pa1983

545 dollars? My friend bought an ASUS i5 dual core laptop with 6Gb of ram and intergrated Gefroce GT610 or G30, runs ubuntu so he uses the HD2500 but that laptop was around 5700 Swedish kronors. That includes 25% vats so US price should be about 570 USD sens we have a bout 10x KR per dollar on electronics in Sweden. And that was at least a year ago. I know for a fact that intel HD graphic is fast enough for KSP in 1360x768 on the lowest settings and an i5 even mobile with turboboost can clock at least to 2.5Ghz on one core so should handle a lot more then a 100 parts. Lower the graphics settings as much as possible, tune up from there if theres som headroom, that what I did on HD4000 graphics. Set Physics Delta time in settings to 0.03 that saves a lot of CPU power.

I would never denial doing airhogging The day I stop intake spam is the day we have proper intakes and aerodynamics.

Falcon XIII Galaxy STOL on its first mission after prototyping was done. A small 18.9 ton payload was delivered. Will try to increase that later and send something useful. http://youtu.be/KtFSIWnvfmk

Falcon XIII Galaxy STOL on its first mission after prototyping was done. A small 18.9 ton payload was delivered. Will try to increase that later and send something useful. http://youtu.be/KtFSIWnvfmk

I do agree that smaller once would be nice at times even when I build big stuff. And talking about big stuff, with more aerospace part like wings I hope we get bigger control surfaces to so one can use fewer parts on big crafts.

Yea nice plane. I also prefer the LV-45 for its vector trust compared to say the airospike and higher trust. Also the LV-30 offers more trust for lower tonnage so good if vector trust is not needed or to supplement the LV-45.

Sure I try to remember to PM you. But you can use the link in my signature sens it will be on that youtube channel and craft files are in the descriptions on my vids. I hope to edit it to morrow then its a mater of uploading it to slow youtube but the next 24-48 hours it should be there I hope. Its not the best SSTO I have made in terms of payload but I settled for a lower payload so I could get a new referees point to go from for future crafts. Usually easier to improve once one have a design that works well.

That looks sleek. Do you have a picture showing the howl craft?

My new Duna SSTO spaceplane with STOL capability. Not ha heavy huller, 18.9 ton payload so fare just for testing. Figure it might be good for hulling 2-3 rovers inside.

I have been working on a STOL craft for Duna for some time. The new terrain is hard to land horizontal on at high speeds so I needed something new. The craft is not a heavy huller, tested it with 18.9T and I had fuel to spare. But its cargo bay is big so should hold enough stuff for most mission like rovers and such. The need for engines for STOL capability and a stronger airframe then the jumbo and better landing gear support reduced the payload capacity. I could have mad it bigger but part count would just get so out of hand it would not be fun.But it fly nice and yea very stable craft. Its all stock and the nose can be opened to allow the cargo to roll out. This also made it possible to mount engines in the rear. Sens the jumbo tanks are housed in the nacelles I made a 3:e intake on the top like the L-1011 and added intakes there. They can be shut for reentry to avoid drag that would cause severe angle of attack. I recorded the second mission I did after the final adjustments on the final prototype so a youtube video will becoming for those that are interested. Those that are not dont need to watch. I named her Falcon XIII Galaxy STOL. Not fancy but Im bad at names And I dont care what people think of how hard or easy it is to make, this was the fifth or sixth prototype from scratch sens 0.21 came out that did all I wanted close to perfectly. I want my crafts to be easy to fly no mater if its take off, ascending, reentry or landing or just doing a 180 turn with 90 degree bank. IVA landing works very well to with this craft so thats a plus.

