capi3101

Since I read that it was going to be in KSP v 0.90.0, I went ahead and installed Fine Print. I figured I should get used to it now instead of later when it's part of the stock game. Built a replica of Cirocco's Sparrow spaceplane. Tweaked it a bit to include a probe core, a couple of side-mounted RTGs and replaced the engine with a single RAPIER, using fuel ducts to draw out of the Nacelles. Added half-a-dozen Reaction Wheels for good measure. The craft still flies beautifully even if it does have a high take-off speed. Glides pretty nice too; it's been one of the few planes I've flown where I was able to control my final descent strictly through the use of the throttle. Landed it on the runway just slightly off-center. The Mk2 parts are above my current tech levels; otherwise I might start using it for the same purpose (as a rescue craft).

I'd suggest setting up a rudimentary ILS for the runway before you fly anything. Take a Kerbal, stick him in a rover and drive him to the ocean end of the runway. Get just off the raised bit (the ramp up to the runway itself) and plant a flag. Go to the other end of the runway; repeat. Go west one kilometer; repeat. If you've done it right you now have three markers in a relatively straight line right along the axis of the runway. If the flags don't work out for you, try a rover with drop probes, and reclass the probes as Bases when you release them; I've done that before and you can see them when you're flying over KSC in orbit. If you want to, you can add additional markers at five kilometer intervals further inland. Like this: The markers do two things for you. First, they help you get lined up over the runway. Second, if you set your markers to tell you how far out they are from the runway, you can use them to help determine your glide slope. The altimeter reading you want is the distance to the marker plus the distance indicated by the marker times 100. For example - In this image I'm 8.6 kilometers away from the five kilometer marker. Using the formula above, my altimeter reading should be (8.6 + 5.0)*100=1,360 meters. I'm at 1,460 in that screenie, so I'm about a hundred meters too high. (Actually, you don't want your altimeter to get all the way to zero - the elevation of the runway is around 70 meters above sea level - so in truth I'm close to being right along the correct glide slope in this picture). In any case, you want your vertical speed to be low when you finally make contact with the ground - I'd say no faster than 5 m/s downward or so. Kill your engines just above the ground and flare your nose up to no more than about 5 degrees above the horizon. Hit the brakes as soon as you make contact with the ground. Curiously enough, I was travelling about 70 m/s when I landed this thing...just the way it worked out that time.

So, yesterday I fired up the game and LOD never did load up any textures. It acted like it was working - it had the "Loading Textures" text and later "Preparing Textures" text underneath of it, but it never did load up any texture. Built a plane, flew it into orbit and crash-landed it, and it was shades of pink and purple the entire time. Anything I should check on my end? Has anybody else had this crop up?

Edit your original post, go into advanced mode and you should be able to change the thread status from there. EDIT: Ninja'd.

And if I read it right they're about 80% as effective as Ram Intakes - so if I have a design that utilizes three Ram Intakes per engine, I could use 4 Circular Intakes instead, is that about right?

Okay...suggestions then - put a pair of control surfaces (I'd suggest Small Control Surfaces but use elevons if you're going for aesthetics) as far outboard on the wings as you can; you've got very little roll authority as it is and need some ailerons. You can make them function as proper elevons (pitch and roll axes) if you so choose, but you need more roll authority. Lose the delta-deluxe winglets; for the mass they don't provide much in terms of steering authority whatsoever. You'd be better off with Advanced Canards, Standard Canards or even AV-8s there - but I'd use them for pitch authority, not roll. A few (3-4) Reaction Wheels wouldn't hurt either; assuming a Mk-2 fuselage design, you could easily cram that many into a small cargo bay, shut the doors and be set. And if you're using Rockomax-sized parts in your fuselage, a single Large ASAS Module will do the trick instead. Finally, I'd replace those vertical stabilizers with something that could give you some yaw authority. AV-8s work well in that role; you shouldn't need a lot of yaw capability with a plane that light, but a little won't hurt.

Has anybody figured out a decent use for Circular Intakes yet? Just curious... This is the kind of information I was looking for. Thanks. Kinda disappointed though...it sounds like if I was using eight swept wings in my 0.24.2 designs, I get to look forward to using eight swept wings in 0.25. There's no improvement at all? Do what now?

Didn't have a lot of time to play last night; built a Mk-2 spaceplane, flew it to orbit after working out a few issues with the landing gear, tried to land on the runway and folded on the approach. Unfortunately, there were Kerbals aboard. Good thing I was in the sandbox at the time. Started designing a rescue rocket for my career game. Got the prototype into orbit before I realized I hadn't checked where the target was prior to launch. Reverted. At least I know the thing can make orbit but I wasn't thrilled about the outcome of the launch (had to use some of the payload's fuel for rendezvous operations to make orbit), so I'll be redesigning the booster today.

