Diche Bach

You know what . . . I examining those images more closely (the aft with grid in particular) I think I see what _might_ be causing the pull to port: the forward gear seems to be shifted ever so slightly to starboard. Still, this pull problem occurs both on land and in air, so I'm not sure that is it. I appreciate any feedback or suggestions.

Thanks Red Iron Crown for moving to correct sub-forum. Thanks The_Rocketeer for taking time to help. Sorry about the lack of info , let me see if I can rectify those problems . . . My mods (best way to list them I know of, since CKAN cannot list them unless you installed everything with it as far as I know) I've noticed a lot of serious performance issues (gigantic RAM use by the game), so I'm betting I've got some mods that are improperly installed else fighting one another somehow . . . a separate issue, but I might be opening that can of worms . . . If anyone can suggest a better way to list mods than a screen cap of the directory (and without reinstalling everything with CKAN, which I do have installed, but which I found to be less than helpful). A few screen caps of the "Seagull 104" (the one that is a basically functional design that only suffers from the pull to port and the rolling when elevators are engaged): Seagull 104 Nose Seagull 104 Port/Belly Oblique view Seagull 104 superior plan view Seagull 104 Port cross-section with Aero centers overlay Seagull 104 Aft with grid and Aero centers overlay The control surfaces: Wings are set to MM symmetry. The surfaces proximal to the fuselage (middle lower selection pane in image) are acting as flaps. The ones near the wingtips (far left selection pane in image) ailerons, then of course the rudder (middle top selection pane) and the elevators (far right selection pane in image). on the tail. And finally the tail with detail on the engine (specs are visible in all the pics via Kerbal Engineer, etc.) The engine is the 0.625m MRS engine tweaked up to 0.875m.

ADDIT: hold on . . . I think I was in error that I have a bad install, so scratch everything I posted below . . . I just spotted the Communotron 88-88 in a tech called "Electronics" which is at the 7th tier (300 science level) and I haven't got that far yet . . . Communotron 32 must be around here somewhere, and that is the one I want to use for my first relay network so I'll hunt it down in the tech tree. I'll probably find it by going through it real slow but appreciate if anyone familiar with the Community Tech Tree can point me at the right one. -strike all below-

KSP is a special game that takes a certain "virtue" of gaming to a level that no other seems to even get close to: Easy to learn, difficult to master . . . or well, maybe that should be "pretty hard to learn, astronomically difficult to master . . . (?)" What I'm really trying to say here is: once you learn how to play KSP, it becomes "intuitive" even to the point that you can do a lot of ballparking and do away with all the precise adjustments that seem necessary as you are learning. I played it a good bit 3 years ago, and i have recollections of getting to the point where I could literally get a craft into orbit around Duna just totally "seat of the pants," i.e., very little use of maneuver nodes, using a good bit of intuition on burn initiations and cutoffs, etc. Coming back after three years: I couldn't even recall the difference between an apoapsis and periapsis for certain!

