TimePeriod

I stopped playing that mode when I realized it didnt bring me any more kind of fun. Now I mess about in sandbox, building things I like and enjoy. Nothing else matters.

With the sounds of "Metallita - Nothing Else Matters" I have been working on some long duration aircrafts.

An odd question which has bothered me a little, would the Spacex be considered a VTOL? (At least the booster stage)

Every mission a new rocket. The list is getting long.

If I can take 1 part, make it serve 3 functions but it looks total garbage I will use that part. In my eyes, its also about making the most of less.

Hello guys, TP here. Before you read on you have to understand a few things about the way I play this game. I have 3 rules which are cast onto everything I do: The costs have to be kept down to absolute minimal. Part count has the same policy - minimal. Weight must be pushed to the absolute minimal. These rules are "liquid" so to speak, they can give sway to each other if the benefit from breaking them supports the final goal or target. You might quickly draw the conclusion that I am not having a lot of fun, that'd be where you are very wrong. I love to challenge myself with minimalistic builds that looks absolutely appalling but from a functional point of view are masterpieces. Functionality is the name of my game and as such I often find myself having severe headaches whenever I search "Spacecraft Exchange" for the above reasons. Yes Rune, I am looking at you, don't even get me started on Whackjob... With that out of the way I'll get straight to the topic at hand, how do you justify the way you build? Let me give the example which started this whole nonsense So inside my mind I keep tally of the various statics I see when I build these two objects, with A(left) and B(right): A Has 1 more part but weighs 1.3 tons less then B, costs 140$ less then B and is shorter then B. B Has one less part then A, is a lot more rigid, higher crash tolerances and is a lot more appealing. Do I choose option A or B? How do I justify spending more cash, more weight, more size(space/volume)? Do I even have to? Will the Kraken be more likely to eat A or B? Here is another example I also conjured up: This is a question regarding functionality again, about costs savings, weight and part count. A is on the left and B is on the right. A has the advantage in terms of weight but looses to cost, part count and functionality. However it has no need for a pilot to remain in the seat and can be freely sacrificed if needed. No lives are lost. B wins on costs, same performance as A, costs are lower and has a lower part count. However B looses out on weight, requires a pilot (default use here, not as storage) to be operational and has an overall larger volume. Okay, I think you get the jest here. I have my reasons to select the various parts I use but this is by no means a definitive and absolute way of playing a videogame. Everybody has their own options and decisions, which all are valid and equal. My question to you is this: How do you justify the things you decide to build? Is there some kind of deeper logic behind how you make your decisions? (This is not a showcase thread, please don't post 12 pictures of your absolute best works of all time ever. Just the very essence of what makes you decide on option A-B or C)

A somewhat ominous new space-station has appeared in orbit around Kerbin, investigation proceeding.

This is what I get when I combine 4 hours of playing, around half a litter of coffee and a lot of concentrated effort. This is the beginning of a series of rockets which I am currently working with 3 clear goals in mind: 1) Costs have to be as low as possible. 2) Part count has to make sense, kept as low as possible. 3) Weight while not a determining factor, influences everything else. You get the general jest here. Series 1 LKO Rocket. 2.25 tons into LKO. (D:70-75km) 34 parts - 31.6 tons total on platform. 11.785 spacebucks. - The "FL-T400" mock payload. The very first in a series of standard rockets, following a linar payload capacity. Creators note(s): -Maybe a bit of weight could also be saved if you fiddled with the areoshell shape, dunno. - Some dV/weight could be save if you adjust the fuel in the final stage to advoid fuel leftovers once you hit your obit. - A proper launch profile/ascent profile could help the total dV/weight left once you are in orbit. Here is a video of the launch profile/ascent profile. I don't know why the hell YouTube is screwing up the video, I recorded it at 60fps, lossless but now its 360. Pff...

Its a matter of principle I guess. I don't use it, I see no need for it.

Worked on a linear launch system with emphases on low part count, low costs and tonnage. The most important thing ended up in orbit with fuel to spare.

Working on some new 1k ton lifter, nothing fancy. Should be less then 200 parts.

[IMG]http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo19/TimePeriod/2015-11-19_00001_zpsnown54k8.jpg[/IMG] Here.

Quick question, why do aircraft slowly pitch upwards during long duration flights?

Like I've said before, I just lowered the tonnage of the items in question to a more appropriate amount and the price if I judge so needed. This way I can make use of parts which I rarely ever use.

You could just lower the mass of the hitch-hiker part to a better alternative in your own eyes. Its not rocket surgery- Ow, yes. It is rocket surgery. Nobody is forcing you to play stock if you think stock is unbalanced.

It got mine after, 2 days of playing. Less then 20 hours.

Stick a couple of ram into your old dustbin, a new GPU and a CPU and you are off to 1.0.5 in a instant. Less then a 300$ upgrade. Yes, you can afford that if you save your money for 3 months, even on minimal wage. Yes, you can buy that. Yes, its on sale. No, don't make up excuses. No, we don't believe them. No excuse not to buy new hardware, its never been this cheap.

Made my very first aircraft in 1.0.5 Its a long duration exploration craft, plenty of power, plenty of wingspan and a ton of fuel for such a small craft. As for flight characteristics it acts a little bit slugging and can't turn very fast. One thing is for sure; it is not a fighter craft of any kind. Max altitude: 9400 meters. Max Speed(swan dive): 350m/s Take off speed: 40m/s

That we have no gas turbines.

I hardly play KSP anymore, thou the community keeps my interest. I see something on the forum and get intrigued by its creation, then proceed back into KSP and figure out a way to integrate it into my current KSP game.

Five Finger Death Punch - Lift me up (Feat Judas Priest) Anything from Denny Schniedemesser, he's pretty good.

They do have a use however there is so many other ways to more effectively do what you are trying to accomplish, without using wheels.

I rarely ever use rovers, they are unnecessary parts which only clutter my program. I don't think they are useless, I just don't see much use of them.

Gone mad from building low part-count rockets. So much wobble, so little fuel, so much pressure! *explodes*