Gargamel

I edited the rules around when I posted my response, so it wasn't spelled out clear enough. But your post helped me write the clarification :D. Well, my first inclination would be a smack on the side of the head. Then I realized the genius of this. I'll add this as a scoring modifier, a penalty.

But they are for completely different purposes. That's like saying 10000 oranges is the same weight as a crocodile. I really don't have a use for one of those. If you remove the legs, you won't need the extra chutes.....

Just a passing thought I had. A lot of modders have Patreon or other ways for players to support them. Since, in essence, the players have "paid" the modders as a thank you, I wonder how the modding community would react to a Patreon asking about or encouraging a mod update?

Gorgeous, but probably should be more stockish... But you have to wait until Danny or some of those wacko Youtubers plays a full sized soccer game in space.....

So now that 1.4.3 has dropped, I have noticed a strong lack of bugs and various problems. Is it safe to say 1.4.3 is the stable release for 1.4? Is it safe to update yet?

If you have enough parachutes to land on kerbin with lander legs, then you usually don't need them. Even if you are going a touch fast, you can ditch the heatshield either through the right click pop up, or through an action group (I tend use the pop up, because accidentally ditching the HS at the wrong time is baaad), which will reduce your mass and therefore descent speed. And if you don't ditch it, if you are going just a touch too fast, it will take the brunt of the impact before the rest of the craft does. Consider it a frangible lithobraking device. The point of landing legs is two fold. First they protect the rest of the craft from becoming frangible lithobraking devices, and two, they keep the ship upright. This design is (assumedly) intended to be recovered on Kerbin, and not launch again, so you don't need ALL the parts of the craft (it'd be nice, but if something minor breaks, oh well) and you don't need to stay upright. Losing the second set of gear will reduce the mass of the vessel, giving you more dV and a slower descent under the chutes. And speaking of mass..... If this lander is only going to the Mun, lose that huge comm dish. That thing is wicked heavy and way overpowered for this mission. One of the itty bitty atennas will do just fine for Munar missions. And one more suggestion. Place your RCS and the solar panels slightly offset to each other. RCS thrusters can hit other parts of the ship and reduce the effectiveness of the thrusters. So if the panels are just to the side of the RCS, and not directly in their thrust direction, the thrusters will be more effective.

Instead of linking to a download, which a lot of people are wary of going to blindly from a newer member, could you upload it to something like imgur? I'd love to see the design.

First reaction is that it's a staging error. But looking at it closer, I have to ask how much fuel is left in those center tanks? A fuel flow mess up would drain the center tanks, while fueling the outer, first stage, tanks. Looking at the MJ readout, (which isn't always accurate, but for asparagus staging I find it pretty reliable), the next couple stages have 0 dV in them, indicating there is no fuel left. Same with KER, which is only showing 2 powered stages. I'm an old school player who never learned how to do fuel flow priority (just never bothered), so I'd say check your fuel lines. Make sure they are pointed in the right direction. If you're using fuel priority, make sure you got that set correctly. If you didn't mess with that, make sure crossfeed on those radial decouplers is turned off. I'm not sure if you meant for this to be an asparagus staged rocket or not.

I've considered adding a multiplier for polar orbits, but we'll see how the entries pan out. If there's interest, I'll add one. One scoring method I've considered is instead of straight up meters from target, adding a modifier for moon size, relative to minmus. So it would be Distance x (Minmus diameter / Body Diameter), where body is the body you actually launched from. Larger bodies requiring more dV would get a bonus multiplier, and smaller bodies a penalty multiplier. Added @DoctorDavinci to the score board.

So far It looks very promising. I'm just having issues finding the correct launch location, and then when I do, the Hyperedit orbit glitch kicks in and screws up the whole process. Usually, reloading a quicksave to switching to the KSC and back fixes it, but then I'm getting the dreaded "bouncing on load" bug, which is forcing me to use HE to gently land the launcher again, rinse and repeat. Going to have to install the mod to fix that. My theory: Find a cliff overlooking a large low lying area on each side to the east and west. Launch so my periapsis is to the east of the launch location, so when the body's rotation brings the launcher to the east some, the arrow will come down in that spot.