ADDIT: see a couple posts down for a list of my mods (screen cap only, sorry) and also a bunch of screen caps. I have found aircraft in the game to be "touchy" at best. It took me scores of tests to finally get a basic aircraft that was stable on takeoff and which I can land on ocean no problem and have landed on land a few times. I accidentally overwrote this ship file in my save directory, but I did have a backup of the directory from a few days ago; in examining the dates, I _think_ this is the old model (the one that works reasonably well). I'll check in game in a bit and edit this if I'm wrong. ADDIT: yeah this seems to be the "good" one that works fairly well, though weird that the flaps need to be "inverted" not "normal" in order to produce the dramatic lift for a slow takeoff . . . Seagull 104 I managed to fly this baby half way round Kerbin to the pyramid, land it in the desert, and then taxi up till the terrain got too rough only to realize: hatch was blocked (which strangely does NOT seem to be the case in this specific file as I just did a test flight and Jeb managed to jump out just past the runway! ) So I did a redesign, and figured I'd "improve" it a bit (more delta-v, etc.). When I was done and it had access ladders it was once again, a disaster. So I kept fiddling with it, and below is about the best I could come up with, but it is still "broken." Seagull 104a My questions: 1. What is wrong with Seagull 104a that causes it to swerve on the runway terribly (and exhibit bad lift)? 2. What is wrong with both craft that causes them to pull to port (left)? 3. Can someone point me at a resource to help me understand all the variables and values in those craft files? (I can see that a lot of problems can probably be solved by achieving perfect numbers in the craft file that are tricky to do in the in-game GUI build pane) 4. Any general suggestions? 5. Any way to set up roll trim and pitch trim tabs on the ailerons and elevators? My understanding of aerodynamics is pretty rudimentary, but I find KSPs handling of things not that edifying. For example control surfaces, angle of attack, lift COMMENTS/ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS: A. In order to achieve stable flight I found it necessary to use the wing configuration in both of these versions of Seagull: a much oversized swept wing attached near the belly of the fuselage and with the fuselage tilted anti-normal relative to the wing. This to me is a weird design (though I guess it does reflect that in modern real world craft like the stealth bomber?) and it is also weird that it seems to be the only wing configuration that I can get to be relatively stable in flight and landing. B. Along with the above, I found it necessary to use "flaps" (the control surfaces that have all axes set to inactive and with start deployed "inverted" at 38% which are proximal to the fuselage in both the designs above). Any slight change to these flaps has dramatic consequences, though with the values right around where they are in Seagull 104, it seems to provide _roughly_ the sort of flight I'd expect: general stability in roll and yaw, slow translations, a tendency to lift even at low speeds, and the ability to descend even with nose pitched up a few degrees (you know, the way you LAND a freacking airplane!?! EVERY other design [including the stock designs] wants to go NOSE DOWN once a certain low speed threshold is crossed on approach for landing]). C. This might be addressed by question #2 above, but . . . in both of these craft, engaging the elevators for pitching normal causes roll. In closing: I sense that, the way flight is modeled in KSP is actually good and exceptional in that it allows a player to DESIGN aircraft (only flight game I know of that does that), but without a more precise understanding of HOW to design, much less fly airplanes, I think I'm at my limit of how much I can gain from ad hoc experimenting, and I think I need guidance.

Not that this is really a "solution" but another point of note on the issue of the fish-taily, strange behaving landing gear. In my career playthrough, I haven't yet got far enough to get to rovers, but I have all these nifty science instruments, and I wanted to try out the land navigation aspect of the game. So I improvised and mish-mashed together a "Science Jet Buggy" using jet aircraft, and space modules. Partly this was me learning how to use the build UI, so it is a bit clunky, but it functions . . . or rather functioned, now that I've installed a couple more mods including "Stronger Joints" it does the bunny hop when it lands on the runway and explodes! so I guess I'll have to redesign it . . . not a big deal as it is anything but symmetrical and was mostly just experimental to see what I could slap together. Netted 129.5 science in one ~1.5 hour journey to north, then into ocean (yes it works well in water), then back inland to highlands.

Capturing asteroids. So fricking cool. Can you like mine those things for platinum and molybdenum and excrements?

I've only been back to playing the game for a couple weeks. Even so, I'd say it would be impossible to specify "10 or less." There are just far too many awesome mods, and I have only begun to get them all installed. That said, here is my mod list. So far, I'd call them ALL essential, though many of the ones that add stuff that is primarily late game I have yet to really experience.

Except the one that leads to fiery destruction.

I played the game three years ago, but took a long break. I restarted recently. I have no memory of flying planes in KSP from before, though I have played quite a few other flight games. In my ongoing career play, I got the first couple nodes of flight stuff researched (the crappy starting landing gear, and wonky-ass tail section). I built one: it fishtailed. I tweaked it: if fishtailed. I tweaked it more, for hours: it fishtailed . . . however, it deserves to be noted here that: my understanding of aerodynamics is pretty damn rudimentary, and worse I don't really know how squad has things like angle of attack modeled (seems a bit weird, but anyway) . . . part deux . . . I restarted a new career mode with mostly all easy settings, max science and cash, etc. (and including stock models, which I don't normally do), booted it up, bought the first level of science nodes I could afford (using Kerbal Construction Time [KCT], so I'd have to wait a bit to upgrade my R&D center) and selected the Velocitize. Took off with ZERO problem, even on a dirt airstrip. Two things should be noted here: this plane does not use the crappy starter landing gear (the stuff that looks like it belongs on a single engine propeller plane), and this plane was NOT designed by me. I didn't change anything about it, and it flew just fine (even though I was only able to fly it in "Simulation" mode in KCT for the simple reason I had not unlocked the R&D nodes for a couple of the parts . . . it is identical to flying it, you can just crash and not lose the funds or pilots . . .). Contrast: I took off the tier 2 landing gear, and tried to fly it with the crappy stuff: crashed like a stock market. Funnily enough, it didn't fishtail so much though . . . the main problem was that the rear wheels (the fixed ones) were not well centered. If there is a problem (and I suspect there is) I believe what it amounts to is one or more of the following: 1. Either the short or long (scissor shaped) starter landing gear are not behaving properly with the ground surface. 2. They are not behaving properly with the plane itself, causing it to be virtually impossible to get them to be attached in well-aligned fashion (even with that grid mod thing running).

