Koolkei

oh sorry. i didn't re-check the first page when i posted that. it was just a couple hours after it was updated anyway

b-b-but the regulation said you HAVE to have a mk2 attached on front. then the extra light could be anything you want eh wow mine have only like 60% part counts of yours..... but did you test how long it would burn the RCS until it's depleted. i tested mine. 80 units of RCS burned with 6 ports last like 25-30 seconds. that's on straightaways. most of the tracks would include turning right? i doubt people are gonna burn RCS for more than 40 seconds. unless they burned all the way through the corners. but i highly doubt that, since we are racing trucks that have relatively high CoG that would make us roll easily. what about 300 max for the class-6? and double that for class-12? try distributing the weight closer to wheels/side, instead on the center of the truck wider wheelbase would also help. but with consideration it would take up more space and you have less space to manouver

just a couple of question 1. that's in the class-12 right? 2. that's not the correct type of lamp required is it? 3. that's a lot of part...... how much is it? 4. well it only require us to make the cab only to survive any kind of impact.. but still, isn't it a lot of things tearing off on collision??

that was it (but we are only doing 1 lap each track right?) IMO RCS more that 160 units for class-6 truck are useless, just dead weight, and 240 units for class-12. really 600 is IMO way over the diminishing return for the exchange of extra speed @ the price of extra weight. and my truck could be easily added more weight with that tank in the middle filled up to 75% or more. so besides the weight issue. my truck passes for the race right? that was one of my top 5 best aesthetically looking craft i've made and being in my mind that this one is made to be as barebone as possible to keep the part count low. while keeping the CoG as low as possible. (notice the wheels attach point arent inline with the structure beam? instead higher by half a cubic strut size.) getting a 'not bad' from you actually means a lot to me thx barely any other aesthetic stuff besides the cab part itself, the bumper and the lights.. 1. lol, so you have to load it with kerbal first to test it? 2. not so bad. it's actually lower than the cargo itself. was it 137 only (FYI im running KSP on an AMD quad core low clock speed laptop, the least optimal spec for running KSP) 3.click that 'white box' and choose unlock tab or something, after that you could drag it anywhere, but lock it again when you're done. Comparison of designs. Is there anything wrong with what i have built so far? (vs not added) http://i.imgur.com/DykimSY.pngthat..... no offence but that looked like a buffed up buggy?? with added capability of tugging a trailer. on the other side.... that could be able to be seen as a retro 50's/60's buffed up racing truck

here's my TUGTRUCK ready for inspection it's 98% ready..... the last 2%? GROOV3ST3R please determine the RCS fuel limit that we are allowed to carry. mine weigh 5.73t (without the RCS, with, it's exactly 6.05t, for now that is) the last .3t is space for either more RCS fuel or more ballast. depending on the rules. here's the file... TUGTRUCK just a few notes 1. the trailer has it's own core, actually only to be able to lower the holding gear/leg on itself (but it doesnt have any external batteries except the ones inside the cargo) 2. action group 1 to 4 for the lighting stuff. i was too lazy to note down which do what...... so try it out yourself

owh... nevermind that anyway... mine still could pull 50t+(heavy cargo+trailer), while the truck itself weigh only 5.33t without ballast heh? 3t worth of RCS? how much do you have? mine only have 80 unit of RCS fuel...... like .3t only......

so... the 6t minimal only have to pull the small cargo?? bold mine nearly doesnt just have to put enough weight closer to the center of the truck my truck is pretty much done.... if not for the weight..... mine only weighs 5.33t. need some ballast somewhere

be posting mine tommorow for check up.... hopefully

not so popular huh??? btw... i got a few question. 1. RCS port at the BACK..... i put mine on the BACK of THE CAB, is that allowed, or did you meant the BACK of THE TRUCK. because actually, putting it behind the truck slightly increases manueverability if the RCS is used on the corners.... 2. the trailer are allowed to have extra powered wheels right? mine goes like a snail without them

pack link please.... i meant. make it fast..... i want to design mine already btw another question, which "TRUCK" did you mean here?? THIS?!?! OR THIS?!?! since they are both technically 'TRUCKS'

been busy with RL... shooting ths thread UP UP and AWAY!!!

may i remind you that altough FAR does makes the atmosphere thinner, it also makes KSP emulate drag way better, and also makes it REALLY HARD to get efficient thrust towards orbit (unless you're scott manley). and since atmosphere is thinner, it's also harder and takes longer to slow down when you are landing the asteroids

maybe.... although quite the number views this thread gets is not terrible, it's not really popular either. btw.... did you climb the right building?? i had a feeling you climbed the wrong one, since there's a lot of room upstairs

damn... everyone seems to be having a blast. anyone already got to duna or got a space system in space yet?

hell yeah..... too bad i cant download it today..... but for sure trying it tommorrow

rovers...... it's my specialty, not that im good at it

same here, was about to ask where to download, before i read the post after it

anymore updates/news??

good luck. i will certainly belief it's kinda hard with that rover. my rover was long and front heavy, but still back flipped really easily, especially when i climb without the RCS boosting me up

yay... finally.... that means i could finally built a ship that can go >100m/s that wont break one by one......

that's why i said that. if the engine would be updated then that means KSP will be pretty much going under major reworking... which also means would be another looooooong time for another engine update..... especially update to 64-bit

well that's just great.... an update that slows down the game instead of speed it up.... yes i know you said it's minimal... but for someone who is already suffers from extreme case of chronic lag i dont need to say it do i? update: just looked about unity5 their claim out this year has newer physX (3.3) better threaded performance (but doesnt say how? is it better utilization or more cores/thread able to be utilized?) and better graphics (not that it matters much to the cartoon-like art of the kerbal world) and the one everyone is waiting for 64-bit program which mean more memory could be allocated for KSP to be used( i dont, only have 4gigs of ram) if it is better, unless KSP is updated again to use unity5. i prefer to wait for the engine until after unity5 is available.... well if it is as fast/slow as it is now or even slower, i guess i just need to try updating my driver then. to minimize the GPU bottleneck a bit

wait" i've never heard of any game engine changes.... so it's game engine optimization now? are they updating to a much newer unity or even the latest version when the update happens?? when if it is so.... (especially if unity could take advantage of more than 2 cores) it would be heaven.... im an AMD laptop user. a lower thread performance compared to intel yet lower in clock speed but double the number of cores, tottally doesnt help to run KSP smooth at all. (i couldnt fly a ship/rocket/plane with more than 120parts without dropping the FPS to 15 or under) almost forgot about this one..... damn

is that a powered wheel? i've never used that mod. i dont know the size either... (btw you actually need quite the power when climbing) i guess if you put only 1 or 2 it's fine but the rest is vanilla maybe.... but i'm not sure. so im letting this one go. use it

i forgot this... edited. i dont know anymore mods that add a lot of wheel besides B9. and even the B9 ones are not exactly ideal