If it wasn't for that dang mountain.... 5.9k it is! I'm going to redo my attempt here, and then redo the first post. As long as it's a single burn, initiated at launch, with no flight control added, then it's valid. So you can aim, enable SAS to keep it stable, and then fire. Changing the angle of the burn during the flight is not allowed. This needs to mimic an arrow as closely as possible, not a guided missile.

Are you referring to the ingame engineer report tab in the VAB? That''s not always the most trustworthy. It's good to use that to check for errors, but if it works after checking on it, then it's an erroneous error report. It's not a bug per se, but just that it can't handle every combination of parts, so it let's you know it's confused. If it works, don't fix it.

To get there, yes. But to land, tall thin vessels can be a pain to keep upright. So you need a short fat lander, on top of a tall thin rocket. Which isn't that hard to build. If your lander has enough Dv to land, orbit, and return, then you just add a transfer/ initial descent stage below that. Now your vessel is starting to get tall and thin, and then the launcher to get all of that to orbit ends up being tall and thin. I mean, it's not rocket science or anything.....

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/173371-how-to-get-old-versions-of-mods/

Also, turn off steering on the rear wheels, so it drives more like a car, rather than a break dancing robot.

How....Why...How is the mass going up?!? lol.

Just like in real life. You need airspeed to open a chute. Parachutes don't just magically spring open when you pull the cord, they require some air speed to pull the chute from the pack, and then to fill the chute with air.

I watched this for way too long waiting for it to do something else. Took me about the length of the music to figure out how you did it. Perfection in the editing. Kudos.

Most kraken drives are ugly and ungainly (your first pic included, although it is nicely symmetrical), but this plane is a thing of simplicity and beauty.

Backup. Same reason we have two legs. A spare in case the first breaks off.

I don't think this is an issue, but a feature. I like to send Commnet clouds to a planet in one vessel. I stack the the satellites, and decouple them as needed before their circulization burns. These little decouplers would be perfect for this, but if there is an ejection force, it will mess up the orbit of either the satellite or mother ship, or both. Maybe having a toggle for this....

The BBC article that I read at lunch said that at the altitude that the rover is landing at, is the equivalent of 100,000 ft on Earth. With current helicopters only able to function at a fraction at this altitude, the mars copter will be a huge leap ahead in rotary aviation.

Ignore that suggestion. Or don't. But after playing with it some more, the tag system as is seems to do fine for what I want. Just a little leg work (on the users end) is required to implement it into an existing save with dozens of ships.

I'm assuming KOR means "Kerbin Orbital Rendezvous". If not, ignore the rest of this post. Well, you need to specify two orbital altitudes. One for the target, and one for the active ship. For MOR, I like to keep my target at 50k, and launch to 30k. I don't have a lot of need for 'complicated' orbital planning in munar orbit, I usually am just docking with a station or mothership, and that's the pattern I've fallen into. For KOR, it really depends on the target. I have stations at 100k, 150k, and 375k in the current save, and while I usually directly launch to them, or at least close enough I can do a rendezvous, I know I can do a Hohmann transfer from a range of altitudes, based on the vessels needs. There are others here who are much better at orbital mechanics than I, and they should be along shortly to correct me, but IMO, there really isn't a generic optimum altitude for OR. It all depends on what your mission requirements are. If you have a target at 90k, then launching to 75k and trying to catch up may take a long time, where launching to 200k and letting the target catch up maybe better. The greater the difference in altitudes, the less time it takes for one vessel to "lap" the other, giving you more transfer opportunities. But the greater the difference, the higher the relative velocities will be when you do get that rendezvous, and that may take more skill/time/fuel/etc than you are willing to. So for any target of a given altitude, you can say I want to get a transfer and rendezvous within X orbits or Y hours, and from that you could figure out the optimum altitude for your vessel. But, that will vary from target to target, so..... it depends.

Or, when all else fails, wait till the end of the runway.