Bothersome

Thanks, just added it. I forgot about people are able to infini-glide to space. They could have taken a small amount to space like that for the perfect score.

That's an interesting graph but there is another component missing. Gravity. What we need to know is how high a plane will fly on Duna, if it will only fly X high on Kerbin. For example, if my plane will only fly to 15000 on Kerbin, how high will the same plan fly on Duna? Gravity is less so there is less pulling it down. And yeah, I'm asking cause I have NO idea how to figure that out.

OK here is a new challenge that all can participate in. Story background: Kerbin is in a bit of a financial bind and cannot afford to send a large quantity of fuel into space. There is also a new problem with the part supply system. There are no turbine blades to make jet engines and no extra pumps for fuel hoses. Mission: Put as much fuel into space as you can but using as little fuel as possible. Must have docking port and active SAS to keep it aligned for ships to dock. Scoring: Score is determined based on percentage of what you put in orbit (70km x 70km or better). To calculate percentage divide the amount you took to space by the total amount of fuel you started with and multiply by 100. Solid fuel counts as liquid fuel. Oxidizer is not counted at all. To qualify you must post before and after pictures with resources shown in top right corner. Stock craft parts only and no jet engines or fuel lines. Autopilot mods are allowed as long as the craft performance is not affected. Any size rocket or craft is acceptable, solid fuels, Ions, RCS are OK to use if you like but not required. And of course, no cheating with debug consoles or other hacking also no infiniglide. Here is mine and to serve as an example: 2883 / (16560 + 3464) X 100 = 14.4% 2883 is the liquid fuel that made it to space and is the only fuel counted, RCS, Xenon gas, Solid fuel is not counted. 16560 is how much liquid fuel that I started with 3464 is the solid fuel started with Reduced Oxidizer Class 1st place: Hejnfelt - 40.87% 2nd place: Radam - 34.72% 3rd place: Bystander - 27.5% 4th place: Bothersome - 26.4% 5th place: SirJodelstein - 26.1% Normal Class 1st place: Radam - 23.17% 2nd place: Jasonbail - 22.5% 3rd place: Slugy - 19.0% 4th place: eppiox - 15.9% 5th place: Bothersome - 14.4% Good luck to all our contestants.

Thanks, they are all gliders. Getting them to orbit was a simple matter of strapping on some rockets in just the right alignments to keep the wings from flipping it on the way up. If you want to see one I'll set one on the runway so you can have peek. OK I loaded up Glider F into the SPH because it was dark outside, figured you could see more inside with more lighting. It was hard to find a camera angle that showed the important parts. Basically all the planes were launched with similar methods.

You didn't specify if we couldn't use wings on our rovers, so... here is my answer to the challenge. Base camp set up... Discussing best route and what equipment we should carry. We'll head out first light. Climbing/Ascending shots. At the top. On the way back down, this was the easy part. Back at base camp to share our stories. Score (I guess this is how you do it): 5522 - 740 + 60 (kerbals) + 88 X 2 (part count no breakage and returned to base) = 5018 Both crafts are fully 100% stock.

Yeah, I've done this quite a while ago... Worked on several designs to fly around on Duna for exploration. All these planes were brought to Duna by normal methods. No cheats were done and all craft are 100% stock. More pictures where those came from but I figure that's enough for now.

Amloris, Magnificent work. The difficulties that you had to overcome to get this thing to orbit are amazing. A true testament to your engineering skills. You make the rest of us look like amateurs.

Just curios OP, are you willing to give out your credit card info to yet one more company? To trust yet one more company with that information and hope they never get hacked? If you already have Steam, then you won't have to give the info to another company, but if you don't already have Steam then it's a wash. I wonder if when a company allows their product to later be transferred to Steam, does Steam get a payment? It's kind of not fair to Steam to have to send out all that data and them not receive anything for their trouble.

What about going to the tracking station and back?

It seemed to bother you more than anyone else. It doesn't bother me as to how you play, but you came across like you needed to defend your play style for some reason. Playing with cheats (to accomplish something that could be done with regular methods) or an "easy mode" is a sign of weakness. You seem to be concerned about what other people think of you or your play style. If you know you weren't weak in that, then you wouldn't have even bothered to reply. Besides, I wasn't even asking you the question. But since you like the easy modes of play, just asking why do you not use the more easy modes like infinite fuel? Now you can answer the question or you can get snidey with it. But if I don't see any signs of intelligence in your post, I won't even bother replying back.

