Bilfr3d

I don't use it, so no, no MJ autostaging - - - Updated - - - Good luck in the upcoming round! Just a note though, I only stage the dragster, which means I apply no brakes either.

I'm about to do a fair amount of updates to the OP stating what you need to do when you submit a craft in detail. This will include submitting details for how to run the craft, i.e. when to stage the craft in the circumstances of staggered staging. If no instructions are specified then I just stage whenever the fuel has run out.

The dragster cannot leave the runway, full stop. However, in saying that, the dragster CAN go airborne, but only to the extent of about 3-5m. In response to your second question, any command is fair game. It can be unmanned or manned. And your last question... I'm not entirely sure you read all of the guidelines or you might not have understood them properly, but I conduct all the runs with the vehicles, so no part mods. You can use any informational mods, but just remember that the crafts must be submitted here for me to do the runs of the dragster. No input is given to the craft, as stated in the OP. I am going to update the OP now verifying what type of mods can be used in construction.

Ah true, yeah I shall change it that if you have no parachutes it is divided by 0.5

Ah yes, I forgot to add that, shall do it now

HERE ARE THE RESULTS OF ROUND #1!!! A fair few people entered, with rather cool and differing designs. I can't wait to see what designs people enter with next week!! Now, here are the numbers people have been waiting for, ordered alphabetically by entrant name: Cybersol – drag-bonsai Weight = 2.7t Winglets – 2 Wheels – 4 Parachutes – 1 Run 1 Speed:: 1764km/h Run 2 Speed:: 1760km/h Run 3 Speed:: DNF – Flew 100+ meters into the air Run 1 Points:: 565.35 Run 2 Points:: 594 Overall Points:: 386.45 Cybersol – drag-kamikaze Weight =2.7t Winglets =2 Wheels =4 Parachutes =0 Run 1 Speed:: 1724km/h Run 2 Speed:: 1724km/h Run 3 Speed:: 1724km/h Run 1 Points:: 1163.7 Run 2 Points:: 1163.7 Run 3 Points:: 1163.7 Overall Points:: 1163.7 Fire219 – Fat n’ Fast Weight = 7.0t Winglets = 2 Wheels = 4 Parachutes = 1 Run 1 Speed:: 1206km/h Run 2 Speed:: DNF – Fell off of the runway and was destroyed Run 3 Speed:: 1206km/h Run 1 Points:: 1055.25 Run 3 Points:: 1055.25 Overall Points:: 703.5 FlipNascar – Beryl’s Trolley Weight = 3.4t Winglets = 6 Wheels = 4 Parachutes = 6 Run 1 Speed:: 1166km/h Run 2 Speed:: 1166km/h Run 3 Speed:: 1166km/h Run 1 Points:: 27.53 Run 2 Points:: 27.53 Run 3 Points:: 27.53 Overall Points:: 27.53 FlipNascar – Betty’s Purse Weight = 2.1t Winglets = 6 Wheels = 4 Parachutes = 1 Run 1 Speed:: 1123km/h Run 2 Speed:: 1108km/h Run 3 Speed:: DNF – Smashed off of the runway during the parachuting phase Run 1 Points:: 98.26 Run 2 Points:: 96.95 Overall Points:: 65.07 FlipNascar – Maggie’s Mace Weight = 5.1t Winglets = 6 Wheels = 4 Parachutes = 1 Run 1 Speed:: 1191km/h Run 2 Speed:: 1188km/h Run 3 Speed:: 1195km/h Run 1 Points:: 253.08 Run 2 Points:: 252.45 Run 3 Points:: 253.93 Overall Points:: 253.15 JO3 – Hare Weight = 4.1t Winglets = 2 Wheels = 4 Parachutes = 2 Run 1 Speed:: DNF Run 2 Speed:: DNF Run 3 Speed:: DNF – Flew off of the runway in all 3 runs; Too much fuel, kept burning Overall Points:: N/A JO3 – Tortoise Weight = 343.3t Winglets =2 Wheels = 4 Parachutes = 0 Run 1 Speed:: 68.4km/h Run 2 Speed:: 67.3km/h Run 3 Speed:: 69.1km/h Run 1 Points:: 5870.43 Run 2 Points:: 5776.02 Run 3 Points:: 5930.5 Overall Points:: 5858.98 ToTheMun (Me ) – Bic Mac Weight = 29.8t Winglets = 2 Wheels = 6 Parachutes = 1 Run 1 Speed:: 630km/h Run 2 Speed:: DNF – Sudden Disassembly Run 3 Speed:: 568km/h Run 1 Points:: 1564.5 Run 3 Points:: 1410.53 Overall Points:: 991.67 ToTheMun (Me ) – Khevy 240SS LS3 Weight = 8.0t Winglets = 10 Wheels = 8 Parachutes = 2 Run 1 Speed:: 1069km/h Run 2 Speed:: 1140km/h Run 3 Speed:: 1132km/h Run 1 Points:: 53.45 Run 2 Points:: 57 Run 3 Points:: 56.6 Overall Points:: 167.05 Plotz – The Lorry Weight = 15.4t Winglets = 2 Wheels = 4 Parachutes = 1 Run 1 Speed:: 1278km/h Run 2 Speed:: 1264km/h Run 3 Speed:: DNF – Sudden Disassembly during parachuting phase Run 1 Points:: 2460.15 Run 2 Points:: 2433.2 Overall Points:: 1631.11 QuesoExplosivo – Limo Dragster Weight = 86.1t Winglets = 2 Wheels = 4 Parachutes = 1 Run 1 Speed:: DNF – Went off of the runway Run 2 Speed:: 259km/h Run 3 Speed:: DNF – Went off of the runway Run 2 Points:: 2787.48 Overall Points:: 929.16 QuesoExplosivo – Medium Dragster Mk2 Weight = 4.9t Winglets = 2 Wheels = 4 Parachutes = 1 Run 1 Speed:: 1486km/h Run 2 Speed:: 1512km/h Run 3 Speed:: 1493km/h Run 1 Points:: 910.175 Run 2 Points:: 926.1 Run 3 Points:: 914.46 Overall Points:: 916.91 QuesoExplosivo – Small Dragster Mk2 Weight = 3.0t Winglets = 2 Wheels = 4 Parachutes = 1 Run 1 Speed:: 1314km/h Run 2 Speed:: 1336km/h Run 3 Speed:: 1298km/h Run 1 Points:: 492.75 Run 2 Points:: 501 Run 3 Points:: 486.75 Overall Points:: 480.5 And, as it can be clearly seen through the results, I would like to congratulate JO3 with his Tortoise on winning the first KEMA Drag Week round!! JO3 is now the KEMA Drag King!! How long can he hold this title? Who knows, we'll have to wait until the next round of entrants have been tested!! Good luck to any and all who wish to enter in the next round!

