Basilo1146

I really don't know. As is, I'm considering learning to make plugins anyways, so I might try something weird with drag cube occlusion.

So, I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed this, but ladders have a ridiculous amount of drag. I've had them create as much drag as a Big-S Shuttle Wing on some occasions. Now, is there any nice way to make drag cubes check for other drag cubes existing in the same space, or would this be an absolute nightmare for anyone to code? I don't know a thing about modding on KSP, so I am posting this as a request, but if anyone knows some of the basics on how to do this, I'd be willing to try my hand at it.

I know this is a really late reply, but nice! I don't know if you get notified for quotes or not, so I'm @Stratzenblitz75 'ing you. I think I was the first one to come up with the idea of using a tug like that to finish orbital insertion, but I never got around to doing it, so it's quite amazing to see it actually done. Bravo.

Ignore, sorry.

I've been noticing some parts heating very oddly as well, namely the Mk-2 cockpit(the pointed one, not sure about the inline one) seems to inevitably explode on the way up, as does the Tail Section A and the wing Strakes. They all have the same heat tolerance as the other parts, but for some reason they end up heating much more rapidly, and often exploding.

That's what I was trying to say, but thanks for clarifying. I guess I tried to include that in "a full set," but yeah.

Well, I guess I was expecting a full set of large wings with fuel tanks, like we have with the smaller wings, but instead we have about 3(maybe 4, if you squeeze it) possible wing combinations. Where is the creativity? What am I even supposed to do with these? Most of the things I was going to be using them for I can't because they really aren't meant to be put together by the looks of it. Please tell me I'm not the only one annoyed by this.

Wouldn't the efficiency for the NERVA's be exactly the same if it was only calculated based on mass before, and better if they somehow screwed up and only measured it based on mass of LF before the update? Anyways, I really don't get the vacuum nerf to ISP. I would have thought that an atmo nerf and the new thrust calculation would be more than enough.

I've noticed this as well, and it greatly annoys me, as this does not happen realistically. It seems almost like the air resistance being applied to the sides of objects when they start to tilt is way, way less powerful than it should be, so the capsule is trying to flip to the pointy side down.

I don't see why SSTO's would be made harder, if the lift and drag models have been improved, it should be easier, even if the turbojets have had their characteristics modified. Also, I'm pretty sure the atmosphere has not been made less dense, it's just that models the drag on things better, so you should hopefully be able to get roughly the same amount of air in the intakes. Also, I don't think ISP in vacuum has been changed much, so if you could do something with a NERVA before, you should be able to now. This is only based on what I've seen from videos though, so I could be so very wrong.

So, uh, what exactly is meant by switching modes at 800 m/s?

I've only really used the pylons, and with the introduction of cargo bays, docking ports. i don't like useless things left around my ships.

So, I made these a while back to fulfill a simple purpose, or rather, 2 simple purposes. I wanted an SSTO that could transport both crew and cargo to space simultaneously. So, the Universal Service Vehicle was born, and it has performed wonderfully. However, it quickly occurred to me that the cargo bay and crew module could be switched out, allowing for greater crew capacity, fuel capacity, or cargo space. Modifying it for cargo space was a bit more work, as the bay had to be shifted further back to prevent the center of mass from moving too far back, and that required a wing redesign, but it produced a functional vehicle. So, without further ado, the USV series: By default, the RAPIER engines should be set to manual, so it may be good to remember that. The action groups are: 1: Toggle RAPIER mode. 2: Toggle NERVA. 3: Toggle RAPIER's. 4: Toggle inner Turbojets. 5: Toggle outer Turbojets. 6: Toggle intakes. Downloads: USV: http://www./download/t10a69y5sk73c78/Universal+Service+Vehicle+Mk-1.craft UCV: http://www./download/l1iqb0su8j6j1sk/Universal+Cargo+Vehicle+Mk-1.craft UTV: http://www./download/yfix4p2xbxx5b31/Universal+Transport+Vehicle+Mk-1.craft

The craft that I have liked enough to put in the stock folder, some useful subassemblies, and perhaps a few WIP pieces I would like to finish.

Hence the ridiculous amounts of dV. You have to slow the orbital vehicle to the same relative speed as the launch vehicle, dock, and then perform an insertion burn. It should be doable, but I'm too lazy to try.

I have in the past posited a completely reusable Eve return vehicle, but a single stage one is not possible. If I ever get the motivation, I may actually try to make my idea. Simply put, instead of dropping stages as you go up, you use a single stage vehicle that puts you on a suborbital, exoatmospheric trajectory, and then use a vehicle with huge amounts of dV to rendezvous and dock with it on the suborbital trajectory, and then use that vehicles fuel and engines to finish the orbital insertion.

Well, people don't reasonably expect aircraft to spin out of control if you slightly modify the positions of their control surfaces, as they do in FAR and NEAR. It actually happens, but it's not intuitive. I guess what I mean is be realistic, but not ridiculously so.

I called it a spaceplane, because it's basically that, but more realistically it's a first stage meant to efficiently insert objects into a suborbital trajectory using lift to overcome a low thrust/weight ratio. In simpler terms, it's a plane that can't quite make orbit, but can easily carry a second stage which can.

I really don't think they just be trying for realism at all. Instead, they should try for reasonability, as in, what one would reasonably expect aerodynamics to behave like. Things like improved lift (I do not care to recount how often a plane doesn't move in the direction it's pointing), improved drag models, and such. Honestly, I'd be hesitant to mess with the what determines aircraft stability in any way.

Ah, thanks. I knew there were going to be different levels of SAS on probe cores, I just never expected them to have one without any SAS, so it surprised me a bit.

keger, there have been innumerable mods that have loading ramps and do not require infernal robotics, and almost no one complains about them not having it.

That was basically what I was thinking of, but I also have several designs that require surface attachments along their entirety, so modifying them using the cargo bays would be a nightmare.

Right now we have cargo bays, and I find them to be immensely useful. However, I would greatly appreciate it if we had cargo "holds," or doorless cargo bays that we can surface attach stuff to around their entire circumference. This would require tail/nose loading doors, but I also think those would be incredibly useful, especially for rover deployment and retrieval.

Is the Stayputnik supposed to have no SAS in career mode? I saw no updates about the SAS system on the wiki, so I am rather confused.

Relatively sleek, but with all sorts of knickknacks stuck to the outside for function. See: and