I dont know what you get your ideas from. First you accuse me off infinite glide out of nowhere then you post some strange SSTO that I could care less about but sure bravo you made on. Then you accuse me of ridding high some how because I defend my self. And when I sad not every one is doing it was not the same as no one else is doing it. There are KSP players with faster hardware then I that do even bigger and crazier stuff. But I do think I have my own STYLE but thats not the same as "performance". I have never sad Im the best I have just called people out on there lies about what I do. People like you. I do wounder how you turn your craft, will power? Last time I checked they needed control surfaces and its not my fault how squade made them work but its not like I have more per ton then any other spaceplane. And why should one not use lots of wings? Its a lot less heavy on the system with few engines and do real planes fly around with 24 engines and small wings? There all about efficiency this days. How is it abuse to alter settings in the game that is there to be changed? I have run the physics settings on the lowest in the game for 6 months strait and not a problem. Why should I run it at default when its just slower. Its a click away. Not my fault people dont seem to bother changing it. Why did the devs put them there you think? How are you to decide how much time my CPU should spend in a game? Do you think a CPU is made to idle? Are you one of those people that thing your PC is faster if it only uses half its ram, what is the rest good for then? Im just wondering sens you seem egger to force you will on others. Who are you to decide how fast CPU I want or can afford? Its obvious hows the one riding the high horse, your the one spreading lies and and assumes things and wants people to fallow your ideals. I personally dont care how people play the game but I do care when they tell me how I should play and then I dont mean frendly suggestions but people like you. When they right out attack my way I do have a right to defend my self if they are telling lies. And yea any one can slap together a flying brick in a day. until you get more then two jumbo tanks in LKO I cant see how its better, not saying its worse tough sens I see no reason to degrade some once work either I like them or not. So fare I have not had a reason to hull 2 jumbos in to orbit, tonnage have proven less important then cargo bay size when one actually builds bases and space stations for me at least. Those that knows why I make my spaceplanes the way I do is not to make them the best or most efficient, in a game that would look less then a real craft. I do it for the challenge not because its better. Design is one of my criteria to spice it up. But you didnt know that did you. You just assume you know me and what motivates me. I also use stock parts because I like pushing the limits of the game. If people want to call that abuse, well fine with them, but a game is just a set of rules and you cant break them with out changing the code so if something dont work as the devs want its because the code didnt work as intended. So yea if you want to build something that lifts more or takes more to other planets then me, fine why wold be offended by that? I have talked to other people that do exactly what I do and we get along just fine. But I would not take esthetic's ideas from your hullers sens a flying box is not that hard to make and get working and it docent look pleasing to me. But sure probably more efficient no denying that. Any way we need to find some way to agree to disagree. Its quite obvious we wont get along so if you want to add something do that then we should drop this sens it wont go any where and the mods will just get upset. So I'm out of this discussion, I have defended my self and thats all I can do.

I landed my STOL ssto spaceplane on duna to day on the old dry lakes. I use chutes to slow down and 4 aerospike engines to slow decentrate. Ssto was 184 tons at take off and I landed on duna at 38m/s. Gona do a video oncenthe craft works well enough but I got back to kerbin to.

I have shut engines of many times and none of my crafts come close to infinite gliding. They drop speed very fast fully loaded and starts to descend rapidly. Most of them just have enough trust to get the job done no more no less to keep part count and efficiency up in space. Most of my crafts this days uses very few surfaces for there tonnage because I realized if its well balanced and there placed properly one wont need that many and it reduces wobble a lot. I can spend 3-4 days just tuning control surfaces then one wont need that many. Even with the old ASAS my 230 ton jumbo with a max payload hardly used 10% authority on the control surfaces according to the indicators but the animations shows the fluttering like mad. So it didn't take long to figure out that they did not imitate what was realy happening. My latest uses 4 big control surfaces for ailerons and thats for 184ton take of weight. An I usually add my pitch surfaces fare back and fare front to get the most out of them, that way I dont need that many. But it do require a mix of maybe 10 small and big once to get a 150-230 ton SSTO to rotate on the runway at take off but still thats not much in comparison to what a small plane has in authority control in comparison. If you have to few you simply cant control a big craft and you often lose it when doing a 180 or something. I put all my SSTO spaceplanes trough manual and asas assisted acrobatics. Even loops some times but mostly 180 at a 45-90 degree bank. Its a good way to know it can be controlled with relative safety during reentry and landing. Last thing you want is to lose it and spin out. And I have never built nor tested infinite glide crafts. I didn't even know about it until a few weeks ago sens its realy nothing I would consider. EDIT: 320 control surfaces sounds little but I believe you. I haven't tried it but I figured that it would take a lot more from the few youtube vids I have seen. Still thats at least 10 times more then I have for the same tonnage and my control surfaces hardly moves most of the time sens I try to trim my crafts for a perfect CG at all times. I usually ignore people complaining about control surface flutter sense the actual force applied is what matters and its visible in the left bottom corner.

