pa1983

Yea 50% throttle do not make sense. 0% is "safe". I prefer that. Also I do like the new feature (not added in 0.24) where you can set a throttle limit. But I would like to have an action groupe to overide that setting, its good for rocket that have luiqed fueld boosters that separates while a core booster still burns and needs 100% throttle after the outer booster are jettisoned. A good real world example is the Delta IV heavy that runs pertial trust on the center booster until the outer boosters are jettisoned. I dont like having to click the engine and increase thrust manually. An action group that allows the engine to be set to 0% or 100% at least would be nice with a smooth power up curve.

I agree with most of this. Contracts atm are just dumb. I figured it would be more missions in the line of how real space programs progressed but no. Atm it dont make sense why one would test a jet engine on the moon, we know it dont work there. Or testing a decoupler in water? I mean why? Procedural contracts should still fallow some rules that make sense so one can test a part in flight where it makes sense.

Nice design! Like it.

Runway is long enough! One can easily build a 200-300 ton plane that takes off half way down the runway and lands at less then 1/4 down the runway. The two main factors are lift and landing gear placement and the angle of attack. Properly designed underbelly will allow one to take off in no time even with limited TWR. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/11214-The-K-Prize-100-reusable-spaceplane-to-orbit-and-back?p=616764&viewfull=1#post616764 Thats craft was over 200 tons and takes of in no time and lands on a dime. Runway is fine as it is. Practice at building and landing/takeoff is whats required.

Hehe figured I recognized it Can still download my crafts here if need be. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27196441/SSTOs.zip My final craft I did, the Galaxy had a low wing and the fuel in the center of etch wing for better load balancing. The X jumbo always had the problem of a heavy fuselage. Spreading the load over the wing is a lot stronger and more stable for landing and take off. Lower wing also offer better placement for wheels and allows for a big underbelly offering 10 or more degrees of rotation during take off and landing and better spread of the load on the landing wheels. Im playing the new carer mode. Have not built an SSTO since last year so a bit rusty. Might do another on but for carer LKO is the only thing that make sense if one wants to earn money. But any way nice to see so many crafts inspired by my old designs. Found a few in the forum.

Yea a picture would help. That way its easier to decide if its a part on is ready to test and also when taking many contracts and doing them on the same craft it makes even more sense to easier match up parts.

I am uploading them atm to dropbox, but cant fit more then a few on my 2Gb allowed space so have to pick the once I thinke are the best.

This is impressive! Good looking, behaves well and extremly capable. Good joob keeping part count down to! 10/10 in my book!

