SilverWolf

I think you guys need to rethink some of your equations. Just as a rough example, the RJ's going to hit the barber pole (330,) thrust levers at idle, about 10 degrees nose down in about five seconds. No airplane, save maybe a Cub, is going to fall out of the sky at 94 kias, not even a Cessna, so to get this kind of drag performance out of a swept-wing with a pair of CF34's hanging off the side is not very researchy. My minor's in this stuff, guys; give me a call if you'd like me to crack open some notebooks.

Reactor drone was on to something. Cranked the Ejection force back up, and moved the separatrons closer together so that the aft ones are directly under the Orbiter's CG. Minimal moments. Thanks, guys.

I didn't think I'd actually have to account for that. Let me give it a go, and I'll be back with you in five minutes. Well, if that's what's doing it, I'm kind of up the creek, because I just angled them out by about 45 degrees, and that still upset the shuttle.

It sits right on the Shuttle's CoM. Removed Separatrons, removed problem. Why? So I can't have the ET pushed away from the shuttle?

I'm so sorry about that. I went and committed the cardinal sin of taking screenshots into the sun. >_< Here you go.

I was hoping someone could help me understand what is happening here, and possibly why it's happening. The radial attachment point is set to an ejection force of 0. It is attached at the bow by two struts, and at the stern by two struts. Upon detachment, a severe nose-down moment is inflicted upon the shuttle. The red sphere is the center of gravity. Thanks, guys.

Alpha release.

Kind of stuck between a rock and a hard spot here. I'm having to choose between effects working properly, or having minimum thrust settings on the newer engines. The way the effects are written on the Vector and the Rhino cut all sound and visuals when the throttle is set at 0%, even if the engines are activated and running at their minimum thrust levels. Has to do with the effects tables. Attempted to adjust these so that 0.0 throttle would run the effects at 65%, but then the running sound plays even when the engine's off, and the visuals don't cue anyway.

Something's wrong with the model, but neither 3Ds, Unity, KSP, or Blender will tell me what. KSP makes no mention of the model in its log file. Very disappointing. Edit: Nevermind, it's in. It didn't like me reusing the Mk3 fuselage textures.

Sorry, I realize how vague that was. It shows up in the database, but not the game itself. I was hoping for a Log entry, but there's no mention of it. Does KSP require an "inflatable balloon" mesh?

Actually, I'm having a spot of trouble with it. I got it into Unity, and I exported the textured .mu, but KSP doesn't like it; and of course it's not telling me why. All of the tutorials and guides are outdated; what are some common culprits?

Several additions to the album. All the fuel tanks are done. The engines are done (I think.) All of this is preliminary: That didn't paste very well from Word... I should probably start thinking about a name for this pack. Any ideas?

Did you guys even know you needed this part? The Mk.3 Wing Box. https://goo.gl/photos/JZHGHEBKxrH7x8kr8 Actually, I might shove a fuel tank in there, too. O_o

Several months ago, a rising star of an engineer newly employed at Justin Kerman's Tank & Engine Salvage found it wholly unacceptable how absurdly that some cockpits were obscenely more massive than some other cockpits were when attached to air-breathing rockets not intended for space flight, that the novel notion of completely rethinking the way we dream of looking at space flight while dumpster diving scrounging for new junk, we mean parts, somehow resulted in the engineering of internal fuel tanks for old rockets in our new airplanes. Anyway, we need your help. We want you to test our fuel tanks and engines somewhere in the Kerbol system. Objectives: To perform the test, build a new ship, and activate any of our engines while attached to any of our fuel tanks. I'm not sure if this is a "mod," per se. What it is is the culmination of several months of work designing internal fuel cells that would fit within the models of the stock fuel tanks. I added three well-known fuels to the stock tanks: HydroLox, KeroLox, and MMH/NTO. Jet-A1 has also been added to the Mk0, Mk1, Mk2 Fuselages, as well as the Swept Wing, the Airliner Wing, and the Airliner's stabilizer. In keeping with what I felt was good standard, all liquid engines have had their masses reduced dramatically to bring thrust-to-weight ratios back to reasonable terms, with the Ant being the lowest at 10:1, and the Rhino being the workhorse at 100:1. Aircraft cockpits have had their masses reduced (and also their crash tolerances) to bring their CG moments back to realistic terms. Reaction wheels were removed, and anything Monopropellant has been converted to MMH/NTO. A complete changelog is included in the archive. Available on Curse: https://mods.curse.com/ksp-mods/kerbal/248280-justin-kermans-tank-engine-salvage Change Log V0.1.2 Rewritten for ModuleManager, much cleaner V0.1.1 Fixed Mk1 lander can not appearing V0.1.0 Initial alpha release, very messy