Steering issues with spaceplanes (well, planes in general) are usually due to a lack of a sufficient number of control surfaces. What kind of control surfaces are you employing (what parts and for which purposes)? You should also consider adding a few reaction wheels. Can't posts pics - that's fine. Can you give us a general description of your plane? How about its mass at take-off?

I have tried the Engine Nacelle and Radial Engine Body; as far as I can tell there's been no change with them from 0.24.2 to 0.25.

Just bumping the thread here. Well...okay, let's go with a different question then - is the Ram Air Intake still the best available intake to use or not, and if not, what would y'all recommend and why?

Ah - now that makes sense. Will have to do that when 0.26 rolls around, or if I decide I want to do 0.25 again with the difficulty cranked up.

Started my 0.25 stock game; decided I'd try Normal difficulty at first and do harder levels later. Learned that the advice of "rolling the command pod around KSC" to collect enough early science to get to Basic Rocketry is sound, but I must've been doing it wrong; could barely deal with the command pod's natural camber. Worked though. Set up my contracts to favor additional science at the cost of funds, accepted the first four contracts, shot Jeb into orbit with a quad of goo containers and came back down in the sea east of KSC. Earned enough science on that initial hop to unlock all the Tier 2 and 3 nodes, and chose Electrics for my first Tier 4 node. One flight and I've already got solar panels and the ability to construct science packs. Almost had enough to go ahead and pick up fuel ducts too, so I did some parts tests to get that out of the road. Did another hop to unlock RCS; I've got my first rescue contract in the chute so I figured that'd be important. I do have to concur with the observation that Jeb doesn't really like to hang on to the side of the ship in 0.25; I had a couple of times when I was out trying to get an EVA report where he just kinda slipped off - this with the pod getting ready to come back down... Tonight I'll do my rescue mission, and then I think it'll be about time to go to the Mun.

My reasons pretty much mirror Dragon01's; I've tried ATM before, and the quality of the textures it produces is crap. I use an ultra-low-end box to play KSP as it is (financial constraints prohibit me from considering upgrades and my box is getting to the point where it might simply be cheaper to just get a new one - if I could afford that). The LoadOnDemand mod lets me play a game where everything looks awesome and with a greatly lessened degree of lag as compared to stock. You know, like I actually have a box whose date of manufacture doesn't end in "B.C."

Tried to use NREP in 0.25 again yesterday. Despite KSP's warning to the contrary, the mod works just fine - and the test weight makes a pretty reliable object of destruction. I have noticed that destroying KSC buildings seems to be more of a function of mass than speed. Case in point: I managed to destroy the freakin' launchpad three times (didn't realize that was even possible) in my quest to destroy the VAB due to floppy rocket syndrome - I lit the rocket, let go the launch clamps, that one hundred tonne NREP weight I'd added would tap the launchpad barely going 20 m/s and the whole thing would collapse in a fiery mess. I finally did destroy the VAB - essentially I had to turn the design into a vertically-launched Tomahawk missile to do it. With that out of the way, I think I'm ready to finally begin my 0.25 career game.

Howdy, y'all. So a couple of weeks ago I stumbled across DocMoriarty's KSP Space Plane Construction and Operation Guide, and have since been using it to help me build spaceplanes with a nearly 100% success rate (the single failure I have had since I started using the guide was my own fault - I attached a canard without having symmetry on, with the expected fiery outcome). Of particular note in the guide is a set of tables that set practical guidelines for things like "maximum take-off weight number of engines", "kN SAS per tonne take-off weight" and so forth. Now, with 0.25 there's a bunch of new fandangled features, including a bunch of new spaceplane parts. What I'd like to know is how the new parts compare to the old ones. You know, something like "how many Ram Air Intakes equal one Shock Air Intake", or "how many Delta Wings can I replace on my old design with one of the new Swept Back wings", or "are any of the elevon parts actually any better than Small Control Surfaces", that sort of thing. Is there an already existing guide like this that I've simply missed in my searches? Does anybody have any experiences with these parts back when they were still part of the Spaceplane+ mod? Any help here would be appreciated. Mainly I'm just trying to see if I can simplify some older designs.

Awesome. Your first successful Mun landing is definitely one of the major benchmarks in playing the game. Congratulations on a successful mission.