I do agree mostly whit Ryder. Career is boring and its pretty simple why. Its unbalanced due to the fact that the tech tree makes little sense and the fact that hording science points was at least before way to easy and just hammer the mouse exerciser. Some people like hording, research have shown that its addicting (popular in mobile games) but for some of us hording is just a fruitless exercise in boredom. It has changed a bit over the versions but still hording "points" is very old school idea and the simplicity of it is well less then elegant. What made KSP so great was how fresh it was and the fact that it did not build so much on old ideas on how game dynamics should work. But Science points and the tech tree turns the clock back to something from the 1990's in terms of game play dynamics. Its utterly boring. Im not saying I have the perfect answer but science points and the simplistic way they are implemented feels like Squad picked the easiest way possible to start building career mode on. There is no good connection between collecting science points, unlocking stuff and what you get as a reward. If you want to say Duna and send a probe you might expect certain rewards as a result just like NASA would expect to learn and confirm or disproof some theory's. Science and tech tree should reflect better where you go in terms of achievements and rewards. Im also annoyed by people defending anything bad about the game saying that its under development so dont come here and complain. Well then we might as well stop offering positive feedback as well. You know in real life people aren't just getting positive feedback when they do good things. They get a kick in the rear to if they mess up badly to. So whit that idea we might as well shut the community down if only positive feedback is desired because with out bad feedback theres no way to set a value on good feedback. I sure know I dont buy stuff from a company just to tell them how good they are. I expect perfection from any product. Even worse is when people representing the company in on way or another tells people to keep the mouth shut about negative feedback because the game is under development. There is just to much fan and worshiping going on for some people to be able to take criticism from other users around here in my opinion and its not doing the game any favors neither the devs or the players. The point of a community is to offer ANY feedback during development, if thats inconvenient go the traditional route and do it all in house whit no way for the users to effect the game and release 1.0 once you see the game as completed. Valid feedback being positive or negative is always GOOD feedback. And the game have been in development for years and is still Alpha. Its a dam lame excuse by now If you ask me. The game is neither new or just under development any more. Its been out for years so calling it early in development seems like just another excuse to get rid of unwanted opinions and feedback either its players that cant be unbiased or mods/devs. Im not much for achievements but if there are suppose to be there they should reflect realistic goals a player might have so a player can track his progress. Sense people seems to want the game to be realistic maybe a better option is to unlock parts as time goes by in combination whit unlocking special parts or allowing parts to be tuned after reaching goals like going in to orbit whit them effectively gaining experience whit the parts, achieving orbit on another body etc etc. I dont mind the Science pods but maybe they should not collect points as much as using them in certain zones could give you information and unlock parts useful for further missions. For example sending a probe to Duna SOI might unlock a new parachute for example or make chutes tweakable and at the same time give you some written information about Duna and its atmosphere that can be saved and might contain even useful date for the players future mission. Putting a small probe on Duna might unlock better Rover wheels or give you some tweakable setting making existing once more suitable for Duna, better wheel pattern for less slip and better traction etc. I mean pattern and wheel design was key for Mars rover to make them work in all terrain. Send on whit the wrong wheels or tweaks and it might get stuck? It might be harder to implement then Duna but its no harder then whats is done in every other achievement based game. If a pod/probe with a science module lands on Duna and the Science pod is activated all criteria are met to unlock some parts or tweakables. All that can be coded relatively easily by any skilled programmer so I dont see the problem. It will take extra effort but thats just the problem with the Science point system. Theres very little effort put in to that system. Its a futile attempt to make a generic system "fun" in a otherwise good game. And the fact that the game is so good otherwise I feel is used to hide how bad Science points are form a game dynamic. Squad took mostly all the right steps making KSP but like any game I feel that career is the side step they made wrong. Could have been so much better. Contracts will cure or well hide some of it Im sure but still contracts based on a better system then Science points would make the overall game so much better. But Im pretty tired my self of suggesting and trying to get trough to Devs and other players because KSP rides on a pedestal to high for its own good in the long run. But Ryder is definitely not alone in his opinions. And Ryder, watch the language. I dont care a bit, Sweds are not so sensitive when it comes to that but the Mods are very trigger happy on things like that I know from experience here. Just dumb to give them an excuse to take any form of action. Also I would like to say that KSP is one of the best games in many years that I have played and I like to see it become even better. Thats why "I" give feedback, being good or bad both are valid in trying to make something better.

Yea well I brought up the KSP jet engine affair before and I never got the devs attention the last 4-5 updates. I hardly play KSP any more. Spent a few days in 0.23 when it came out but thats about it. Im not doing spaceplanes any more either. Pretty much exploited the game to its fullest and Im just waiting for a total over hull on aerodynamics and engines. Mods dont realy do it for me either since they are still limited by KSP to a big extent. The new sabers is a good addition but intakes needs work. I have written about it in many posts before. Theres no difficulty from a programmers view to make intakes realistic and stop intake abuse that I can see. I dont see why any more suggestions on jets and intake will make any difference. Devs will get around to it when and if they want to and thats about it.

Yea I have seen that picture before, read the wiki page and have some old SR-71 dockumentarys around here some where. But it clearly sees that the bypass air is used by the afterburner at mach 3+ to generate most of the thrusts. I know engineers in interviews describe the engines workings almost identically to the wiki page.