See, I only asked a simple question. It was Karmacoma that started the name calling. If you can't handle a simple question, you need to seek professional help. So through reason and logic you have to come up with a reason you want intake spamming for cheating the air but not wanting cheated fuel. I'm ok with your answer. You could have also said, "simply to make cooler looking crafts." or any answer really. I just wanted to know why you don't use infinite fuel? You provided a decent enough answer for me. I do not care one way or the the other. But I still am not impressed, I built my SSTO plane with only what the game provided as standard intakes. It makes it to space. It's a bit harder to do than just pointing it to the sky and let it build up speed till it damn near obtains orbit. But hey, space travel is not supposed to be easy, at least until impulse engines and warp drives are invented.

Are you that stupid that you cannot see it's a waste of time trying to impress people with cheaty crafts? I for one, am not impressed. Why? Because it doesn't play by the same rules that make things hard to do. There is no honor in that. If you like playing the easy way, I do not care... I was just trying to wake a few people up. So you guys think the game is too hard? Is that why you need an easy mode? You don't have the mental facilities to do it the way it was intended? Since you need an easy mode, WHY NOT USE INFINITE FUEL? It's real easy then.

Then why not just use infinite fuel? You willing to take one exploit but not the other? There is no glory in doing anything that is easy.

And 50 intakes aren't????

Why not use infinite fuel too? You are already doing the impossible, why not go all the way?

In a discussion about weights and other things on another thread, I've posted something simular, but I figure it'd be more appropriate here. KSP needs some re-balancing on part weights. Nose cones need looked at and part weights adjusted. But one of the things we need the most is weights added to things like Air Intakes. Why should they be so light? There is no penalty for adding a bunch of these to your craft. Shouldn't they weight about a quarter to a half ton per intake? That would fix all those crazy planes that defy attempting something like that in a real space program. And put some weights and transfer limits on fuel lines. It takes pumps and power to move fuel through a fuel line. So add a ton per fuel line. And make them transfer fuel only so fast. Like maybe the rate of a a Skipper engine. This way you would see some real problem solving in KSP. Crazy larger asparagus lifters wouldn't be happening because you couldn't pump the fuel fast enough. And if you did put enough fuel lines on the tanks to get the fuel to move fast enough, it would be too heavy. Yeah I know the community would bitch about it, that's because they've been spoiled on an easy kiddie mode space program. KSP could really use some common sense to make it better.

Yeah I've known about nose cone weight craziness for some time now... And those things need to be fixed along with some of the other parts... But what the game REALLY needs is weights added to some things like Air Intakes. Put a quarter to a half ton weight on those. After all, jet engines aren't supposed to be light as a feather. And the fuel lines, it's not just the fuel lines that make fuel go from one tank to another. It requires pumps and pumps require power. Put a ton of weight for every fuel line you add and then we can see more engenius designs that overcome problems that would simulate a real space program. As it is, everyone is just taking advantage of crazy physics. Making all these silly rocket designs that would never have even have half a chance of a snowball in hell of working. Just look at my SST-18 in my signature for proof of what would NEVER get off the ground in a real space program. You couldn't pump the fuel fast enough and by the time you've added enough pumps and power, you'd be too heavy. The fun of the game is overcoming hard problems. Taking advantage of crazy physics is only cheating us out of our own fun.

Thank you.

There is no clipping done there. It's just the way the tanks attach to the larger tank. There is nothing special about the way they were put on.

Did you look at any of the ships linked to in my signature?

Yeah, This one is my best one so far... Can drive around and explore and then simply take-off back to orbit again from Most planets and moons. I stopped making legged landers when I found that doing them with wheels is not much more difficult. It sure is nice to be able to go look around instead of just survey the immediate surroundings. My first rover had to re-dock to the landing craft to get back to orbit. It is much more convenient to have the rover itself have the ability to re-orbit such as the one depicted below. Hover Orbiter (HO2B)

Don't let the nay-say'ers discourage you. You can never have too much fuel in space.

So, how did you control the thrust on the jet engines so quickly? They take an awful long time to give and reduce power from throttle changes for jet powered vtol that I have experienced.

There is a place for asparagus staging (the Kerbal X) and then sometimes it would be more headache than it's worth (my SST-18 for example, see sig).

The real problem with "store bought" computers is all the bloatware the factory puts on it as default. You gotta do a clean install after you track down all the drivers you need. And don't put anything on it you don't absolutely need. Especially virus scanners. Microsoft has "Microsoft Security Essentials", it's free and it's the only other party besides yourself that wants your computer to operate efficiently. Everyone else has some financial incentive for something to go wrong or slow down over time so you will spend more money. Your Acer might also have a memory problem, or the timing is set to fast for it. To the OP, given modern hardware (meaning efficient use of electricity), to calculate large numbers of operations per second, you gotta pull some watts out of the electric socket. Use that as a basis of how much a computer can get done (not including things that don't calculate like printers, monitors, etc).