What is your problem now? First you accuse me of being the best example of infinite glide whit an SSTO off 110 tons and around 15-20 control surfaces witch is about a 1/10 what a 2 ton infinite glider would need to work. Then you build your own 200+ tons SSTO's and for some reason haven't noticed that they CANT infinite glide. Force the control surfaces apply is just to little. And any one playing KSP for a long time would know that pitch, yaw and roll in the left bottom corner do not correspond with the animation of the surfaces and one would also know that the old asas tends to overcompensate all the time causing wobble. And if we are going to compare tonnage my record is around 242 tons before girders where reduced in weight. I think my Jumbo had a peak tonnage for 230+ at some point. Any way thats not important. Most important thing is what it can do. But if you want my respect for your ssto's dont call me a lier by telling others what my crafts are with out actually knowing. I dont go around calling people here liers. My craft are free for download so I dont realy need to prove anything. If some one doubts my craft they can find out for them selfs. That easy.

This is nice. Upload the save please when your done.

Yea I have similar problems. Im experimenting with STOL crafts for duna. No real luck yet tough.

Yea seems likely. I think it was a stop gap measure the old system. I do think intakes should check for interference. But thats just one problem and I think it has to do more with the current aerodynamics sysgem then the resource system and they are going to redo that some day but Im pretty sure its a ton more work then the changes I suggested. Actually no part takes interference in to account. Good and bad. With few parts making a thick wing whit more lift this is good but in ghe future whit better parts and a new aerodynamic system that migth change.

Or you just redesign the howl dam intake system? Why are people here having such a problem understanding that KSP intake system is broken from the go and creating a new one should not be that hard sense all the variables are there in the game to make a realistic model any way. making them heavier wont fix the stupid bucket system any way. Why try to hide a broken system whit heavy parts? Why not make a proper system, a proper system would require heavier part as a result any way. I have done many posts on precoolers and new intakes and how they should work. And it should satisfy most I think sens it will reduce part count and increase flexibility. Only thing you would have to do to stop intake spaming would be to state something like "IF Intakes/Engines => 2 Then intake is 2 per engine. That whay you can never have more then two units per engine of air. Then you would add in altitude as a factor to to the units of air so eventually the unit of air would be less then whats needed to sustain combustion and it would flame out. Speed would governed temperature and thereby overheating. A precooler would increase the temperature tolerance as another variable to the formula. The current bucket intake system was probably a result of how the resource system worked back then and was the fastest way to add it as a stop gap messure. Im sure SQUADE will eventualy replace it with a proper one. But untill then I can live with the way it is. But a simple set of rules for jets should not be that hard for the devs to add. Altitude, speed for air temprature etc. I personally am a bit tiered of all the bad ideas to patch rather then fix a system that is broken especially when people that advocates this "fixes" are the once claiming to play realistically. They also ignores all the obvious things like the fact that they still fly faster then real jets with out overheating the engine, but apparently having few intakes is the only realism that count. And then they have not even taken in to account that Kerbin is like 1/10 the size and has a density many times the earth so even then any SSTO is to efficient in KSP. So thats for your realism. But all you complainers, build you own, see how easy/hard it is before you wine. Having an opinion is fine but all this "play KSP like I do wine" is annoying. Its a dam sandbox game.