Well 80% off the thrust from the SR-71 blackbird was generated by the afterburners at mach 3 due to the ram air effect in combination with the bypass air around the engines core. Only 20% of the thrust came from the jet engines. So efficiency is relative to what you mean, efficiency like more power and higher speeds or better fuel consumption. But sure I think the SR-71 blackbird was more efficient in all regards at mach 3.2 then any lower speed. But it still needed to go fast enough to generate enough trust to go even faster Chicken in the egg problem.

Thanks will try it out. New to kOS so will try it out later and see how it works in comparison.

The fix is in the thread. Searching the problem on startpage.com found the relevant posts for me a few days ago. Works fine for me with that hotfix.

Marzipan and chocolate in this case And no no struts realy, just sugar keeping. It together.

Jebediah Kerman going for an EVA on the hum... chocolate Mun? I some times do stuff from Gingerbread for Christmas, was out of ideas this year but then it hit me, ROCKETS!!! Fuselage are made from cylinders and cones so no flat peaces except for the stabilizers. Pain to curve the peaces. Fuselage 4 parts, stabilizers 8 parts. Best of all. 100% eatable! Any one else doing hum Kerbal inspired Christmas stuff? Feel free to post if so.

Well I have to test more later but sence people get goodcresults I supose I have some tweaking to do. Tough I had good fps before so I ddon't expect to much. Over 16+ fps with 534 parts in 0.22 with 0.10 delta. Usually ran 0.03 or lower doubeling that fps.

Not seeing that on my i7 3930K @ 4Ghz and GTX570. Actually no version sense 0.18.2 have had any measurable improvement in performance loading screens aside but thats pretty irrelevant In my opinion. So no I dissagre I get the exact same results 0.22 or 0.23. But I dont care mush for Squads promises any more. Just another disappointing release. And frame rates alone is not enough to measure KSP preference. People tend to forget that the game wont run in realtime if the CPU cant keep up. If the game only traids that for better FPS the real problem is not fixed. So just because some on gets better FPS wont necessarily mean the game runs better. I have run 0.01 for 6 months just because it gives a smooth frame rate preferably at 60fps V-Sync and even with 1300+ parts one can get like 30 fps but real time rendering due to physics slowing down is a side effect. But 20-30 fps at some what lower real time is better then higher real time at 2fps. I ran 0.04 with my 5-600 part crafts because it gave more or less smooth frame rates at more or less 1.0x real time in 0.22. So fare I cant measure that the sum of the two (fps and real time rendering delta) has gone up in 0.23 VS 0.22 meaning the game would runs more efficiently for me with 0.23. So fare I cant tell any real difference between the two versions in performance.

If you dont run the same physics Delta in settings as previous version aka 0.10 a comparison is invalid. Any one could set0.04 before in settings and get the same results as 0.23 do by default now. And yes 0.23 breaks the previous 0.10 as Default delta physics settings and its now 0.04 and that will give better FPS at the cost of Lower real time rendering as soon as one of you CPu cores is maxed out by the main thread. So no its not odd that people get better frame rates at the cost of real time rendering and the later is hard to notice at first but can be pretty evident especially if you turn on debugging and also starts to check the clock if its yellow or not as you increase part count. With lower Physics Delta it will go in to the yellow sooner with less part then at a higher Delta Physics setting. I have been running like that sense 0.18. Changing default settings is hardly a performance improvement just a tweak to rebalanced the game to work optimally with the part count people might use. Thats why I set it manually depending on what craft I use. All the testing I did to day on my i7 showed no improvement realy over 0.22 or any other version with the same physics delta compared to 0.22. So no no improvement only thing Physics Delta do is prioritize if you spend CPU time on Rendering or on Physics. They still need to speed up the code and get som proper multi threading or else where stuck with the same crappy performance. Im not convinced Mu's improvement was put in to 0.23. He talked about as much as 30% improvement on an i7 and more for slower processors. Changing Physics Delta alone is not much of a optimization its just a tweak the user can do. People can easily pull back Physics Delta in settings to 0.10 and try that and see if the game runs as "before" pre 0.23.