Too late to join in the conversation? VTOL - vertical take off and landing. Basically a craft that takes off without rolling down the runway to do so. Usually the term is applied to a craft that would ordinarily roll down a runway to take off. Helicopters are the classic VTOL craft. Some airplanes, however, fall in the VTOL category; the A-10 Warthog for instance, takes off and lands vertically while in flight it handles like a normal airplane. You can build craft that function similarly to the A-10 in KSP by setting up some engines to face downward and some in a normal position. Designing a successfully functioning VTOL that doesn't immediately careen into the ground is challenging and flying them is fun. SSTO - single stage to orbit, i.e. any craft that leaves the launchpad or runway and arrives in orbit with the exact same number of parts. No staging events whatsoever. Generally when folks are talking about SSTOs around here, they mean spaceplane - something that rolls off the runway, flies up to about 25000 meters and gains orbital velocity while still in atmosphere. SSTO rockets are rarer but still possible; they're generally good for lighter payloads (a Kerbin-orbiting satellite consisting of a Stayputnik, thermometer, antenna and solar panels can easily be put into orbit with an FL-T400 and a 48-7S; that's a fully functional SSTO rocket) but folks have gotten some fairly substantial payloads into orbit with them. The part count is much lower than, say, an asparagus-design as a rule and the designs are simpler, but you have to be willing to fiddle with the throttle as you fly and the payload fraction is lousy as a rule. DocMoriarty has an awesome guide on how to build VTOLs and SSTO spaceplanes - he uses his spaceplanes to deliver substantial payloads to orbit.

Oh yeah, that's happened to me too... Prototype careens off to one side of the runway and explodes. Check. Prototype flies straight into the ocean. Check. Prototype flips up, does a loop, does another loop, tries another loop and then flies into the ground. Check. Prototype runs out of gas just short of achieving orbital velocity. Check. Prototype goes into a flat spin and Goose ejects into the canopy. Everybody's done that... .......I haven't had one burn down, fall over and then sink into the swamp. Yet.

I'ma going to point you to the first three posts of this tutorial on mission planning and ship design for Science!. It's a couple of versions old now but still a 100% valid way of doing things, and it's pretty damn effective. It's the way I generally go about doing things, anyways. Technicalfool's given you sound advice for starting from scratch - things that will get you that first few bits of science you need to get the bigger crap. Beeline for Science Juniors at Science Tech (go for Survivability after Basic Rocketry - 65 science points total) and you should be in a spot where you can start building the sci packs Geschosskopf describes. A good "next step" is General Rocketry and the LV-T45 engine (which makes steering the boosters a hell of a lot easier). To get LKO - you have to actually be in orbit, with the periapsis above 70,000 meters; anything less than that and you're "flying" - which is still another place you can do science although the rewards aren't as great as orbit. The wiki says 250,000 for HKO; my experience suggests that it's more in the vicinity of 400,000 meters. I could be wrong about that, though...start with the 250,000 and see what that gets you.

Hey Pecan, is that screenie in 0.25? My local instance of NREP is telling me it's incompatible; that's why I ask. Love me a good SSTO rocket - they're easier to design overall and not all that terribly difficult to fly; big trick with them is that you can't keep your throttles to the stops the whole way up (not if you want to make it up, that is). Don't get me wrong; SSTO Spaceplanes are pretty awesome, more so if you can get them to work the first time...

Er......0.25 came out on Tuesday. I was in 0.25 at the time of attempted ramming. Didn't clarify that. The game crashed as soon as I attempted to revert the flight, so I went back to 0.24.2 for the rest of my shenanigans.

Rammed the VAB with a plane at 200 m/s; the VAB won. The buildings are pretty resilient... I also went back to 0.24.2 barring updates to some of the mods I prefer to use - notably LoadOnDemand, without which 0.25 has been interminably slow and prone to crashing on my box. I built my first successful VTOL aerocraft, landed it on the VAB helipads, then took off and landed it on the runway. Overall a successful test of the design. I still wonder how I can use VTOLs for a practical purpose, though...perhaps if I were to replace the vertical Basic Jet Engines with something else (RAPIERs, perhaps), I could make a design capable of landing on Mun or Minmus. That'd be something I'd never tried before, an interesting personal challenge...

Been there myself - I can/have rocketed to Jool and back but still have issues with spaceplanes. I'd start with Keptin's illustrated guide which el_coyoto was kind enough to provide to you already. I'd then suggest taking a look at DocMoriarty's KSP Space Plane Construction and Operation guide - it focuses on transport planes and VTOL craft primarily, and it was designed for 0.24.2 (so the new 0.25 spaceplane parts are not in it just yet), but it still gives you some hard numbers to shoot for for more basic designs. Start small with spaceplanes - learn how to design them, how to fly them properly, and how to land them. I'd also suggest starting in the sandbox... DocMoriarty's engine configuration is much like the one Clockwork_werewolf described. Only variation - he adds a tri-coupler to the front of the engine nacelle, and sticks three Ram intakes on the front. He also sometimes puts all of the fuel in one or two main rocket fuel tanks and runs fuel ducts to the nacelles; as he points out, the lower part count reduces lag. The nacelle still allows for radial placement of the assembly, which is nice. With 0.25, I'ma wondering about that Shock Cone Intake - if you need two (use a bi-coupler) or if you could get away with just one per engine (.4 increasing to .8 intake air over a 0.012 intake area, as opposed to a steady 0.2 intake air over a 0.01 intake area for Ram Intakes - with the disadvantage of the Shock Intake being a nearly three-fold increase in mass, which, if you need three Ram Intakes to do the job of one Shock Intake, is no disadvantage at all).