Theres no infinitglide there. Stop your dam LIES. Dont know anything apparently. It would take thousands of control surfaces to infinitglide 210+ tons to LKO. Jesus Christ can people actually build there own stuff and play the game and stop thinking they know what there talking about? Im realy tired off all the people that havent even done it and think they know what there talking about. Check out an infinite glide craft and you see the numbers of surfaces required just to get a few tons up. Only thing my crafts do is wobble a bit due to the old ASAS and the controll surfaces have always moved all teh way but people can understand that animations in a game and forces applied in a game dont reflect reality. It realy anoyes me how people playing KSP and claims to know dont understand that a program is intended to give the illusion of reality. But it docent do that just an approximation. I have relatively few control surfaces, a lot less then most spacepleanse per ton just to keep wobble down. Its hard enough to turn 200 tons as it is, infinitglide is so fare away it would need a 1000x times more control surfaces to even have a change in hell to infinitglide. So no theres noi Physics engine abuse, its scaled up version based on the same parts as any other craft, just bigger just like a A380 is bigger then a Cessna. But if you think its so easy why dont you put together a craft with 800 stock wing parts as you say with out it collapsing on the runway with a tonnage off 200-240 that can go to laythe and duna and back nonstop and take 45 ton to duna and 11 tin to laythe minimum on stock parts why dont you do it to prove how much you know? Lets see how you do sens its so EASY, so easy every one is doing it..... All my crafts exists for download so theres no need to even speculate then people can try them them selfs and theres video of them in 1080p so every one can see what I see. Ever sense I put that on youtube in has not stopped to supprize me how little people actually pick up, I get asked stuff all the time that is clearly showed in the videos. But there are people that are aware and point this out so I dont need to moderate to much. But its annoying as hell when you have to state the obvious. Annoys me even more that people feel that they are entitled to answers and help when I do it for free. I dont make a dime on this. Everything is put under Creative Commons and no advertising.

G4Virus is me all right. And for those that have fallowed my post also know my opinion on the current intake system. Problem with it atm is the bucket system, its quite easy to get a handle off, many intakes or not. But a bucket system is basically a buffer and you dont have that IRL. So more intakes means bigger bucket. Second problem is that intakes supply a specified amount off air etch that the engine can use so another buffer. More intakes means more intake air. Just dont work IRL. Using many intakes is not a bug nor exploiting the game. That was how the GAME was designed. Simple formula is that Number off intakes Equals amount of available air at a given altitude. So more intakes means more air and thats how the game works. The game dont work like reality so stacking is with in the rules of the actual games, your opinions dont mater taking the current system in to account unless is changed, changing how you build after personal preferences wont change the rules for others sens the rules are what they are in the game. making intakes heavier wont change the rules off how intakes works just how many you can carry realistically. It would still allow for intake abuse. All the parameters needed in the game for a proper intake system already exists. A proper intake should be altitude limited and to some extent maybe limited to speed but real intakes can adjust the amount of air taken in so they are already designed with the target speed in mind. Just have a look at SR-71 blackbird or any other Mach 2-3 or above craft like the mach 5.5 skylon. Intake air is regulated to make sure it stays subsonic because that waht the compressor needs to be feed with in a jet engine. Basically what you need is a formula that specifies the amount of intakes needed to saturate en engine, for example two big intakes should saturate the intake air an engine needs anything else would not add any effect. So basically you need a formula that sees that if Intakes divided by number of engines is greater then two then intake is 2 per engine no more. Simple enough for a programmer to write, even I could do write something like that in Qbasic as a kid. Now KSP is a bit more complex but its not rocket science for a skilled programer and all the variable exist in the game, altitude, speed etc. Secondly a jet engine is limited by temperature from the intake air, faster you go the hotter it gets from friction. So for all you how dont like stacking but fly at anything over 1100m/s, there is no engine to day that can do that so why not stop wining about it and fly at mach 3.2 at the most hey? If you dont like stacking mach 3 should be your limit to. Simple fact is that an engine would overheat and be destroyed eventually. The compressor will heat the air up a lot in a jet engine, then the combustion chamber heats it up to to so the air hitting the turbines after the combustor is many hundred C hot maybe over a 1000C. Modern jets runs at the brink of melting more or less but to avoid melting they use cold intake air to cool the sensitive parts like turbine blades that have holes in them for cooling. If you run at say Mac 5.5 like the skylon the intake air is a 1000C, enough to melt aluminum and well wont leave much for cooling hot turbine blades made of titanium or cool any oil or bearings. Thats why the skylon will have a Precooler that basically uses the fuel, Liquid hydrogen at very low temperatures to bring the 1000C hot air down to room temperature before entering the jet engine. A jet engine uses about 3/4 of the intake air for cooling, only 1/4 is used for burning fuel and generate trust to power the turbine and compressor. Sure the added 3/4 increases efficiency but with out it the engine would simply overheat. So for all you non stackers and intake abusers, run mach 3 at the most thats my advice. If you dont like that why not play with the rules of the game as they are atm. Later in the game development Im sure squad will have altitude limited intakes, saturation taken in to account so no more then two intakes per jet will give it any better altitude performance and we will hopefully have precooler parts in the 1-2 ton range offering those that wants mach 5-6 instead of 2-3 to go there. But right now intakes work they way they work and thats it. And dont think its a walk in the park adding 120-200 intakes either.And it do not make a bad plane good. Makes a good plane better but it takes some doing still and there is no constant gain, double amounts of intakes wont get you twice the altitude or speed, gains drop off pretty quickly. The current implementations off spaceplanes in the game is well fare behind rocket part so I would say that its better to let people play the way they want now untill its finished because as it is now spaceplanes have a 1/10 realism factor. Just so fare of reality atm that stacking or not wont change there realism that much. More a mater of taste. Biggest problem I have with the current system is the fact that stacking if you want performance rater then having a precooler part that exist but dont work in the game is the fact that 200-400 parts that it costs to add 100-200 intakes makes the game require some of the fastest hardware out there to be able to play it. If you dont like stacking maybe you should let squad know you want a more realistic intake system? I have advocated one for a long time but it seems mostly to go by def ears.