IT'S HERE!!The NEMA drag week has now arrived in the Kerbal Space Program world - the KEMA drag week! Build your most competitive dragsters in KSP and pitch them right here in this thread. Each dragster must abide by the rules and guidelines below, and the current round of entries closes on 2ND ROUND IS OPEN - ENTRIES FOR THE 2ND ROUND CLOSE ON THE 28TH OF MAY!! --EXTENDED DATE!!-- Any entries after this time will be included into the round that follows the current one. The player who can sustain a winning streak will hold the title of the KEMA Drag Strip King until such time that someone else is able to take them off of their podium! THE RULES, GUIDELINES AND INFO: - NO part clipping is permitted through the debug menu - part clipping is permitted but only to a feasible extent - Any dragster must be created using KSP version 1.0.2 - No mods are to be used on any dragster - Each dragster must ONLY use solid rocket boosters for propulsion - Each dragster can carry a maximum of 500 solid fuel at any one time - Each dragster must have a minimum of 4 wheels - Each dragster must have a minimum of 2 wings (includes any wings, wing sections, winglets, control surfaces, etc) - All dragsters are to be submitted in craft file form - once entries are closed for the round, each dragster will be ran by myself to remove cheating and provide fairness (see point after next); videos will be provided of the highlights of the round - All dragster are to be given a name upon submission - this name will be shown on leader boards when testing is commenced. - When under testing, no input will be provided to the dragster. SAS will be turned on, thrust will be set to 0%, and the only input will be that to stage the dragster - The dragster must not leave the runway - leaving the runway results in a DNF for that run - Each dragster is run over 3 times, with all 3 run's scores being averaged to form the final scores - Dragsters are grouped into weight tiers as follows: = <3t - Small tier = >3t & <5t - Medium tier = >5t Large tier - Each tier has their own overall winners, with a separate final winner based on total amount of points - The dragster CAN become airborne on the runway, but only within reason (3-5m in height) - The dragster's weight is calculated as the initial weight, excluding the weight of parts attached to decouplers or other ejection methods SUBMISSION GUIDELINES AND DETAILS Upon submission, any special instructions to operate the dragster must be given. If no instructions are given, the dragster will just be staged whenever the current stage is depleted of fuel. Another note to submissions, is that ONLY a craft file is to be submitted - no videos or images are required but you may submit them if you like to show some testing of your dragster. SCORING SYSTEM: Each dragster is scored based on their km/h final speed at the end of the run, weight of the dragster (in tonnes)**See guidelines for more info on this, specifically the last point**, winglets on the dragster, wheels on the dragster, and any parachutes on the dragster. The formula for score generation is as follows: (Dragster speed x weight of the dragster) / (wings on the dragster x wheels on the dragster x parachutes on the dragster) In the event that no parachutes are on the dragster, the parachute value is set to 0.5 For example, a 2t dragster, with 4 winglets, 4 wheels and 2 parachutes that reached a speed of 600km/h will receive a score of 37.5 in the small tier. Q&A!! Q: Are A.I.R.B.R.A.K.E.S allowed? A: Note: these questions are questions that have been asked by people in the thread LEADERBOARDS: SMALL TIER: #1 - Cybersol - Kamikaze (2.7t, 1724km/h, 1163.7) #2 - Cybersol - Drag Bonsai (2.7t, 1764km/h, 386.45) #3 - FlipNascar - Betty's Purse (2.1t, 1123km/h, 65.07) #4 - MEDIUM TIER: #1 - QuesoExplosivo - Medium Dragster Mk2 (4.9t, 1512km/h, 916.91) #2 - QuesoExplosivo - Small Dragster Mk2 (3.0t, 1336km/h, 480.5) #3 - FlipNascar - Beryl's Trolley (3.4t, 1166km/h, 27.53) #4 - JO3 - Hare (4.1t, DNF) LARGE TIER: #1 - JO3 - Tortoise (343.3t, 69.1km/h, 5858.98) #2 - Plotz - The Lorry (15.4t, 1278km/h, 1631.11) #3 - ToTheMun (Me ) - Big Mac (29.8t, 630km/h, 991.67) #4 - QuesoExplosivo - Limo Dragster (86.1t, 259km/h, 929.16) OVERALL LEADERS: #1 - JO3 - Tortoise (343.3t, 69.1km/h, 5858.98) #2 - Plotz - The Lorry (15.4t, 1278km/h, 1631.11) #3 - Cybersol - Kamikaze (2.7t, 1724km/h, 1163.7) #4 - ToTheMun (Me ) - Big Mac (29.8t, 630km/h, 991.67) KEMA DRAG STRIP KING::: 1st round is not complete... May the best dragster win!

