wolfedg

It may be just me but it seems this argument comes up in some form no matter what they do. If they focus on spaceplane parts then the rocket crowd gets upset, if they focus on rocket parts the space plane crowd get upset etc. I've been around here long enough to realize that they generally rotate the types of patches each time. One patch you might get new rocket parts, another focuses on aerodynamics, another focuses on spaceplane parts, another focuses on unfinished IVAs, another focuses on optimizations, ...ui, ...tech trees, ...space center buildings and grounds, planets, navigation ui, ...etc... Of course sometimes some of these are mixed into one patch, but there are only so many things they want to put into a single patch project. Nothing to worry about. Sooner or later they will get around to what you want upgraded.

Thanks It worked well, It would be nice if there was a link from the ksptv main page to the profile page, but it worked.

Where do i go to do that?

Cant wait The new Jet Engines are what I'm waiting on. P.S. Only two youtube videos?? Wish i could've watched the streams yesterday but twitch hates my internet.

In my opinion the issue with rovers is directly related to the low detail scenery. Without fine details like grass and surface features, it is very hard to get an accurate representation of speed to the player. Furthermore this also makes for a very boring locale in any one place that once you've landed you've really seen everything in the local area. This is why I think that after they get down with the unity upgrade they should focus more on surface details and giving us places to actually visit and stay a while.

You may also want to consider alternative rover delivery methods. Most of my rovers have used this type of landing. (This was my first rover MK_I and was admittedly unstable, but the delivery method lived on in my other rover designs since. MK-1 MK-2 (Notice the landing leg on the nose that was used to cushion the topple after landing) MK-3 (This was by far my most used rover in the early days even though it suffered from unavoidable symmetry issues that made it a little difficult to drive, nevertheless better than its predecessors) My experimental All-In-One moonbase with attached (and very unstable) rover. Another possible delivery method to atmospheric worlds (though I only employed it on kerbin) The strange looking vehicle to the far right was a refueling station that had been dropped in form orbit. Please forgive the age of these screenshots as lately I havent really done many rover missions. I am hoping and waiting for a complete rework of the rover driving system as it is very problematic making it too easy to get going too fast or topple your rover unintentionally.

That works fine if you are using mods, but it is (for me) extremely difficult to plot an interplanetary transfer from within kerbin's soi.

I never bother with launch windows, they are too much trouble. I just put my craft barely on the appropriate (inward/outward) Kerbin escape trajectory and then make my maneuver node for the transfer once I'm out of Kerbin's SOI. It usually means a bit of a wait for the transfer but it works.

I don't know if thats what the OP is referring to but I highly recommend the FASA Gemini pod. It even has an awesome IVA.

I think a lot of it is ever since 1.0 it seems like every other thread on general is a complaint about something. I've been here since 0.18 and have never seen so many critical threads.

Ah ok that sounds good. Now i'll have to check out how to tweak gimbal range. Thanks for the help SAS has come along ways from when I started and you had to set/unset it every time you wanted to change AoA. Note to MODERATOR: Since it is a known issue and a fix is in work you may tag this as resolved.

I launched a very basic orbiter (flt200, lv909, small rcs tank, rcs thrusters over the cm, 1x6 solar array x2,and a pod/parachute)yesterday and i noticed if i put SAS on their was extreme fighting b/w the engine gimbal(even with the engine off), rcs, and pod torque. Disabling 2 of the aforementioned did stabilize it but I would hope this is not an intended (feature).

Bump for final update - - - Updated - - - I updated what I could. I had to change the nose back because it was messing with the aerodynamics. The wing project was turning into a horribad clippy mess so i just stuck with what i had. If you want to work on it just pm me and I can E-mail the craft to you. That goes for anyone else that wants to work on it as well and you can share your changes in this thread.

You're not going crazy. I want to think it was mentioned in a squad cast but it could've been dev notes.

Awesome . Does it tend to spin out on you ever?

Good idea Also I have done some work to update the design using a bit of your advice. Let me know what you think. And thanks for the help.

Thanks It is somewhat a work in progress. I was struggling with the engines the spacing makes it look closer to an F-14 but not a big deal to me. Another problem is that the center fuselage on the F-15 is more oval shaped and the sides down from the intakes are flat (unless it has conformal fuel tanks like the E model). There really is only so much you can do with stock parts, but I personally like the way it turned out, and its flight performance is the best of any of my aircraft after the update to aero. Very easy to fly and land.

Did you read the last sentence of my post? The new mk-1 inline just looks silly. EDIT: Due to Dman979's awesome suggestion for the cockpit I made it work.

It had to be done. With the addition of the new intakes and the new air brakes that both look surprisingly familiar, the ability to make flaps, and the fact that it is my favorite aircraft that I have even been blessed to have worked on IRL, I made an F.. um i mean K-15. http://s1075.photobucket.com/albums/w424/wolfedg/2015-04-28_00006.jpg http://s1075.photobucket.com/albums/w424/wolfedg/2015-04-28_00007.jpg http://s1075.photobucket.com/albums/w424/wolfedg/2015-04-28_00010.jpg Its not a perfect replica and I had some debate over which mk-1 cockpit to use which ended up being the one I thought looked best, but it does fly and it flies well. EDIT: Design updated(Final Version) Download (Be sure to assign the flaps to your action group of choice and remove any axis from them.) EDIT 2: Update (See it in action!) Very special thanks to DevildogGamer and props +

Most of the people who like the changes are probably playing the game right now so theres a disproportion of people on who are complaining at the moment. This happens with most every game release nothing to see here really. Change can be hard, but it is often needed. A lot of the complaints I see are ones that are easily resolved by just revering back to your previous version of choice. I for one am enjoying the changes but do agree that they are going to make me relearn a lot of stuff. A lot of the changes that are causing me trouble are ones that make the game more realistic so thats a good thing in my opinion.

Z, T, R, [space], "Ooops!", [ESC], Revert Flight, (Fix staging) ], Start over

Not to say I don't greatly enjoy many of the changes since, but as far as I'm concerned they could have called the 0.18 release (when I first found out about the game) 1.0 and I would've been none the wiser. To me it has always felt just as polished as most other games out there and it has only been getting better.

There was a two. It was counting down to the 2nd body in the Kerbol system (including Kerbol)

Good work Alexin! and Upsilon.

Clue #1 The starting letters are definately important but be careful not to overthink it.