Dispatcher

Since Kerbalnauts must hold the EVA controls in both hands now, any mod would need to show the control as being done by one hand only, freeing up the other hand for the weapon and effects. For a 3D animator, that shouldn't be a problem. As for the rest of the mod, a coder should be able to tie the whole thing together.

Perhaps Inverting or Flipping the Normals would help? I think you'd do that in your 3D app.

An alternative to this is to use an action group to toggle them. However, as pointed out above, you need to ensure that they are joined by symmetry first; otherwise you'd make sure to select them all while assigning actions.

My fueled nose cones and adapters of course are more massive than empty nose cones. However, I had reduced the drag on those to approach a more aerodynamic effect. This was before Squad reduced the drag of the stock nose cones. For my fueled parts, see the sig line. As for the the post above, its good info.

When in Blender, the first thing I do with a new file is to set the scale to "metric", then make the desired part size. Usually these import into Unity and into the game with no other scaling needed. As above, the final place to adjust the scale is with the config file.

Welcome, Walter. Have fun!

Winchell Chung. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/index.php

I've used the Poodle in order to retain more strength in the assembly of diameter 2 multistage rockets and when Career doesn't offer more choices. However, when comparing it with the LVT 30, the LVT 30 tends to outperform it. As mentioned above, the Poodle also has vectoring (gimbaling). You can see a comparison of maximum altitude and 50% non fuel mass between engines here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/67403-Graphs-of-Engine-Comparison-Flights?p=949688&viewfull=1#post949688 When I have more engine choices unlocked, I seldom use the Poodle, if ever. Your tastes may differ.

Here are two more graphs; probably more useful than any of the above. By converting meters to kilometers, I'm now able to show maximum mass AND maximum altitude (in this case with 50% non fuel) on the same graph. The first one is with the RAPIER (air mode) and the second omits it, but retains the average. Read the blue bar as mass in tons and the orange bar as altitude in kilometers. Due to the 50% non fuel situation, only the maximum mass (but not the altitude) of the SRBs is shown. Also the same with the Aerospike with dia. 2 parts altitude. See the chart in my sig line for those, in the appropriate columns.

It is dark.

I've not done much in the way of docking components in orbital assembly. So far most of my missions have been launched from KSC in a single launch. I do as the OP does for rockets. For SSTO spaceplanes, I used to use a SINGLE turbojet engine, because when a flameout occurred, the craft was not prone to lose its heading and angle. I also used to use the (insert your favorite engine here) rocket engines. Hehe! I don't want to start a "best engine" war here. Now I use some RAPIERs. Your tastes may vary. For landers, I like to make them wider than they are tall if I can. Less prone to tipping over on a steep incline. I have never built a space station, refueling depot or base. Sounds fun though. Good luck!

You know the saying, "lies, damned lies and statistics!" Regardless of the published stats, check out some engine performance test results: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/67403-Graphs-of-Engine-Comparison-Flights?p=946903&viewfull=1#post946903 Consider that the RAPIER (air mode) performance is in the same group of engines as are the jet engines (as well as the LV909 and the LV-N and some others) in some of my testing (see the first graph). Granted; the LV-N is lifting its own mass as a higher percentage of total mass. Also note that the RAPIER (vacuum mode) performance in the same testing is in the same group of engines as are the LVT45 and LVT30 (also the Aerospike and some others). The test in this case was of maximizing the fuel mass. But, this doesn't show us the altitudes achieved. Edit: see http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/67403-Graphs-of-Engine-Comparison-Flights?p=949688&viewfull=1#post949688 for newer graphs comparing mass & altitudes (maxed, with 50% non fuel). When I substituted half the fuel mass with non fuel mass, the RAPIER (air) well outperformed any other engine, including the jets. In this test, its the only one which could achieve orbit without flying it as part of a plane. The best performing rocket (closed cycle only) engine was the Aerospike in one test. Of course, most people who use the RAPIER (and jets) are making planes in general and spaceplanes in particular. So the dynamics change when we add lifting surfaces and other aerodynamic parts. As to why the "obsession"? For me, its because I can design/ build and test an SSTO plane in about 10% of the time it takes me to make a traditional multiengine (turbojet/ your rocket engine here) plane. And I can get it to orbit easier.

