Galane

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/large-address-aware.112556/ http://www.ntcore.com/4gb_patch.php

How fast do those gyroplane rotors spin? I built one using IR's docking washers in .90 and the rotors effectively acted like stationary wings, just rotating real slowly. For parts not sticking check the bottom node entry in the CFG. The 3rd number from the right end must have a - sign. The bottom node must point down of KSP won't allow anything to attach to it. Didn't use to be like that but they fixed it.

Is your rocketship out of fuel and on a collision course with an asteroid? Has your space station lost its orbit? Do you need to test a lander for Eve without all the tediousness of actually launching and traveling there? Then you need... HYPER EDIT!

What the game needs is the ability to tweak and toggle by right clicking the icons in the staging stack.

You could use the strut guns instead of the quantum struts.

User adjustable delay slider might fix the oscillation? Put the default at center, unless it's running with the absolute minimum delay.

I don't have to remember the names, I still have the craft files. ;-)

SNAFU 1 Build date, 7/30/2013

Coats of Arms, or Blazons, are not family insignia. They're assigned to an individual. A husband and wife would often have elements of both of their blazons combined, and each of their children would have one with a small change. This originated back when nobles fought battles as a bunch of individuals, each with retainers, men at arms etc to support and fight alongside them. Each adopted a unique pattern to paint on his shield so allies and enemies could tell at a distance who they wanted to go hit with sharp and pointy things, and who they weren't supposed to go and smack - at least not in the current fight. What started a major change in the organization of armies was the battle of Agincourt. The French were still "organized" along the old gaggle of nobles system. The English hit upon the revolutionary concept of organizing their entire force as a unit to fight together. The terrain, weather and other factors helped the English, but the main factor in their victory was the organization that enabled them to fire massive, synchronized volleys of arrows to plunge down upon the French, slaughtering their horses and anyone in the fight without good armor. While the French knights struggled with the gooey mud clinging to their armor, they got to watch as thousands died around them. The English side lost barely over 100 men, the French up to 10,000. The English brought a lot of arrows. As for those sites selling fancy printouts of "family" coats of arms, there's two software packages out there which most of them use. One makes somewhat nicer looking designs. What they've done is traced back variations of a large number of surnames, some of which have had their spelling altered many times as people moved around the world, and if some ancestor way back had a genuine blazon, the software authors have applied that to all variations of that surname. There is an actual College of Heraldry and College of Arms to which one can apply for your own design. Some possible distant ancestor of mine had a very simple blazon, two Sable chevrons on an Argent field. Were I to see about getting my own blazon, I'd take that and add three Sable Mullets (stars), Fess wise across the top. Hmmm, I should do that on my Heraldic KSP flag which has the shield with two chevrons, beside a Cockatrice.

I'd like to see tweakables added to switch the decoupling and fuel cross feed because often it would be nice to have these as permanent parts, without pulling fuel from the tank they're attached onto the side of. The one with top and bottom mounts would need two cross feed switches.

I'd like to see a "Put parts in currently selected stage" plugin. KSP just puts engines and decouplers in the stack where ever it wants, then you have to move them or hope that something like Smart Stage will place them properly. Would be so much nicer if I could click on a stage in the stack and KSP would put all newly added engines and decouplers in that stage, until I select a different stage. What else could this do? Right click on the icons in the stage stack to set properties, in the VAB/SPH and out. Would be *much* easier than having to rotate and zoom to get a view of a deeply buried part. 'Course the stack only shows engines, decouplers and parachutes. Something to display the entire rocket as a tweakable icon tree would be good.

For when your lander wants to be a lawn dart instead of dropping engines first. The idea is to have a pop out device to add stabilizing drag without mucking up MechJeb's landing guidance, because it's not a "parachute". It would also help in manual landings for the same reason, keeping the hot end pointed the right direction. A ribbon would be the most real world drag stabilizing device. Something rigid and extendible / retractable would work, as long as it doesn't effect lift and drag when retracted. There's a Stock Bug Fix for the stock airbrakes that fixes them having lift/drag when retracted but those things are rather large and awkward to fit onto a lander.

Those are parachutes, intended to drastically slow a craft down. A ribbon chute is more for stability than drag.

NASA and other Earthly rocket launchers do exactly that. They wait until the time when the target orbit and the launch site are at the proper coincidence in order to use the least amount of reaction mass. Launch windows. To launch to ISS required a northerly "dogleg" to reach the orbit of the ISS which is inclined to the degree it is so that it will pass over Russia's launch site. Most other Shuttle launches angled to the south in a mostly straight path that was more efficient from Canaveral's 28.4556° N latitude. That's why Columbia didn't go to ISS, it was too heavy to carry a useful payload to the station even with the super lightweight external fuel tanks. Which is what led to its demise due to flying with an old "lightweight" tank on its last mission instead of one of the newer tanks with revised and fresher insulation.