Hey, guys, quick one... The User Interface that appears after completing an experiment (Such as a Crew Report, an EVA Report, a Materials Bay, etc.,) can we get the ability to move that window back? As of right now, it can't be moved, and it pops up right in the middle of the screen, which is a horrible place for it, especially if you're having to manually rapid-fire a bunch of experiments. Also, I second the previous motion to get a "Close" [X] on the window.

I hadn't actually planned on checking back on this, since it was posted in light heart and good humor, but seeing as so many requests for the plane have been made, I figured "What the Hells, maybe they know something I don't." I don't have any web hosting space, so here's the craft file, instead.

Evening, fellas! This topic has absolutely no contributory value to the community whatsoever (save for the obvious availability of morale support, and older versions of our favourite modifications.) While I applaud Squad's work in (finally) upgrading to Unity 5... Y'know what? They can keep it. I just downgraded to KSP 1.0.5., and brother, let me tell you... BEST. DECISION. EVER. Not only do all of my modifications work again, but I can actually land a plane on a runway without it exploding! Me! An airline pilot! What a true novelty! I can't wait to actually land on the Mun, again! I think, to celebrate, I'm going to build a big-assed black pickup-truck, and I'm going to go carve doughnuts into the face of Duna. Welp, anyway, that's all I wanted to share. Peace out home slices and brotein shakes!

Brownhair2, Some months back before an update, I had a spaceplane that had a striking resemblance to the SR-71. I would bring it back by descending/maintaining 70 kM, then dropping my periapsis to about 40 kM. From this point, I'd increase my alpha to 15 degrees, and enjoy the ride. The plane would level off at between 40 to 45 kM for a few thousand miles, eventually losing enough speed to continue descending. It got warm, for sure, but I never lost anything of consequence. My recommendation would be, descend and maintain 90 kM, then drop your periapsis to about 70 or 75 kM, increase your alpha to something comfortable that will create a significant amount of drag, but wont be uncontrollable like a deep stall, and start reentry interface about half-way around the planet from where you want to land. Just a matter of perspective, I had to enter the atmosphere 135 degrees from KSC to comfortably capture the ILS 9. Hope this helps.

As a reference, all animations and effects work properly on all the other engines I've welded (as I don't use UbzioWeld.) I suspect it might have something to do with this module. If that's the case, then something is causing this animation to proc, even when not called.

Hey, guys. So, lately I decided to assemble all the air breathing engines into single units, and I've been extremely successful. I've got a GE-CJ-610, a CF34-8C5, and an F110-GE-129, and now I'm finishing up with the J-58 or "Whiplash" as Kerbals like to call it. So far, it's the only engine that's given me any spot of trouble, and this one's a brain teaser... Part file: Okay, I know this is not a working engine, because all the modules are missing, but there's a reason I cleared everything all out. ---- When I load the engine, the TurboRamJet model is permanently glowing as if it's been running at 105 for a few hours... I unloaded the modules because I wanted to troubleshoot, but when an empty shell is glowing, well, I'm scratching my head. Thanks, guys.

Correct, however if you examine the context menu for the Lv. 2 Research and Development facility, you'll notice in amber it will state "Astronaut Complex Upgrade Required for EVA Surface Sample." At present, I have a Lv. 1 Astronaut Complex, and a Lv. 2 Research and Development Facility, and I am able to collect surface samples (on Kerbin.) I have not yet attempted to do so on another body -- albeit I wouldn't be permitted to get out, anyway. XD So, is this correct? Are we actually allowed to collect surface samples on Kerbin with only the Lv. 2 RnD? That's my game's current behavior. I'm sorry I wasn't more detailed, earlier.

