences of procrastination and a very bad development cycle. They now have to face (post-release) all the problems they were postponing, all those placeholders they left in the game for later. And the players are facing the consequences they -probably- deserve for not calling squad out on their mistakes on time and being hopeful they would fix stuff in time just because they threw money at them. Welcome to the world. Hey, at least they are fixing it now, too bad you spent all those years designing stuff in a placeholder when you knew it actually was a placeholder, or was it you didn't pay attention to the multiple times they said so? protip: they are now trying to "hotfix" everything they left undone (aero, reentry heat, sounds, the messy UI, etc).

"Using mechjeb feels like it's using a cheat and restrains you to building crafts instead of using your skills to pilot your own ships. So does anyone have this feeling and is the autopilot better than your own piloting skills" Please don't do this.

Very good mod, I'm giving you some rep and 5 stars, we do need more mods like these. I suck at coding more than anyone, but one of the resource mods (OKS was it?) has this kind of resource consumption for active/proto vessels. Specifically there was a small logistic module that simulated a supply run from A to B automatically (it pretty much teleported) and used the resources in it to do so, I'd look there.

Hey now, I'm not the one trying to make stuff works like it does on earth (gravity, atmosphere, etc), I'm just saying that that's what squad is trying to do, so expect it to work as it does.

For people that base difficulty around one-pass interplanetary aerocaptures: You are complaining that something proposed multiple times but shrugged off due to difficulty is not possible in the game. Basing difficulty around something that should be near impossible is something rather dumb to do. Reentry heat is useless at its actual -non existant- difficulty, even when bumped to 120%. It's your fault, you want to slow down from 11km/s to 2km/s in a single pass with a 100 ton ship.