I did it all the time. 95% off my missions are spaceplanes to duna. I built a howle base one duna using nothing but spaceplanes. Now I dont know why I should even play ksp any more. When I saw the devs preview of the new terrain and that it was at least going to be limited to the mun I didnt see a problem. But they dident limit it to the mun. Why ruin good landing sites on one of the few planets whit atmosphere fit for spaceplanes etc? Also the low altitude the old lakes offered was needed to land spaceplanes at low speeds sense the athmosphere was ticker.

Precisely. I personally dont get the idea that looks is so important early on. I want optimization and functionality, two things KSP realy lacks. But instead time is spent on what should be finishing up touches as fare as I am concerned. Duna is for example almost impossible to land spaceplanes on now because looks is more important then game play, not thought was apparently put in to that. I hate that focus. As fare as I am concerned they might as well remove procedural terrain altogether until the game is in the final stage then add it and make sure not to mess the terrain up in ways that impedes game play. Makes little sens to add "candy" to a game that already runs slow enough for most users and hammper the game play as a result. Just narrows the player base and potential consumers instead.

For all you people that like spaceplanes you might want to support a terrain change of the once flat lakes on Duna. Its now useless going there with anything bigger then a Cessna. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/42888-No-dry-lakes-on-Duna-for-spaceplanes?p=549141#post549141

Well when I started playing KSP and bought 0.18 I landed on Duna one week after I built my first spaceplane that could get there. I pretty quickly figured out that efficient landing is horizontal and the only way to realy do it was on the dry lakes. Was hard enough back then to hit those dry lakes while learning to fly. Now in 0.21 they have been removed due to the new procedural terrain system. Well even with that system in mind it should be possible to get the ground less bumpy on the former lakes? Its dam impossible to land a spaceplane there now if its not VTOL or small as well a Cessna. I was told I could parachute the craft down. Yea, low density air as it is and a 500 parachutes later. Plus the fact that they cut the second you touch the ground so they are no good as drought chutes for breaking either and there have been many threads about the parachutes to so I know a lot of people would like a fix for that to but it seems ignored to sense well spaceplanes are a minority so its not that important sens a lot of people dont even understand the problem. First they removed the possibility to have the chutes open for spaceplanes on the ground to stop easier and other contraptions now we cant land on what once where reasonably flat lakes probably, not to say they where perfectly flat, you could still find bumps that could smash a craft easily, but still you had a good chance of landing with some practice. It seems to me that spaceplanes takes an ever bigger back seats to rocket, well rockets are fun but so are spaceplanes but when did spaceplanes get a new part? We are still stuck with a few basic wing parts and not even a big square wing can be given to reduce part count? No this is frustrating.

Got a new Super Jumbo in the works. Replacement for the Jumbo. Im aiming for lower landing speeds and more rugged wing and undercarriage for the new Duna terrain. See if its even possible to land horizontally now with all the bumps every-ware. Uses the same concept as the Falcon XII Skymaster Transport but a wide body design like the Jumbo for the fuel and nukes plus two nacelles for jets. Just waiting for 0.21.1 to dowload then I will take it for the first test with a jumbo tank as a payload. I give it 50/50 that the craft works properly. It flies but how knows if its capable enough.