Strange glitch last night landing on Minmus. The landing legs extended up but failed to hinge out and down and the lander set down on its engine nozzles. Poking the gear button a couple of times got the legs down. Most likely a KSP glitch. Never seen it before.

Docking ports don't like to be moved with Infernal Robotics parts.

Did you get the latest dev version?

The ideal for a ramp to ramp jump is to have the vehicle follow a trajectory as if it was just driving over a small hill, at a speed that in the middle section would just barely have the wheels in contact with the surface. Done right it looks as easy as driving over a small hill. Go too slow or have something wrong with the suspension or takeoff ramp that kicks the back up or nose down and you'll be stopping very quickly into the end of the landing ramp. Go too fast and you overshoot some to all of the landing ramp, leading to a harder landing or learning what being a pinball feels like. In other words an ideal jump like that is just a very short sub-orbital flight. Astro Spiral is a very short sub-orbital with a twist. One failed jump that would have worked if they'd just used the test car was an attempt to jump across a narrow part of the Grand Canyon. The test car was built like a dune buggy and they had ramps setup the exact distance apart as across the canyon. Zip, zip zip! The driver made several test jumps and made it look easy. Then they proceeded to screw it up by the numbers. The car for the canyon jump had the same chassis but a swoopy fiberglass body with a downturned nose. So they stuck a plastic airdam *on top* of the nose and expected it to counteract the downforce of the sloping nose. They also filled the body with foam so it'd float if it landed in the river and the driver planned to slide up and sit on the back to alter the balance. (And how was he supposed to get back into the seat and belted in, in time for the landing?) Naturally as soon as it cleared the takeoff ramp it nosed over, the driver bailed out and it was a massive failure on live nationwide TV. They had a car they absolutely knew could jump the distance and stay stable, so WTH did they get stupid and try a car they hadn't put in a wind tunnel nor even tried out on the test jump? This was on TV, very much pre-WWW. Can't find anything about it online but I watched the live broadcast way back when. Pretty sure it was before Geraldo's "Al Capone's Vault" fiasco that turned out to be an abandoned sidewalk elevator.

They wouldn't actually work like parachutes, the idea is to add some drag that's deployable, doesn't have any lift effect when not deployed, has the same drag when not deployed as a normal parachute, and won't be cut loose like the stock chutes when the vertical velocity drops too low. They'd also be for stabilizing landers or out of control aircraft, which with the new aero should actually work. They should also work as a higher speed drogue replacement, speed reduction wouldn't be much. Making it work with MechJeb would be very nice, keeping the lander aimed the right direction should help its accuracy. I tried using parachutes in pre-1.0.x to pull aircraft out of spins or plummeting tail first but it just didn't work. The chute's large amount of drag and being attached well behind the COM *should have* had the plane hanging nose down from the chute, or yanked it back to flying straight with engine thrust on. Just crazy having an airplane hanging UP from the bottom of a parachute.

Center of pressure is not at all the same as center of lift. http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktcp.html If you put no parts with the property of lift on a rocket, the VAB will show the center of lift sitting on the floor, which ain't right at all for center of pressure. One possible way to find the point to display the COP would be to invisibly 'behind the scenes' raycast using parallel rays from one side of the VAB to the other, with the ray array centered on the COM. Projected against a virtual plane (and ignoring parts like launch clamps and others the aero model ignores) the outline shape would be generated by all rays NOT blocked by the rocket. Then on that outline do the math for finding the centroid of an irregular shape. Quite a bit of work for KSP to do to display a small sphere on the screen but it would be a big help for building rockets that are stable without having to do fin spamming to force them to keep the nose pointed the right way. For rockets that are not symmetric in the X and Y axes, the COP would be a different heights. Might want to have a way to test for and display that.

Have you checked that the center of lift is lower than the center of mass in the VAB? 'Course the problem with that is what KSP needs to show for rockets, and to use in its aerodynamic simulation, is center of pressure instead of lift. If you put no parts with lift properties on a rocket it will show the center of lift sitting on the VAB floor. Center of pressure is found by finding the center of mass of a flat sheet cut to the shape of a silhouette of the rocket. That point has to be behind the center of mass of the actual rocket in order for it to be stable.