The first one about the Mun base - most likely because you docked it with something else that it doesn't check it as new. The second one - I'm pretty sure you have to recover the ore back at Kerbin. Not too sure though...

Let me guess - you don't think its "fun" because you can't actually get anything to work? Perhaps, as others have suggested, follow the tutorials in game. And forget everything you used to know about KSP. Treat as though you have only now just bought the game.

I can smell a thread lock incoming

Welcome to the forums!! I would suggest trying to contact some of the developers or moderators around here that have access to the store, to try and get your details verified even though you can't access your email account. Apart from that, if you had no backup recovery options on your email account, I cannot think of anything else to help you out.

That is actually a really good point, they definitely should have provided some sort of tutorial or video or SOMETHING to learn from

That is no-where near what is being implied from anything I have posted, I only originally pointed out that a majority of the community wished for a proper aerodynamics. The term of "proper aerodynamics" could be seen differently by different persons. What the devs thought to be a decent replacement for the previous aerodynamics model has brought out a lot of complaints within the community, and frankly, under a programming standpoint, there is nothing wrong with the aerodynamics model as it stands. It works. Not as perfectly as what would be seen, and the aerodynamics model must clearly be refined to become more, I guess 'accepted' by the community. As it stands, the aero model does work - it just isn't what the community would like/expect. EDIT: As seen in previous events, SQUAD opens intakes for Q&A and experimental testers, and only people that have the knowledge to properly report a bug, etc, are accepted into the Q&A and experimentals team. Yes, that should probably change, even if it means another section being made here in the forums purely dedicated to experimental and Q&A releases. It wouldn't be too hard for SQUAD to implement a beta stream into steam to allow experimentals testing, and on the KSP store and other KSP outlets, once logged in they could just provide the choice of the current 'release' or the experimentals download. This too, I believe, would take out a lot of the hype as well, as @Sochin pointed out above, and allows for plenty more opportunities for experimental testing.