Ah THAT is "blizzy's icon" is it? It appeared when I installed Kerbal Interstellar Extended and I hadn't really puzzled through it. Thanks! Est voila!

Yeah I am REALLY liking this mod. With lots of contract mods and extra science gear and such, it makes it basically a strategy game.

So, how do I get those "Stage Recovery GUI" things that magico shows pictures of in the first few posts to show up in game? ADDIT: so I deleted the StageRecovery directory, redownloaded it to make sure I had 1.64, and reinstalled it, and I'm still not seeing anything like a "Stage Recovery" icon in the toolbar. Here is what my Space Center pane looks like: You think it might be another I have running? I'd be particularly suspicious of "Orbital Decay" fighting with SR in terms of game mechanics, though I don't see why it would cause the GUI for SR to not show up My mod list:

Thanks bruh! Could you post your preset you use? Now that I'm figuring out this mod, I love it! It seems to work well with a lot of other ones on my mod list Just to toss in my two-cents on the "Simulations Question:" Now that I see how they function, I LOVE THEM! I do hope that they stay "in the game" in some way (whether as a feature of KCT or KRASH or whatever), and with at least the features they presently have.

Now that I got this baby running . . . I'm liking it a lot already Can tell it is automatically gonna feed into my playstyle: gear-fondling, stuff-hoarding, strategy-gamer. I think I'm even liking the preset I created. Slows down things at the start to what I now realize is a more "realistic" pace (10 days to build a very simple craft with 1 flea, 4 wings, 1 Mk1 capsule, and an Mk16 parachute) and long-term the dynamics between allocating points to building rate/tech and tradeoffs with planned operations will make the game far more engaging to me.

When attempting to use a custom preset, or make changes to a preset, button number 2 "Spend Upgrade Points" changes to "close window" instead of "spend upgrade points." It seems that only the included presets work. ADDIT: Okay, looking at the .cfg files, I think I see what the problem is: instead of the toggle buttons in the screen appearing illuminated when set to True and darkened when False, they seem to be running in reverse. I was wondering why so many of the features were "turned off" in the included presets. Just to clarify what I'm referring to here: the color used to denote "function on" versus "function off" seems to be opposite for the "General Settings" on the right as it is to the "Features" on the left. On the left (Features): dark gray (almost black) = ON ; light gray = OFF On the right (General Settings): dark gray (almost black) = OFF ; light gray = ON . . . or at least that is how it seems to be working to me.

Thank you Deimos; and yes, my apologies, I think this was asked in the wrong thread. Too many mod installs in too few days and not enough KSP playing! Now that I know what it means, I will probably use the graduated myself. The maneuver nodes should be far less annoying that way.

Ah, that is a great suggestion. I keep Steam on a very short leash (he only gets access to the Internet on special occasions) but that is a great suggestion anyway. Some games don't seem to like being copy-pasted and run from a second copy, but good to know it is something like best-practice for KSP. BTW, would love it if either of you gentlefolk would respond to my most recent post over in the Community Tech Tree thread.

Thanks Nertea. I shoul've come back and commented out that post. I seem to have everything running well now! Well, it initializes fine but I have yet to play test it.

Reading the last page or so of this thread, it sounds like starting a brand new 1.13 career play through with this mod might not be the best idea? I'm trying to get to a sort of "semi-final" mod-list (after not playing the game for 3 years). My current mod list

Very good, this answers my question!