That Apple document predates OS X, it also predates Quicktime 4, which heralded Apple's abandonment of much of the standard conventions and ease of use conventions they played a major part in defining. I've used and worked on and fixed computers since 1983, so I've experienced the full range from command line to various ANSI and graphical shells and the various Windows and Mac versions plus some others. In that time I've run into a lot of flat out stupid and WTFH things. (My first hard drive was five megabytes and installing MS-DOS and all the software I had filled up half of it! Today I routinely work with single files larger than 5 meg.) A very common thing that time and effort get wasted on are custom dialog boxes, especially for opening and saving files. The operating system GUI should provide just about every common dialog box (that's why they're called common) any program will require - yet programmers persist in coding as if they're writing a DOS program that had to do *everything* with its own code. Ironically, some of the worst at not using the built in stuff provided to make creating a program easier are Microsoft and Apple. As for the "Modern" Start Screen in Windows 8.x and the UI of current Windows Phone, it's a throwback to Windows 1.0. What's so similar? They both have non-overlapping tiles with active content. Win 8 has higher resolution and can display more colors and more tiles, but the overall UI has reverted to the square corners, flat and saturated colors and zero "3D" effect of Windows 1.0 through 3.0. The adverts for Windows phone show tiles with a heavy use of Cyan, White, Magenta and Black - the exact colors as the default palette of a CGA video card. Rotate a WinPhone 90 degrees clockwise so the bar up the right side is along the bottom and it's even more like Windows 1.0 with its command line across the bottom. The only piece of design style not harking back to Win 1.0 are the square cornered buttons. Win 1.0 had round cornered buttons and a heavy outline line indicating which button Enter would activate - almost a pixel perfect copy from Macintosh. After the lawsuit, Windows had no round corners anywhere and the indicator line became a thin dotted one. We've come a long way for Microsoft to copy the style of a GUI they made 30 years ago, that failed to set the computing world on fire. I wonder how hard it'd be to create a GUI for Windows 1.0 mimicking the style of Win 8.x's Modern screen, and have it run in a virtual machine with the ability to run in higher resolution with more colors? Call it Windows -21.9 (8.1 minus 30)

I think one of the ways the Astro Spiral jump was done was with a collapsing part of the launch ramp on the downward side, set to drop after the front wheel went off. Thus less kick would be given to that back wheel than to the upward side. The Sonic jump doesn't look like it had any articulated ramp parts and it got a sideways kick as the rear left the ramp. One possible way to do it without a trick ramp would be to use a "downlock" shock absorber or damper on the downward side of the rear suspension. Basically its one with special valving so it has little resistance to compression but quite a lot to extension. They're often used on drag racing cars so on launch they'll squat and shift weight to the rear easier. "Uplock" one have been used on the front suspension so when the front rises at launch the front suspension can drop fast to keep the wheels in contact with the track for steering. Any way to alter the up and down suspension damping separately in KSP?

How not to make a jump.

Is it Unity or just KSP that is using what looks like a "radio button" for checkboxes? It's a decades long tradition in GUIs to have round spots with a dot, only one of which in a group may be selected. They're called "radio buttons" after the old car radio preset buttons where when you pushed in one to change to the station it's set to, any other button that was pushed in pops out. Checkboxes are square or square-ish and use either an X or check-mark to denote they've been selected, and any or all of them in a group may be selected. However, some programmers have at various times figured out how to use radio buttons like check boxes and check boxes like radio buttons, either by hacking the programming environment they're using, or simply ignoring the instructions, or by using custom graphics to subvert the design convention that *everyone knows how to use*. Even worse is when a program makes no visual distinction between radio buttons and checkboxes, or uses a singular radio button which when selected cannot be *unselected* except by exiting or canceling the dialog box. If there's only *one* on/off choice use a checkbox. The Ascent Path Editor is using a checkbox, though graphically distorted into a sort of mashup of a checkbox and radio button. Why go to so much extra effort to confuse people about how the user interface for your software works? The base concept of the GUI was to have *common* functions across various programs look and function the same, the goal being to make it easier to learn multiple programs because once a user learns the UI functions, those things are already known for any new program. Unless the program authors think they have a 'better way' and decide to not follow the convention. An excellent resource on UI design is this older copy of Apple's Human Interface Guidelines (from before they decided to toss it all with the horrible UI of Quicktime, followed by other screwups in early OS X versions). http://interface.free.fr/Archives/Apple_HIGuidelines.pdf Another common problem in KSP is buttons that toggle a state yet do not indicate the state. One example is Control From Here. Click that all you want, you get *no indication* that it has actually done anything - unless the orientation of the control part you have changed to is different from the one changed from AND if you have the navball visible. The navball rotation will change. What should happen is the Control From Here buttons should toggle, staying depressed on the part that has control - or an indicator next to the button should appear. Anything to show on the right click menu that a part does or does not have control without having to click the button to be certain the part you want to have control actually does.