Gargamel

Without theory, there would be no experiment to test. Without data from the experiment, there would be no way to refine the theory. They go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.

But, this particular feature only caters to a small segment of the playerbase. They need to add features that help the gameplay for everybody, just not a select few. So while the hated "theres a mod for that" answer rears it's head, it's one of those that should stay a mod, for now.

Gap of 34!!! Noted for @Benjamin Kerman. Don't forget to call them out! 1381

IIRC, in these situations, I believe the folks at Squad have usually provided a customer support email, and they can handle it there. I don't know it off the top of my head, but a little searching here or on the main site might find it. @SQUAD is usually very good about resolving such issues, so be patient.

I usually turn of my main engines and go RCS only. If it took me 4 seconds of thrust to get up to a certain speed, I know it'll take me 4 seconds to slow down. If use the throttle, I have no idea how good my brakes are.

I guess, so, but barely. But I'd feel bad ignoring you, again, like I did when conract configurator said you were having a medical emergency on one of my space stations, and I told you to hold it for 3 weeks before the replacement crew arrived... so yeah... I guess... 1321 Oooooooooh big gap a'comin! So no @Kerbart, 12 won't be worth much in the near future.

At the very least you have a block of code you can steal from in the future.

That's kind of the point of a FYP. But apologies. I agree with this in principle, that certain modules are realistically tweakable... but..... the ones that would be able to do so, don't have enough movable mass parts to really make a difference. We could move some couches, or redesign the air scrubbers within the capsule, but that's a tiny percentage compared to the mass of the rest of the vehicle. In KSP, it really won't make that big of a difference, if the tool is kept realistic.

Thanks @Mad Rocket Scientist, but I think I have moved away from this style of scoring. But that said, somebody else might find it useful. But before we progress, I think a little feed back from somebody like @ManeTI would be appropriate at this time.

1279

Unless the mod authors specifically set out to make them so, you never do. We do have community based standards so usually mods will play nice together, but if you install two mods that do similar things, then you'll probably encounter issues. But that's one of the beauties of KSP, you can have multiple installs of the game, different versions if you like, or the same, and have different mod sets for each one, so each game is different. So if you want to try out group A of mods, you can, while also playing group B on another install.

Standard boiler plate answer: Did you check the SPECTRA thread? This might have been discussed before.

I thought those were mutually exclusive, but I guess not. Glad you solved it!

Ok, this is kind of an XY problem, sorta. To answer your question directly... You can add fuel tanks or batteries to the top of your rocket. That will shift the COM upwards. But that's not the real problem. The real problem is your are not asking the right question. Center of thrust really doesn't play that big of an issue with a launcher, unless you have some really funky designs (if so, pics please). The right question is, How do I get my COM above the center of drag? (paraphrased) So, you have two options. You can shift your center of drag downwards, or your COM upwards. To shift your CoD (which isn't displayed in the game), you need to add draggy bits (Fins) to the bottom of the rocket, or make the upper stages more streamlined. To shift your CoM, you need to add mass higher up on the craft. One method I use is to set my fuel flow priority so that the lower of the main tanks empty first, leaving the higher up ones still full. Another option is to add a fairing to your payload or upper stages. Not only will this help stream line your upper stage (if built correctly), but it also adds mass, so it works by shifting both your CoD and CoM. Others are going to come along now and add their very valid two cents, including some links to good threads on this topic, and how I'm technically wrong in using CoD.

Yes, this needed to be an option. Hence why I'm still in 1.3.1.

FYP. The point is, while a rover can be tweaked and such all you want at design time, it is ultimately up to the driver to to drive it safely. A rover with a COM that is at the level of the bottom of the tires, will still flip over if it is driven off a cliff. I usually do not have any issue with rovers, as I design them to be wide and low, and I drive them safely.

Let's assume the portals are static, and will not be affected by the object passing through them.

Given a vacuum chamber on earth, so no air resistance. You place a portal (from the game) on the ceiling, and one on the floor. An object is then dropped into the floor portal, and falls through the upper one back into the lower one. We've all done this in the game, falling for ever. Given that gravity will be imparting it's acceleration for an infinite length of time, would the object ever reach the speed of light? Could it surpass it since the energy is being 'supplied' by an outside source?

I believe it's the station contract pack for Contract Configurator that offers a Space Camp contract. Send up 15 or so tourists into orbit for 40 days, and upon return, 3 of them will join your program, once each discipline, but they will also have 5 extra XP given to them, so they can reach level 3 without ever leaving Kerbins SOI. Not exactly what you are looking for, but it makes for a cool little gameplay mechanic.

That too is my answer, as it will correctly dock for you 98% of the time. However, in that 2% that it doesn't, you will still have to take control and dock manually. This might occur because your RCS is not balanced properly (a common thing I encounter when using a tug and my payload module doesn't have RCS on it for part count reasons), or it's just a weird ungainly ship to start with. Have the mod Docking Port Alignment Indicator on standby just in case. With a little practice with DPAI, manual docking becomes routine, and you'll start using MJ again just because it's routine.

here ya go, missed this thread's OP.

Oh, I think I did try this years ago... my camera just ended up in the corner sobbing I think.... With some practice, I think this could be very useful, but unnecessary as the keyboard prevents the unwanted inputs that the space mouse would sometimes induce.

Won't help if you don't have LOS to Kerbin.

Really? I've never tried my space navigator (the one you pictured) with KSP... Took me long enough to get used to it in CADs, guess I'll to give myself vertigo in KSP now... Thanks for the tip sir.

I always start a new save when upgrading, because when I started playing this game, an update (which dropped every couple months it seemed) was guaranteed to break your save. That plus the chore of waiting for all my mods to update, some might never, so I can move the save over is a pain.