Cheebsta

Hmm, Unity complains when you add normal maps and says they aren't marked as normals, upon which you just click to "mark" them, whatever that means. I wonder if something with that is causing the problem?

It's fairly clear that Kerbals have evolved from the remains of those cheap neon erasers that snap off the pencil the first time you try and use them.

I have no idea on the ship... But what is that red thing? It is creeping me out because it looks like it's moving, haha.

lol, what is part count now?

More does usually do the trick once you're sure they're not the reason for exploding on launch, lol. When I first clicked to this page and saw the pic my next suggestion was going to be exactly what you did in the second picture. Make sure more than 2 struts are still holding the top up when you hit orbit (if there are that many tanks left around the outside). I am glad you got it into space before giving up. I really thought it should be able to do it once you said you knew the launcher worked previously.

"How many tanks to get to Eve?" is algebra, or can be, like this: distance_to_eve = x * distance_per_tank_of_fuel. So if you know how far it is, and roughly how far each tank goes. You divide distance by distance per tank, and you just solved for "x", the number of tanks you need. ^ This is just an example for: The main thing is figuring out a way to relate to the material. You can read 100 books and use 1000 programs, but if you don't relate to it somehow it will always be a challenge. I failed, or almost failed, math pretty much every year I was in school. When I got out I got into computer programming and all the sudden numbers made sense... It was like a switch went off once I had a reason to actually care about it. KSP may even be able to do that in some sense, because you always need to know unknown things, even with your trial and error methods, you should be gaining some sense of what is needed. You are solving for x already, just with brute force instead of numbers.

Ahh okay, well if this is the case, then try putting a few struts up to the payload. It's likely the weight up top making the rockets shear themselves off, so use that weight to hold them down where they should be.

You're probably boned if I am reading your post right, unless you accidently, or intentionally, built one of the sections with enough delta V to turn around and go the other way.

It's explained better earlier in the thread, there is a bit of a trick to it that I was showing in the first two pictures to make sure fuel lines connect properly when you go to duplicate things.

Raise or lower orbit depending which way is shorter to get back to where you want to be. Might take a couple rotations/burns to make sure you don't go too far.

That actually looks like it could just be how the launcher is set up, I always have bad luck with rings of tanks. This is how I build ridiculously over-staged rockets now: Problem with Asparagus Staging Question regarding interplanetary tugs I had so many people speculating about how it didn't work I went ahead and took the 5 minutes none of them did to build a proof of concept, and took pictures, lol. These things are nasty stable, even when you string big snakes of tanks. And they seem to require the least amount of struts despite looking like they should need the most. Exploiting game logic ftw, lol.

This could be cause by struts that you duplicated or picked up the part they where on and put it back in place, or somewhere else on the vessel. I have had several rocket designs spontaneous dis-assemble themselves as soon as physics kicked in, and re-strutting has fixed them all so far. Sometimes that is easier said than done though depending how strut happy you are in builds.

This is good fodder for a "minimum speed to vaporize every single part of this craft" contest.

Concur. Almost has to be the collider, either too small, or not convex. The game will load a non-convex collider just fine most of the time, but all sorts of screwy unpredictable behaviors start cropping up if you use them. Also, just clarification, like EndlessWaves said node_attach applies to your part attaching to others, specifically, it is the point on your model that sticks to others when mounted radially. If your part is not radial mount only, node_attach and node_stack_bottom will usually be the same value.

This is most likely just because of its light weight. I'd guess its coming up off the ground ever so slightly, causing the "ice effect" and slow acceleration due to lack of traction.

I get that in this case a reasonable comparison to our tech and development makes sense logically, but human knowledge versus the sum total knowledge of the universe is likely about the same as human size versus the size of the universe. Evidence that we have yet to realize as evidence shouldn't be taken off the table so easily, regardless how solid things appear. Everything we know was there for at least some period of time before we realized what it was. It is insane to think the "list" is complete. Hypothetically speaking, a sufficiently advanced society could have seen disaster coming, and moved on. Entirely possible they scoured the planet for all items and took them along to avoid future contamination of what grew back. Yes, it is very unlikely, but is it actually impossible? Not very many things are.

Both your replies just showed up for me, lol.

Or they could just not say anything and do silent alpha releases and you wouldn't be able to watch the progress as it comes along >.>

I just launched a rocket a couple hours ago consisting of 9 orange tanks, with mainsails, staged to drop 2 tanks at a time. It took about 8 minutes to build, uses only 12 struts, has only 2 of the tanks connected to the main tank, and goes to 34,000m before it falls over and/or makes a full rotation of spin with zero user input (apart from spacebar). No SAS/ASAS either. Some screens in the thread about asparagus staging. I've gone so far as to launch a rocket with 25 of the largest engines in the KW Rocketry mod just to see if it would explode on the pad... It's wobbly from being so heavy, and it steers like 17 tons of lead, but it flies to Eve. Instability is caused mainly by bad design, and/or not keeping struts and fuel lines parallel to the rocket. If you start getting them on there crooked you start getting spin real quick. This is also a very good point:

Try a small less complicated rocket. Pitching and yawing from launch should not happen unless it's a really crap design or something with decent size/weight to it. But, typically, if the first thing is does is want to flip over and hit the ground, the rocket design is bad, and SAS/ASAS is not going to save you from that. Also, I can't believe there wasn't a "no matter which way I try to steer it still smashes into the ground" kind of sentence in your post... You... are steering the rocket, right?

How about just load a ship there, and then place statics? Edit: occured to me since posting you were probably doing this already, lol.

No need to make up lies about looking, it's easy enough to figure out you didn't when someone actually does and sees that the lithobraking wiki is the first link, and the first sentence in it says "Lithobraking is a landing technique used by unmanned space vehicles to safely reach the surface of a celestial body while reducing landing speed by impact with the body's surface." Fairly difficult to miss, or be confused by.

Well, I wouldn't exactly say only, but that's how I've been doing it for lack of finding any other way, lol.

Click madly and repetitively on the object you wish to focus on. (Pretty sure just double click, but I tend to have to jam on the button a couple extra times)

Or a towel.