There's not really much to reply too their, and I will say that what you have said here is a valid point. The movement to the 1.0 version for KSP upon the developers reaching their initial goals probably was not of the best decisions created by the team. But in the end, it was their choice - they decided to push forward for their 1.0 version despite the apparent backlash that was prompted by the movement. And, to some degree, I congratulate the handling by SQUAD and the team of that. Another thing to consider when pointing out the flaws and bugs whilst complaining about a game, is the difficulty that is ensured with creating a game (or any program of that matter) to this scale. I myself have a fair amount of experience with moderately large applications, and they are no easy feat. Managing bugs, issues, compatibility, etc. is a tough task, and TBPH I was sort of expecting more bugs than what is currently present due to the amount of completely new features added or overhauled within the game.

I pointed that out in my reply, and it's a matter of risk v. reward. If more people want the feature than not, it's the developers choice to take the risk to implement that feature with the clear possibility that there could be a backlash from the rest of the community. SQUAD decided to take that risk, and I'm not entirely sure how it's going to pan out for them - - - Updated - - - That is a valid point, but as pointed out in a dev blog quite a time ago, the 1.0 KSP release was decided to be made 1.0 due to the fact that all the initial goals the development team set out to complete with KSP, would in fact be complete by the end of the update - hence their move to a 1.0 release. Sure, that's not ALL their goals, but it marked a significant point in KSP's development in which all the initial goals were finally complete. The game is no-where near complete by any point, and I don't think the updates will stop for quite awhile

One thing I pointed out in another thread, is that KSP is produced by a very small team of developers. They have no DEDICATED Q&A team and no DEDICATED experimentals. All the players in those testing teams are people just like you and me, volunteering their time to help bug smash and refine KSP as best they can before it is released to the community. Time is very much of the essence for a small team like the KSP devs, and that time is something that has to be diversified across several aspects and PC platforms - don't forget that they have to smash bugs not only for the Windows release, but for Linux and Mac too. Much less people use Linux and Mac, causing less bugs to be found on those distros more times than not. KSP is only about a $25 - its not like its some massively expensive $80 game like GTA V. Larger games like that, yes you would expect there to be huge amounts of time DEDICATED to squashing bugs and ensuring the game is relevant for a release. I guess with the rise of large games which have little to no known bugs, other developing studios are being punished for not having that same routine of bug squashing and quality assurance. Think you're good at finding all the bugs in KSP, and all the issues with it? Why don't you go join the Q&A team and experimentals team, I'm sure they'd like to have you. And this is not a "it's an alpha" sugarcoating - in fact its far from it.

You really need to think with the mind of the developers with things like this - if more people are asking for features than not, go ahead and implement said features. A majority of people wanted the features, implementing the features would only induce a slight risk to loose revenue and earnings than if they were to not implement the features that a majority of people are asking for. Sure, it doesn't exactly make SENSE in a standard frame of mind, but most times the people who are not a part of that majority just put up with the features and work around them. Hence the slight risk I talked about above - its not like hundreds of players are going to riot against the game if they implement one feature that they didn't want. Squad have actually very gracefully implemented the new aero and thermal models, and with some config the game can be extremely pleasing, friendly and fun for new players and players who just want something a little EASIER, instead of the realistic behemoth of an aero and thermal model that is the stock normal difficulty.

