Grumman

I've always preferred the Structural Intake for this purpose since it's got a nice ski shape if you put it on backwards, but then they nerfed it to 7 m/s impact resistance. So I'm making a new part based on that.

Thanks for that, Nicky. I'm not a fan of the look of the XM-G50 based seaplanes so I think I'll add my own part that fulfills the same role, but you've given me a good starting point for comparison.

I am planning a mission to Laythe and I'd like to be able to have some seaplanes to explore in. I've tried using the USI Survivability Pack floats and airbags but neither have been successful. Has anyone built any seaplanes in the new patch yet, either in Stock or with mods?

There are two issues at play: that they took too long to release a fix for a memory leak that crashes the game if you do something you have to do on every manned mission; and that they aren't leaving the physics constant long enough for players and modders to get used to them. If a patch is "strictly better" than its predecessor - like removing a memory leak or giving an engine less heat generation - nobody is hurt by its release, but we've had three patches in the past two months that significantly changed how our ships functioned and not always in a good way.

When I have this problem, I just roll the ship a bit as I activate the decouplers - the added rotational velocity gets them moving away from the ship.

If you want to connect fuel ducts outside of the VAB, that's what the CC-R2 Connector Port is for. Just put one on each of the ships you want to join, land them so that the ports are facing approximately towards one another and send someone on EVA to join them together.

Slow down? The airspeed in the upper atmosphere was zero. Burning off 2,000 m/s of orbital velocity should require some finesse, burning off 4,000 m/s from an interplanetary voyage moreso. A capsule falling from a flight that isn't even suborbital should have no issues slowing enough to safely open its parachute before it hits the ground.

The problem is that now you can't even "reenter" from 50,000 meters without being in danger of crashing before it is safe to open your parachute. It's ridiculous. If you're not even moving at orbital velocity, let alone escape velocity, you shouldn't be in more danger just because you're moving too slowly to have a periapsis.

Like the title says, I think it would be cool if some contracts were more than just pass/fail and instead had additional rewards if you completed the contract following a finer set of requirements. A tourist might require that you give him a flyby of Minmus, but pay extra if you establish an orbit of Minmus too, or he might require that you land him on the Mun but pay extra if you land him in the East Farside Crater. A science contract might grant you extra reputation if you recover the science instead of transmitting it. A rescue mission might only require the return of the pilot, but give you extra science if you bring the derelict back for examination. Making this change to the contract system to allow optional objectives that are not necessary to successfully complete the contract would give you a bit more leeway in adding interesting challenges, since you would then be able to offer rewards for doing interesting or challenging things without risking flooding the contract offers with contracts that are too difficult to complete.

Turn off the SAS in those cupolas, for a start. If you have SAS in the hub and no SAS in the ring then eventually the SAS will get things rotating the way you want them to, with the hub stationary and the ring moving. Another option is to have two contra-rotating rings so that they cancel each other out. You can do it with three bearings, with the middle bearing's direction reversed and its maximum speed doubled.