I have not checked what the new default is but if its 0.04 (remove settings.cfg to verify) its lower then before. It was 0.10 before. You cant set it in the game to higher then 0.12 and I think it could go a lot higher before. Have to check with an older version of the game later. Lowering it will trade Physic time for Frame rate so in practice that means more CPU time is spent on rendering and less on physics. Advantage is that High part count models will run at a smooth FPS with pretty much the same Real time Rendering. The down Side is that low part count models might run at less then real time, lower physic time that is with out any benefit if your FPS is already at say 60 FPS with Vsync. I personally set Physic time to 0.03-0.01 with 1000+ parts and with say 500-600 parts I run it at 0.04-0.03. Running it at 0.01 for example with 500 parts will give me a physics time of 0.6x but and a steady frame rate but running at 0.04x will give me close to 1.0x Physics time so real time rendering but still maintain a good smooth FPS. Running a 1300 part ship with 0.10 will run at about 0.3x real time but with a few FPS at best. Running at 0.03x will give me more or less the same 0.3x real time physics but a lot better frame rate tough not smooth its not still frames at least. 0.01 will reduce physics time to 0.25x or so at a more steady frame rate. So from my testing since 0.18 its preferable to lower Physics Delta with increased part count. Exactly whats optimal is hard to say, it depends on GPU and mostly CPU, what ever limits you. But there is a balance between CPU, GPU and part count for the optimal Physics Delta. 0.10 is good fore some that run low part count models but others like 0.03 and others like something in between or higher then 0.10. Suggest using the debugging menu to show Physics time and some tool to measure FPS. But if they lowered Physics Delta to 0.04 as default they did not realy do anything new to tweak the game becuse the user could do this before in the settings menu and I have ever sense I started playing back in 0.18. Might be Why my i7 3930K @ 4Ghz and GTX570 did not get any performance difference in 0.23 VS 0.22 with any of my test crafts either I ran 0.10, 0.04, 0.03 or 0.01 I still got about the same Physics Time compared to previous version and the same perceived frame rate. I did not see the 30% or so boost on and i7 Mu was talking about. Tried both the windows version in wine and the native Linux port. I cant find any sign of performance optimization. Changing the default in the settings.cfg cant realy be called improving performance because it all depends on how many parts you run. People using few parts would probably prefer higher Physics Delta while those that use hundreds of parts would prefer a lower Physics Delta. If they lowered Physics delta to 0.04 one should run in to the yellow clock a lot sooner when it comes to part count sens less CPU time is spent on physics rather then rendering so the game will run slower a lot sooner but maintain a higher frame rate even with more parts then with the previous Physics Delta at 0.10 in 0.22 and older if thats the case. I think we need Mu to confirm if that Performance update was implemented in 0.23 that was suppose to be in 0.22 but was left out. I cant replicate his 30% boost on an i7 that he claimed and I have an i7. Cant even get close to a noticeable boost.

Not to mention that you can descend at 20 degree angle at 40m/s then pull up and land just fine. Just a mater of lift. Most of my spaceplanes can easily do 20 degrees down befor landing and land at 40m/s so stopping is not even hard. Its painfully easy making it look ridiculous. I would love more realistic breaks with ABS, drogue chutes and airbreaks. Looks like crap when a 200 ton spaceplane jumps up and down from locked breaks I can tell from my experience that people creating threads like this have just started building spaceplanes and what they are building is basically a flying rocket. They dont do much flying as they are going ballistic. Landing that is like landing a brick. So learn to use wings. Only time its remotely hard to stop is landing on Duna horizontally due to the low atmospheric pressure.

Yea I agree. I can land a 100 ton spaceplane at less then 1/4 the runway. Its all about making a good design. I remember when I could not land, I remember when I feelt the runway was to short for take off. Now my crafts lands and takes off in so short distanses its not even funny and that's wit a twr of 2:3. Check my videos in my signature for examples. Almost all my vids feture take off and landing at the start and end. No the runway us long enough for an A380. Learn to use wings instead of building flying bricks. Plane is not a rocket.

