Temeter

Or the modular fuel tanks mod.^^

Btw, about said heat management: The last ships engine mounts exerbate every issue with heat you can get. Was the standard way of doing things and why lots of people complained about heat. 1. The part directly about the LVN will be the 2nd hottest part of your ship (aside from the engines), and small plane tanks have a low thermal mass, meaning they will heat up a lot faster than big tanks. Can be risky to mount nukes to small tanks. 2. The girder segment between middle tank and engine tanks acts as a thermal insulator, meaning most of the heat will stay at the engine section. You want the heat to spread through all the ships tanks (especially the big central one), which are the parts with the highest thermal mass and therefor tank+radiate lots of heat. Connecting the tanks directly (radially) together will solve that issue. 3. Suggestion no.2 will result in all of your tanks getting hot, so you want to insulate the utility parts (probe cores, science stuff, solar panels) which only survives 1200K and has low thermal pass (otherwise the'y just blow up). One way to do this is to put them on girders or behind a inline stack of batteries.

Thanks, I'll try it next time and let you know!

Q.E.D, now the discussion switched from meta-discussion about discussions to psychoanalysis (because that's what writing on a forum teaches you!). While obviously not even understanding what others are actually talking about. Maybe you should stop looking at others and realize how utterly pointless this thread's direction has become?

I found the ER report rather helpful. Really helps to avoid all those standard mistakes.

Don't you guys love how playing games apparently makes you an expert game designer able to judge the failures of developers who managed to bring out very succesful games?

Worth the wait? It was a brillant game in 0.18, when i first tried it.

FAR calculates lift quite a bit different. As for the west/east things, I did explain it to you. Minimal forces get extrapolated because of the rockets instability. Who know what it is? Maybe a side effect of the nosecone reverting the tilt before achieving a 'stable' speed, maybe control surfaces lowering the COL so far that the effect gets denied and reverted. Maybe the planets rotation. Talking about why a terrible rocket doesn't work well is kinda pointless, don't you think?

My refueling station would be a single craft, capable of landing via efficient (nuklear?) engines on low grav planets. E.g. minmus or the outer jool moon (bop?). I would decidedly haul at least 50% ore into space. There are 2 kind of ships I will need to refuel: Conventional crafts using LFO, and nuclear-driven transports using LF. Especially the latter will take a whole lot of liquid fuel, so it's more efficient to decide on the spot what to refine.

Maybe the fins are to large? Otherwise: Press F12 for the overlay, then you'll get a visualisation what those Fins do during flight. Otherwise I don't have any of these issuse. When add fins to my rockets they only get more stable. There is only a tiny amount of bias towards east when uncontrolled, which can be explained with the launchpads alignment. edit: So, tried your rocket, it's an effect i've already noticed. Looks easy enough to explain: Your fins are basically acting as weak lifting surfaces, especially because of your low speed. And since they are so far behind the COM, they give your rocket a minimal bias to slowly turn. As said, the direction of the turn is caused by the slight misalignment of the launchpad. Normally a rocket get's enough speed to counteract that lift, but your rocket is just above hovering speed, so the slightest imbalance builds up really fast. Everyone who tried an assymetrical lander or vtol's can tell you stories about that effect. The rocket is also extremly long, which makes it even more instable when it start's to tip. It's an engineering issue. You need a better T/W ratio and actual control authority.

You can ask him for a refund.

At least directly after launch KSP is actually ~200 mb smaller. Not sure how KSP handles loading tho, this is assuming it loaded all parts at that point.

It seems like you weren't very succesfull. Many good trajectories need very little course corrections, gravity and aerodynamics will efficiently move the apoapsis, which allows the rocket to always stay directly in the air stream and minimizing drag. The really efficient launchs seem to go for very low trajectories, and rely on high speed to push a relatively distant apoapsis up. Btw, I managed to get 3290 by instantly turning the a rocket between 5 and 10°, using stability assist until ~1km, and locked to prograde. Then just burned until the apoapsis was at 80km without any input and circularized later. It can be this simple. Craft was a bog standard 2.5m rocket, afair with some dummy cargo.

I don't think you can judge that when your best ascent is is above 3400 dV. People managed 2800 dV in 1.0, so 3k in 102 shouldn't come as a surprise.

...notes how little they matter. While I could well imagine Squad upgrading the sound and adding clouds, don't expect complete visual overhaul. KSPs graphics are functional.

I had this happen in some very rare cases. Usually reloading solved the issue.

Rockets use plane parts, planes use rocket parts, and there are also lots of parts which aren't limited to any of them.

Did you try 7.5 km? Kerbins atmosphere is a 66% model of the real one. At least that's what it was initially.

Stability assist can get pretty wobbly too, especially if you use an engine like the Mammoth and don't lower the gimbal.

Yep, that's the point. KSP's reentry's are a lot slower. Reentry heat was never supposed to be russian roulette. And it does have an HUGE impact on the game that cannot be understated: You can only reenter capsules (or stacks), not full spaceships anymore, you need to hold your ship stable, and can't necessarily use every available angle. Sensitive equipment needs to be shielded. Compared, heat shields on the other hand have a tiny impact on the game: It just makes reentry-capable capsules a bit heavier. I agree that they should be necessary, for all reentries but the shallowest flight paths, but let's don't overplay their impact on the game.

Might become hard to sort out that issue. Problem here is that KSPs orbital velocity is very low, so planes at 3x supersonic speed get dangerously close to the reentry temperature of space capsules. Even now M3 is basicaly a hard barrier you won't get around, and, on the other hand, space capsules have very little trouble during reentry. Mind that's only a thing regarding heat shields being a bit pointless, tho. Everything other than well proportioned capsules still just burns up during reentry. Btw: No, heat tiles won't help here. KSPs planes are behaving as if they'd have heat tiles all around the ship, so making heating angular would only make planes more vulnerable. Furthermore, it's normal planes, straight flying planes getting into dangerous territory. For comparision, I don't think a MiG-25 was built to survive reentry and it still got up to Mach 3.2. This isn't really about failure, it's about heat shields being neccesary to get that 100% failure free reentry. Atm it's 100% even without shields.

Ah, the Deus Ex Nukina kind of scientifical study.

Because that's a really important thing to know for everyone.

Some kind of aimable rocket turret would be amazing. Also finally unguided missiles the ai might be able to use. We got at least something along the lines of what you're asking: 2. There are very few things a gattling can't kill. Try the millennium cannon, which is a 35mm cannon. It will destroy most things. 3. There is the 20mm vulcan and 30mm GAU cannon. 4. Nothing dedicated, but air to ground missiles work on vehicles. Only issue might be the firing angle.

Nah, it's just completely inconcievable for me how a neutral mouse cursor can bother someone so much.^^