In my own game, I've done two things: added a dedicated 2.5m Rotatron part and added ConnectedLivingSpace support for that part. Basically, it means that if you use both this and CLS, the game treats this station-sized Rotatron as if it has an access corridor through the inside of the bearing, so that Kerbals can still travel between the rotating section and the non-rotating section without going on EVA. If you'd like to do it yourself (or if the OP wants to integrate it into the official mod), all you need to do is add the two following text files: ..\MagicSmokeIndustries\Parts\Rework_Core\Probe\Robotic\IR_Rotatron_Large\part.cfg PART { // --- General Parameters --- name = IR_Rotatron_Large module = Part author = Zodius (model) | Sirkut (plugin) // --- Asset Parameters --- //mesh = model.mu MODEL { model = MagicSmokeIndustries/Parts/Rework_Core/Probe/Robotic/IR_Rotatron_Basic/model texture = IR_Robotic, MagicSmokeIndustries/Parts/Rework_Core/Probe/Robotic/IR_Robotic texture = IR_Robotic_e, MagicSmokeIndustries/Parts/Rework_Core/Probe/Robotic/IR_Robotic_e } scale = 1 rescaleFactor = 4 // --- Node Definitions --- node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.2, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1 node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.1, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1 node_attach = 0.0, -0.1, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0 // --- Editor Parameters --- TechRequired = advConstruction entryCost = 7800 cost = 1250 category = none subcategory = 0 title = Rotatron - Large manufacturer = Magic Smoke Industries description = Now available in Space Station size, the classic Rotatron! This part is able to continuously rotate at 20 deg/s, and can have limits enabled to restrict its movement to any range between -360 and +360 degrees. // attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision attachRules = 1,1,1,1,0 // --- Standard Part Parameters --- mass = 0.5 dragModelType = default maximum_drag = 0.2 minimum_drag = 0.2 angularDrag = 2 crashTolerance = 15 maxTemp = 2000 breakingForce = 999 breakingTorque = 999 // --- TweakScale Parameters --- MODULE { name = TweakScale type = Rework_Standard } // --- Robotics Parameters --- MODULE { name = MuMechToggle rotateJoint = True rotateAxis = 0, 1, 0 keyRotateSpeed = 20.0 rotateLimits = False limitTweakable = True rotateMin = -360.0 rotateMax = 360.0 presetPositionsSerialized = -180.0|-90.0|0.0|90.0|180.0 invertSymmetry = False jointSpring = 0 jointDamping = 0 fixedMesh = Base servoName = Rotatron - Large motorSndPath = MagicSmokeIndustries/Sounds/infernalRoboticMotor // Motor loop sound path } } ..\MagicSmokeIndustries\Patches\CLSInfernalRobotics.cfg @PART[IR_Rotatron_Large]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]] { MODULE { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true } }

It's been done three times with man rated rockets - twice with the Mercury-Redstone rockets and once with a Soyuz.

No, it's not. That's standard operating procedure for sounding rockets like the Black Brant.

What you're saying is that a sub-orbital flight isn't going fast enough to land safely. That's absurd. If you're not going fast enough to reach orbit in the first place, that should make it easier to burn that velocity off, not harder.

I apologise. When I read your post I was thinking of a proper space station and not just the kerbal box with a docking port that satisfies some contracts, so the suggestion that he drag the whole thing out of orbit when all he needs is a flyby seemed like schmuck bait.

Don't troll the newbies, Juan.

Yes, they do. The contract is not ended until all the tourists have been recovered.

This argument will become valid the day Squad gives a refund to every customer who doesn't have a degree in Aerospace Engineering. This is not a job, it is a game. People should not be expected to have the necessary skills to design aircraft that would work in real life to play this game. If the game tells the player that their aircraft design works, that should be enough.

I think the connector port is bugged. I am trying to build a craft with a winch already attached to a sub-craft, but if I start from the winch side the game refuses to let me attach a part to the base of the connector port, and if I start from the sub-craft side it refuses to let me attach a winch to the port. This happens with both the radial and in-line winches, in both the SPH and VAB. Could somebody else try doing the same thing to see if it's just me?

The Infernal Robotics update has a drill in it.

I have a question and perhaps a request for when the mod is next updated: The Pack Rat rear section has a front node for connecting to the front half of the Pack Rat, and a back node for connecting to the generator. Would it be possible to allow the front node of one Pack Rat rear section to be attached to the rear node of another Pack Rat rear section, to make a six-wheeled version of the Pack Rat?

The nature of Kerbal Space Program means that backwards compatibility is very important. A craft that worked in 1.0.0 needs to work in 1.0.4 because we should not have to worry that our parachutes might be nerfed while we're halfway back to Kerbal from an important mission. If it is absolutely vital that a change be made that will have negative consequences on certain missions we should be informed in advance so that we can take the appropriate precautions, whether that means evacuating stations, landing and recovering ships or entering stable holding orbits.

What I would call quick levelling only goes up to level 3: 2 points from Kerbin orbit. 2 points from a Mun flyby. 6 points from a brief flight out into Kerbol's SoI. 6.25 points from planting a flag on Minmus.

There are a couple of places where it would be handy. It would be cool if ore tanks were denser than water while full so that we could use them as ballast tanks: send a rover to Laythe empty, fill it up with ore as ballast, then send it driving across the sea bed. And proper floats so we can build proper seaplane SSTOs would also be fun for Laythe missions.

This is the first time I've heard of Big Sky theory failing. And to lose two space stations to it...