Interesting. Though perhaps you are introducing aerodynamics (the winglets) a little early in the tech tree?. I think Squad has delayed their introduction purposefully.

Thanks for the comments, Alexandicity. I think you will find the following to be helpful. First, all of the graphs above are plotted from data on the spreadsheet linked at my signature line. Second, here is where I explain my engine testing: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/65937-How-I-tested-the-stock-engines-of-Squad-s-Kerbal-Space-Program I suppose that some ambiguity will occur without the context of the referenced chart. Your presumption on at what point the TWR fails to lift mass is correct; again the context (and some explanation) is had on the engine spreadsheet. All launches occur on the KSC pad. The idea of the first graph (and the base testing) is that one can get a practical idea of how engines compare (hence the 3 and 2 radial combinations alongside the single stacking engines). I believe that you know that the altitude scale of all graphs is in meters. The subsequent graphs (well, most of them) deal with the same mass per engine as is found on the first graph. The second graph deals with the altitude when most of the mass is fuel. The third graph deviates in that the altitude results are of each engine using only one small fuel tank. It demonstrates the efficiency of an engine (or set of radials) in a real simulation way. The fourth is back to using the mass shown on the first graph; this time about half of that mass is non-fuel. The fifth graph attempts to convey the range between about 100% and 50% fuel by mass, in terms of altitude reached. The additional four (graphs 5-9) are repeats, with the most powerful engine results excluded so that the remaining engine results are easier to compare. Graphs 5 and 9 attempt to show the altitude range for each engine, albeit with engines side by side; thus the 3D plot. As for the 3D look and colors; I'd love to blame Calc for that. I'd consider the tests more useful to beginners, but veterans might find them useful too. Thanks for the feedback! I'll keep what you wrote in mind. I expect to do more testing at some point; if only when new engines/ tanks are introduced into the game.

I'm kinda old fashioned I suppose, about some things. I'm not a prude but I don't like profanity. IMHO its too common in entertainment, inc. computer games. I tend not to buy movies with it; same with games. Example: I really like the original Serious Sam. But the latest? No way. I like it when family, friends and I can watch, play or listen to something and the lingo offends nobody (and kids can be around and parents don't have to deal with language issues). My own opinion is that a truly creative director/ writer can wield emotional impact without bad language, if they want to, in their creations. I don't need the lowest common denominator fare out there.

My iMac is pretty old (maxed out at a whopping 2 GB RAM). With my old (and failing) 320 GB HD everything was slowing down, inc. KSP. I replaced it with a 1 TB Seagate for $80 and with its faster read/ write and through-put, its like a new computer. Everything is much faster, inc. KSP. It used to take several minutes to load the game. Now its less than a minute. I get no lag (unless I'm launching a 700+ part craft). Of course my graphics are not maxed, but are at decent settings. I use Steam (and got KSP via that venue). I use Time Machine and an external 1 TB Seagate as well for backup (which worked out well when I replaced the internal drive). To give you an idea of time difference for me. Restoring the (failing) old drive would take 35 HOURS. Restoring to the new drive took THREE hours. You might want to go into Apps/ Utilities/ Activity Monitor and see what might be hogging resources, besides KSP. Good luck and I hope that helps!

I think this is one reason why the assembly buildings require you to start with certain parts (functionally, this means control pods; and yes, the structure tree has its hierarchy requirements). Its all about the payload, and where you want to take it. And for that matter, form factor is another (I like to build landers which are wider than they are tall, because its easier for me to land the things and they tend to tip over less, even on steep inclines). This does dictate the engines used to some degree. And ultimately it boils down to dV (especially when a target lacks an atmosphere suitable for lifting surfaces, oxidizer [or drag for aerobraking]). That said, people come up with a variety of ways to achieve their goals, and some of those methods can be unexpected. Besides, a lot of the Challenges pretty much force contestants to choose engine over payload and design. Now if only the aerospike and the jets had attachment nodes on the bottom...