I'm sure many have seen all the complaints and heat over the recent KSP 1.0.x update(s). You might be one such person that doesn't like the 'new' KSP. "So much has changed about it and it's no fun anymore" is the common underlying message that I'm seeing from most people that are complaining. My response to that is quite simple - humans don't like change. Yes KSP has changed; its changed quite a lot, frankly. It is, to some degree, a more difficult game than what it used to be pre 1.0.x. All these changes in KSP, having been on the forum for quite the few years, are actually things that players have REQUESTED for a LONG time to be added into KSP. Well, the developers followed the requests of the community, and have finally added them in with the KSP 1.0.x release. Better aerodynamics? People screamed over it. Proper re-entry heat? Was on many people's wishlists. Mineable resources? I never came across one person that DIDN'T want that. Ok, so the developers added all this in... and now what? Everyone criticises and complains over these additions that the community wanted to be added in. So, why don't you stop your complaining? The community as a whole asked for it, so it got implemented. Mind you, the features were probably on the development list for quite some time... my final response - treat the recent updates to KSP as thought you've bought an entirely new game. Forget EVERYTHING you used to know about KSP - run through all the training and scenarios again, play around in sandbox getting the hang of things. And, for god sake, stop complaining to the devs about how horrible the game is now, in your eyes. The community asked for the goddamned features - put up with the learning curve if you want those features. Also, 1000th post :3

They cool the air coming in to prevent your engines overheating while at higher altitudes and speeds

You may forget that inter-platform building is a very tough task. For starters, what may seem like a memory leak in KSP may in fact be an issue with Unity and Mac. It takes considerable testing and time to boil it down to what actually is causing the memory leaks, and that time is most likely time the development team simply does not have. It could be a very present fact that only a handful of Q&A and experimental testers have a Mac to test KSP on, and there may be nobody on the KSP dev team that actually has a Mac at all. This makes testing and refinement extremely tough, and in a small indie team like the developers of KSP, the money needed to purchase a Mac JUST to start spending HOURS upon HOURS trying to find something that they may not even be able to fix at all, would not be worth it in such a small team. Perhaps you would like to join the Q&A or experimental testers, seeing as you have so much criticism to add? Or do you not have enough time to join the Q&A team? Well maybe the Q&A, experimentals and dev team don't have enough time or resources to begin finding a fix for the Mac platform, when it is apparent that OSX only makes up for around 3% of the steam community. And that's statistics off of one of the BIGGEST gaming platforms to date. With ownership statistics as low as that, why would the developers spend a huge amount of time working on a fix for such a low turnaround group of the community (low turnaround in terms of possible revenue)? Yes, Linux makes up for a smaller percentage of ownership, but considering that builds for both Windows and Linux are not too much separate, as Windows at its very base could be called a type of Unix system, which is why Linux and Windows are both stable in the terms of memory leaks. Another point of consideration - no memory leaks occur on two of the three platforms KSP is built for. No code is changed in the time it is built for each separate platform - it is just cross-compiled. Which begs the question, why is Mac the odd one out? A change of code to fix something on Mac, may in fact cause instabilities in the other platforms due to the cross-compiling, but seeing as the memory leak is only present on one platform it could in fact be boiled down to Unity not playing well with Mac.

What is your term of "gentle landing"? For me a gentle landing is about 3m/s vertical speed MAX. Anything that looks to be higher and I try to back off the landing.

With the recent change in aerodynamics, the CoM + CoL alignment is pretty much useless to follow to begin with. A craft that has completely centered CoM and CoL has the potential to flip rapidly out of control depending on the streamlining of the craft. The engine speeds are also aligned with aircraft speed, and the with how high the craft is in the atmosphere. The higher you go, the thrust will begin to further cut off. I find that about 12-11km a sweetspot for air-breathing crafts (including semi-airbreathing SSTO's). By the time you're at about 16-20km, the thrust on the engines is down to about 30-10. In-case you didn't know about any of this, KSP has had a very large aerodynamics overhaul, which now pretty much mimics FAR (a mod that made the aerodynamics somewhat realistic), and has made aerodynamics far more realistic than pre-1.0.

Although you may think that sandbox is not 'fun', it can be useful in times like this. Go into sandbox, limit yourself to the tech tree parts you're at (using the category part selection > tech tier), and just fiddle around with some different craft designs until you get the hang of the new aero. TBH it really isn't hard, you just need to get the hang of it first. I found the transition easy myself, for the pure fact that I used to use FAR on my base install... and *cough* never did gravity turns in stock anyway *cough*

The nerfs on the LV-N are mainly only for the Atmospheric thrust and ISP, which were pretty borked anyway. I still use the LV-N's, sometimes I'll use the Poodle if I'm just going to Duna or Eve or something like that. What engine is best really depends on where you're going, what payload you have, and how fast you want to get there.

If you're on steam, delete your game data and then verify the game integrity through steam. That will make it re-download all the correctly configured parts. If you have bought it from elsewhere, try downloading it again, and reinstalling the game data directory.