1.0.5. I'm allowed to collect surface samples without the Astronaut Complex. I do have the Lv. 2 RnD. Derp?

Personally, I find all of the command pods to be center of gravity disasters, especially the Mk. 1 Cockpit, which is only half as dense as a full Mk. 1 fuel tank, yet three times as dense as any scientific equipment you choose to place behind it. It's also more dense than any wing you can put behind it. Wings are built like tanks; they have spars, ribs, and stringers (unless we start talking about monocoque or semi-coque carbon-fiber construction,) all supporting the shape of the skin. Cockpits on aircraft, like the rest of the fuselage, are paper plates for a reason: they need to be light. They're not impregnable fortresses that can tolerate a service truck, much less a ground impact. I don't think the reaction wheel justification holds water, either. If reaction wheels are needed, that's what the SAS modules are for. The Mk. 1 pretty much looks like a Lear cockpit. The 35 empty only weighs about 4.1t. This cockpit tries to account for more than a quarter of that. Squad continues to push this game in a direction that makes it more of a poor simulation screaming for a total physics and dynamics overhaul louder with each update. And with the direction they're taking, there are inconsistencies with their methodology... By comparison, the heaviest Mercury capsule was loaded to 1400 kg. The Mk 1 Capsule is rated at 840 kg. Deviation -40% The Apollo/Saturn V command module was roughly 4,990kg, and that mass includes the reaction wheels, docking port, and the heat shield. Total KSP value: 5.47 t. +9.6% The Apollo lander module (ascent stage) had a dry mass of approximately 2150 kg, but keep in mind that included the ascent engine, dry fuel tanks, and docking port. Squad's Mk 2 lander can? 2.66t (just the can.) 3.66t w/ fuel tank and terrier. +70% The Cupola module currently mounted on the ISS: 1805 kg. Squad's Cupola: 1.8t. Rock on. LOX has a density of 1.141 g/cm3 on earth, compared to Squad's .005 what? kg/L? So, 5g/cm3. +338%. H2 has a density of 0.07085 g/cm3 on earth, compared to Squad's 5 g/cm3. +6957% N2H4 (Hydrazine, the most commonly used mono propellant,) is 1.021 g/cm3. Squads? 4 g/cm3. +292%. Also, if the shuttle's external tank is any clue, it seems the burn ratio for H2/O2 is closer to 106261kg/629340kg (or 0.17:1) than it is 0.9/1.1. Isps are off on the engines they are derived from... Now here's the real issue: Kerbin is about 10.607 times more dense than Earth, which predetermines the aforementioned values. Yet, gravity remains unchanged. Circumnavigating this fact certainly requires some finagling. However, even assuming that if 1 cubic centimeter of water on earth is 1 gram, the same cubic centimeter of water on Kerbin should be 10.607 grams, the densities above are still off par. LOX on Kerbin should be 12.103 g/cm3, Liquid Hydrogen 0.752 g/cm3, and Hydrazine 10.830 g/cm3. Furthermore, the dry mass of all the parts would then be all knuckered up. Whichever road you take, we come back to an issue with consistency. If we want to assume all aluminum is ten times as dense on Kerbin, then we have to increase (and unify) the mass on all the parts and ramp up engine output. If we want to stick with earth values, then we still need to be consistent with what's available (and experimental) on earth. Can't cherry pick, and can't go making stuff up. As far as actually figuring out what all the parts weigh dry, that's something that should have been done during the modelling process by cross-evaluating surface area and volume with density of material to be used (aluminum, titanium, iron, steel, etc.) Now we're stuck to guestimating what a wing weighs. TLDR: Everything needs a complete rework. All this just because I wanted to come in and talk about the cockpits being too heavy...

Had that happen this morning. This is what my ship landed on Minimus now looks like, along with my all-star pilot. I'm pretty pissed off, about it. http://imageshack.com/a/img673/810/22th7C.jpg