Galane

Tachikoma!

The fix would be to place upper limits on the sizes procedural parts can be stretched to. My first stretchy tank rocket had a single, central core tank of Rockomax diameter stretched to an absurd length. Then I ringed it with a lot of FL-T800 tanks, staging top down, using sepratrons on them all to kick away. Had something like 14~18 stages. It performed... poorly. It would get off the pad but I don't recall if it ever made orbit. Now I mainly use small stretchies as additional drop tanks for launchers that need just a bit of extra fuel so that what I want in orbit gets up there.

*necrobump* I'd like to see this redone in .23 with mods like procedural wings. I was going to suggest this plane but found this thread with a Google for pictures of it. Being unable to land just makes it a closer emulation of the real one.

So this could be used to fly a KSP version of the XFY-1 Convair Pogo or Lockheed XFV-1 or the SNECMA C450 Coléoptère? How about a ROTON SSTO?

Look back up the thread a ways. There's a post with a link or attachment of all 9 sizes of the telescoping pistons stacked. Download and put into your subassembly folder. Then you can stick the whole thing on your ship and remove the pieces you don't need. It's like a telescoping piston post-it pad.

If the navball isn't showing all blue when the rocket is on the pad, the launch will tend to go bad. Change which part has control from here set. Could add that to some other old sayings. Red sky at night, sailor's delight. Red sky at morning, sailor take warning. Blue ball on the pad or launch will go bad.

That is some amazing flying.

I see sigs all over with the ribbon and a short quote and neither are cut off. See mine down there? How do I fix that?

A ship found on the Spaceport, with some non-essential parts removed and others added. Capable of landing on Eve then lifting to around 19,000 meters before lighting the engines. The core section makes it to orbit with fuel to spare plus two more small stages. Now I have a baseline to build a successful lander. Edir: Per the challenge this scores a 7 on descent and a 7 on ascent.

Gilly has a bit of the opposite problem to Eve. Getting off it takes a few seconds. Blast straight up to 11 KM and circularize. Getting down takes forever due to warp not being allowed below 10 KM. Ion drive on the satellites and Gilly lander... I'll have to test that from a 100KM Eve orbit. Would make it simpler without the transfer ship having to make orbit at 10,000 KM to drop off the Gilly stuff, drop to 100KM for the Eve stuff, then go all the way out to Gilly. Only the manned lander will be able to refuel at Eve. Going to take a lot of real time to refuel out there due to the slow landings. I would have to decide to do one of the hardest mission types in the game after going to Duna.

Simón Vega's art gives new meaning to "space junk".

It doesn't open parachutes in more than a single stage. I took this craft, removed the launcher, the rovers, the two side mounted cockpits/pods - everything but the Eve lander part. Then I removed the chair and the tank and engine it was sitting on, replaced with a MK1 pod with a docking port and a couple of ox stat panels. Topped off with an OKTO2 on top of the port so it could fly unmanned. During landing MechJeb only popped the two MK25 chutes, and it waited to do the suicide burn until the landing gear was almost touching the ground, still descending at over 20 m/sec. I lowered the gear manually earlier, so I don't know if it would also have failed to lower it soon enough. I had TAC fuel balancer running because during the deorbit burns it was draining pretty fast from the tanks that would drop first during ascent from Eve. Wouldn't work too well to have part of the ship fall off too soon. It's supposedly a craft capable of landing on Eve with quite a bit more weight on it, and returning part of it to Eve orbit to dock with a Kerbin return vehicle. Manual flying instructions are included. As-built, to get MechJeb to properly handle the launch requires setting control to the OKTO2 under the chair on top. I'll try it again, with all the chutes put into one stage. Might also try it with the chutes removed. If that works then I'll test with a 2 man can. If that works then I'll know what sort of fuel and engine power I need. This lander is too spread out and spindly, some reconfiguring to make it bundled tighter should work with my Eve mission plan.

I plan to launch the various landers and rovers separately then stack dock them atop each other. The satellites and Gilly mining lander are built on top of the Eve drilling rover. That will stack on top of the Eve conversion rover, which will stack on top of the manned Eve lander. Or the manned lander could go between the rovers. Of course there will be ample use of quantum struts and KJR. I also have the clampotron sr ports on decouplers so the ones that won't be re-used can be dropped. It wil be a modified version of my Duna mission, still waiting on the return window. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/58167-Duna-mission-planning-and-R-D

Something I'll have to be careful on is having enough fuel in the transfer ship to get from LEO to Gilly after picking up the manned lander. Might have to make a few kethane runs between Gilly and high orbit to tank up before going down to 100 KM. Already have checked that the Gilly lander can't make that trip from 100 KM out to Gilly.