Hum I cant get B9 pack to start properly in the 64bit build for Linux. 19/20 times it crashes with abort promoted at the terminal. But I must try other mods to to make sure its B9 and not just mods in general. Dose it crash during the loading screen for you? 32bit win/linux build works fine for me with B9 and a ton of other mods. I have to do more testing some day but if you can give more information that would be nice. I do wounder if the mac version is 32bit or 64bit or both...

I have seen the MK 4 fuselage on youtube and its easy to find with google but it seems like its no longer being developed. Cant find a forum thread for it either and its ugly beyond reason so I have decided not to use it. I use the reduction pack for B9 and unless you run higher then 1920x1080 and want to zoom in on individual parts theres realy not much difference and I save like 600Mb ram using it so KW rocketry can easily fit it. I use a howl bunch of mods and use about 2.4Gb of ram. I realy dont hit the 4Gb limit but rather other problems I have discovered that causes the game to crash with a ton of mods. Dont know why tough. The 64bit linux port hates B9 pack or mods in general not sure. 19 out of 20 times it wont load B9 pack and just print abort on the terminal after it crashes. But when it do load it works just fine. Seems to me there s some kind of race condition or something. Yea the B9 pack needs to be tough trough better I think. If I could make mods, I can model a LITTLE bit but not enough atm but that I could probably learn. But I have a hard time finding a good mod guide that is up to date for 0.22 and has all the steps needed to make say an engine, wing etc once you created a model in blender. I would try to do some sort of system that had clearly defined rules for wings and fuselage pieces so they fit in a variety of ways. Not that is easy but it should be a bit like lego so it scales well. Feels like B9 and a lot of mods just have parts with different size and shapes that just fits in a very specific order and thats a problem. Craft looks ugly or needs a ton of adaptors to fit one cockpit with one fuselage. My favourite cockpit dont fit well with my favourite fuselage etc. Annoying as F. Wing peaces also leaves some things to be desire. I like the delta wing look of the Shuttle but most wing parts I ahve used in KSP tends to favour more traditional aircraft style wings. Dont make sense to me. Might work as well or better but I want some style to not just a A380 SSTO look alike. But I suck at modelling, not to good at keeping the poly count down and doing good textures. I just model from time to time so never realy get in to it to much. I do have a wacom bambo but same problem there, only use it maybe 1-2 months every year at the most. I get bored doing the same thing for to long.

I find it kind of hard to make it look good with B9 parts. I m so use to hammering crafts out with stock parts that I was surprised how hard it was to create a good looking craft despite a variety of parts in B9 and KW rocketry. Fuselages dont have good points for wing attachments in B9. Ithere you mount it like I did under the belly in the center line or use a mid mounted wing. Fuselages cant hold 2.5m parts very well at least not with wheels and driving a tank longer then 1/3 a jumbo tank is like asking it to get stuck on the ramp. Also B9 lacks 2.5m fuselage parts that are well round thats why I used KW rocketry to. Still its the best earopack out there from what I can find but still I would love bigger cargo bays. Rear cargo door that can take a 2.5m jumbo tanks on the big wheels easily and fuselages that are wide in in the bottom with adepter parts so one can get the airliner look at the bottom of the fuselage where the wings are connected. Also cargo bay fuselage parts with out top mounted doors would be nice because one cant use wings top mounted on the cargo bay. I only need the rear door realy. Also a cargo bay door facing forward with fuselage mount for cockpit above and forward of it would be nice so one can drive in and out from the front under the cockpit in to the cargo bay. That way mounting engines at the rear of the fuselage would be possible and the wings could be left less cluttered with stuff. B9 is nice but there are improvements that would make sense I feel. NERVA engines for spaceplanes would be nice to. Basically needs fairings attached to them. Really not happy with the looks of the craft but well practise makes perfect they say. I cant realy mod, I wish I could then I could do my own mod pack.