I've installed this and am going through all the documentation to try to help me setup a "reasonable" career-mode play through. My motivations: (A) I do VERY MUCH like game design that promotes strategic analysis and decision-making. Time is an obvious consideration here. (B) I do use KAC (and love it). Even so, I do NOT particularly enjoy "sitting around" watching Kerbol warp overhead rapidly in the Space Center screen or watching a flight icon warp around in the Tracking pane . . . If I understand the game, time continues to pass at all times (when the game is not specifically paused) so one can always fiddle in the various panes (VAB, SPH, whatever) while waiting for a particular project to "come out of the oven" so to speak? Obviously, mid to late game once one has half-dozen or more "irons in the fire" this becomes less of a concern, but I'm a bit 'concerned' about how setting up "highly realistic" settings with this mod might make early game feel very tedious? (C) I have never used "simulations" in this game. I played it intensely 3 years ago, took a hiatus, and have been back at it for a couple weeks now. At this point, I rarely ever suffer a catastrophic failure to a newly built craft . . . well, maybe in only 1/10th of new flights . . . I'm guessing that simulations are useful for reducing failure rates on brand new designs? How do "simulations" actually function? Does one play them as if one is launching the vessel, but it is just a simulation, so disastrous effects are actually just "on paper?" If this is how simulations function (and moreover if they allow simulations of things other than launches from Kerbin, e.g., launching from other bodies, planning flights from Kerbin to other bodies, aero-braking of flights in progress, landing from orbit, etc.) then I'm very interested in simulations. I suppose I'd even be interested if all it allows is to simulate Kerbin launches . . . (D) I'm slightly unclear on the effects of the "Must Visit Planets" feature. I'm gathering that this means: "In order to perform ANY simulations (orbital, aero-braking, landing, launch, gravity-assists, etc.) within a particular bodies SOI, one must first have at least one flight that has entered into that SOI? I appreciate if anyone can clarify these four points for me and possibly also suggest what features I might consider turning on/off and what values to try. I'd guess that, getting the full value of this mod is best achieved by using it from very early in a career-mode play, and I'd prefer to get settings as close to "good" as possible to avert the need to restart yet another career mode playthrough. My current mod list Some initial settings I came up with based on my understanding of how the maths are working. I'd guess this will result in some time increases compared to "default" but not much. If this still seems too fast, I'll slow it down more. http://pastebin.com/QixngygF

Good points, sending up a vessel with the expectation that another vessel will need to discarded pieces from it doesn't seem economical on the face of it. But lets imagine two scenarios: 1. Accidents/mishaps 2. Future scenarios of "extreme" orbital development As an example of scenario type 1: we send an expensive unmanned probe to a remote celestial body, that includes two or more sub-modules. Completion of the overall mission requires both modules, but one breaks at some point. Now there is an incentive to be able to "recover" the surviving module which may or may not outweigh economics (sure sending a second mission might be preferable, but it might not depending on various factors). A rescue mission (which I get the impression IS already possible with stock?) would be one example that would fit here. For number two: lets say we are getting a large quantity of stuff assembled in orbit and for some reason, we want/need numerous pieces to be in nearby orbits. A part gets loose/breaks and is now a threat to other parts in its vicinity. Even if we don't care about getting the part/module back itself, it might be prudent if not economical to take care of the stray part/module. I know that the Tracking Center allows debris to be magically "deleted" but what I have in mind here is a more naturalistic playstyle in which debris CANNOT be so deleted without somehow interacting with it (shooting it with a ground based repulser beam, a "laser broom" to vaporize it, grappling it and tossing it into a burnup trajectory, etc. I've been away from the game for 3 years, so I'm not clear on how much of this is "doable" with either stock or existing mods. ADDIT: I suppose it might be helpful to post my current mod list. Game initializes trouble free though I haven't played with it yet (still putting the "finishing" touches on it). Sorry this is just a screen cap not a string list of the mods. I have CKAN but find it more trouble to use for installing than manual, and I'm not aware of any other method to generate the list of mods (not to mention that I prefer to unpack redundant copies of things, which often leads to the individuals "pieces" of a mod getting dispersed into sub-directories that may not be recognized as the mod in question).

Could someone explain what the "graduated" vs. "InstantPowerResponseConfigs" do? The others are all fairly self-explanatory (and I've installed the ReduceClampSounds) but not sure about those.

Interesting stuff! I guess one school-boys dream of being an adult EVA construction worker serving the permanent Earth Space Port, is the "iceberg-tip" of his nation's strategic Cold War concerns and objectives! *sigh* I do _sort of_ miss the Cold War . . . though the everyday "daydreaming" about nuclear apocalypse is something I'm glad we've put behind us (even if it is technically no less fearful than it ever was). The same can be said about the all the massive successes on which the STS was built: Mercury, Gemini, Apollo <-- all in large part "propelled" by a vision to "beat the Commies" in the space race . . . Maybe if there was a perceived need to develop optimally efficient methods to get payloads to orbit, and use that to build a permanent orbital construction yard / depot so as to "defeat Daesh" we'd find ourselves "lit up with anticipation" once more, and Musk, et al., would find themselves super-charged with funds, enthusiasm and support?