With the topic of air intakes being addressed (rightly so), I'll point out that my testing (mentioned in an earlier reply) was done for each engine with ONE circular air intake (whether the engine is an air breather or not BTW; thus mass and drag were the same, as far as that component is concerned). While Talvert's graph shows that in his testing, the RAPIER (Air) shadows the Turbojet in its performance (and outdoes the Basic Jet), its also true that the RAPIER obviously can switch to closed-system-only while the Jets cannot. So far this discussion has shown to me that each engine has its uses, flight methods and styles differ, and the RAPIER does have its uses. I'm of the opinion that almost any combination of engines, with the right design, can allow an SSTO to achieve at least LKO. What's cool about KSP is that we can favor certain engines and get results using them. I do have my own favorites of course. Twin spikes (so rocket only). I'm not the best pilot or SSTO designer, so in this flight I used up all fuel for orbit, but monopropellant can nudge me back down. One of my half round fuel tanks caps the back end of the central stack. The nosecone sits atop of a docking port: Hmmm. No pics of mixed engine (spike/turbo) or RAPIER SSTOs. Perhaps I'll get to that another time. I'm interested in trying out other combinations, as some of you have done.

Yes, I feel the same way. I think a lot of us will be very interested in learning more about this.

Brotoro, what did you use to capture your results? MechJeb or something else? What graphing app? Calc or something else? Nice work and nice planes BTW.

Very nice to read, Capt'n. I'll not hog your thread by repeating my graphs, but will refer to them. Some points. While the RAPIER (air mode) only dead lifts about a third of the mass that an aerospike can dead lift, this is certainly offset by the use of lifting surfaces and other aerodynamics. Also, while the aerospike excels by lifting and burning a maxed mass of mostly fuel to an altitude of about 22,500 km, the RAPIER Air excels by lifting a maxed mass (50% non fuel, this time) to an altitude of about 630 km or so. Actually, it does well with about 7 or 8% starting fuel mass. It also excels in an efficiency test (only the smallest fuel tank used). In fact, in followup graphs, I excluded results from either the aerospike or the RAPIER Air (depending on the graph) in order to make the results of other engines clearer. On a more practical note, my best pre-RAPIER SSTOs combine the use of turbojet and aerospike engines. These were very challenging for me to design and fly to orbit. Now, RAPIER only SSTOs make it easy for me to achieve orbit, and my designing and testing time has been greatly reduced. The RAPIER can be a very useful engine. My test result graphs are found in this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/67403-Graphs-of-Engine-Comparison-Flights

Have you ever seen the UN ambassador to Kerbin? Hmmm. Maybe there ARE aliens among us.

Added 4 graphs (based on the above graphs); excluding the best achieving engines. This further clarifies the results of the remaining engines. Former averages have been retained. Depending on the graph, excluded engines include the Aerospike, air breathing and LVT-30 engines.

I'm sure to repeat some things already mentioned. Use both the VAB and SPH. Build rockets, planes, rovers, boats; and whatever combinations you can think of. Its fun. Include at least 1 battery and some solar panels (at least 3 symmetrically on rockets and 2 on planes, rovers and boats). I put panels and batteries on all but the launch stages. Once you unlock nuclear power cells, use at least 1 when building craft for outer planets (less solar energy). Some engines generate electricity. Use struts. Kerbal Engineer helps cut down on design time (if you use it). Install lights on the command pod such that you can see where you are landing at target and see where you will 'chute down to upon return (also for powered return landings). Plan missions to other worlds' moons to include enough dV to and from the host planet's low orbit. Do science everywhere (including burning reentries). Learn from errors and accidents. My Kerbol system is strewn with kerbalnauts stranded on planets, moons and in various and sundry orbits. If you can't rescue a kerbalnaut, transmit all the science you can. Use Protractor. Persistence rewards you!

Agreed. The site's maintainer is a KSP forum member.