I plan to send a kethane scanning satellite and a mining lander to Gilly and another satellite to low Eve orbit, also going to Eve will be a pair of rovers and (when I can get something capable of returning from the surface) a manned lander, along with the ship to recover the lander and transfer to Gilly orbit to refuel for the trip back to Kerbin. What's a good initial orbit altitude for such a split mission? I've experimented and found it takes a lot of fuel to go from a 100 KM Eve orbit out to Gilly. I tried a 10,000 KM orbit and was able to send a satellite and lander to Gilly with fuel to spare, with the intercept out near apoapsis, but another satellite of the same design used all its fuel getting down to 100KM. I used MechJeb, which ended the PE at well below 100 KM when I set it to 102 KM, which required using all the remaining fuel to correct. Looks like that's a maneuver where I'll just have to use SASS to point retrograde and run the throttle myself.

Something that might work to break it is using the big adapter in the ReStock pack which mounts four Rockomax size and five small engines onto a ThunderMax size tank. Try that adapter on the bottom of a stretchy tank the same diameter. I used one of those adapters on one of my early rockets and even with struts it'd wiggle around. Flew it with KJR 1.6 a couple of days ago and it was stuck in place nice and solid. Hrmmmm, perhaps I could use that adapter now for the initial boost stage for going to Eve since it'll stay put and not shed engines during launch like it often would without KJR...

Added to my sig!

Instead of a landing ellipse you want a landing doughnut, with the target dead center in the hole. Land anywhere in the doughnut, except right in the middle. IIRC this landing was in .21 with the then release version of MechJeb. No damage, but it flipped on it side when driving it off. Used RCS to flip it back. Various dev builds have had varying degrees of landing accuracy, with some missing targets by up to several KM on Mun. (I'll add the Duna stuff to my ribbon, when the mission makes a safe return, in 120-ish days.)

Good looking planes! I had an idea for a challenge yesterday, flying a twin engine plane with one engine not running. It's possible in reality, even with engines that are pretty far apart. There's on big rule with that. NEVER turn toward the dead engine! The plane will instantly lose lift and plunge into a spin, followed by a thud into the ground, unless you're very high up and a very good pilot. Dunno how the challenge rules should be, just that it should involve flying a twin engine plane with one dead engine, and the plane can't have two inline engines or two stacked engines to keep the thrust line centered left-right. Right close together side by side like modern fighter jets (which is largely for not having much off center thrust with an engine out) should be out too.

So on Windows, if I change the case of a letter in a part's file or folder name, it'll break the game even though Windows doesn't care? Just one of those things showing Windows has a 33 year legacy VS those "newbies" Linux and BSD. Back then, DOS didn't even do subdirectories, let alone such fancy stuff as treating txtfile.txt and TxtFile.TXT as distinct files and allowing them to be in the same location. Adding case sensitivity to Windows would not only confuse the users, it'd also break every program ever written for Windows that might still be able to run on any version that added case sensitivity. (*sigh* If only MS had drop kicked 16 bit completely back in 1995 and added case sensitivity.) Hmmm, there *might* be a possible way to hack it in and make it not break "legacy" software. The product so cleverly named "Long File Names for Windows 3.1 and 95" added support to Windows 3.1x to read and write Windows 95's long file names (for those who dual booted 3.1x and 95), and also added LFN support to 16 bit software running on Windows 95. Unlike any other LFN hack, that used the genuine article. The 'exactly what it says on the tin' name made it extremely hard to find, but someone did locate a copy and it's somewhere on the MDGx website. Dunno if it also works in Win98/Me or other versions that still support 16bit software. Could be it only works on FAT16 with LFN. I'd bet a similar kind of hack could add case sensitivity to Windows, but it would be much more involved because without Microsoft doing it themselves, it would require major modifications to the filesystem that has plenty of murky areas in the publicly available documentation. Handling programs that don't use the stock file dialogs (such as nearly everything from Adobe and Microsoft Office) would be a right pain because they don't play by the rules. Would be easier to do it as an addon to allow Winderz to read/write Linux and BSD storage in much the same way as that old product made 3.1x able to use that 'foreign' version of the directory structure 95 introduced.

Windows is not case sensitive. Linux can be. Dunno about OS X. So how did they manage to make a program that's case sensitive for file names on Windows??????

Blohm & Voss BV 141 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_141

What are you doing?: even if you dock, the assembled vessel only has one of any part, with the already explained exceptions.: 20 points That would need an exception for the matching docking ports.

Which is why the server should be able to check them to ensure they are what they're supposed to be, KSP mods supported by KMP.

The only way modded parts and plugins etc are going to work with a multiplayer KSP is if the servers automatically synchronize what everyone has. Games like Quake 3 did that where if a player joined with a custom model and/or skin it would be pushed to all other players in the same map. Another option is to have all the mods on the server, players join with a vanilla KSP plus the multiplayer mod, then all the other mods get pushed so that everyone in the game has exactly the same stuff in the same locations.