Dispatcher

My interest in multiplayer is simply so that a few of my relatives and friends can enjoy KSP together in the same gameplay. I hope Squad succeeds in this area of development, once the single player game is fleshed out pretty well. In fact, I'm sure that KSP will have a new found appeal to people who prefer multiplayer games.

Lucky 13. "Seven Gates":

From Wikipedia: "Dying hair was popular among women, although the frequency that hair was coloured often made it weaker. Tertullian discusses how hair dye burnt the scalp and was harmful for the head. Artificial dyes could be applied through powders, gels and bleach ... and pigeon dung was used to lighten hair."

This is what the Roman empire would be like:

Skip to 2:15 into "Shadow of the Mountain". Traitors join the "dark side" and attack the "good guys":

Today's not April 1st, April Fool's Day. Check your calendar. April Fool's!

The engine launch graph linked in my sig line will probably be outdated when KSP version 1.1 is out, but you might be surprised how some of the engines compare with each other in their respective classes and modes. I suspect that some engines will be further tweaked and rebalanced when version 1.1 hits.

Strictly considered, an SSTO can be a rocket or spaceplane; launched either vertically or horizontally. However, I think most people here (including myself) tend to make spaceplanes (using air breathing and closed cycle engines) and launch them from the runway, as SSTOs. A lot of whether or not you make it to orbit depends on your piloting skills and techniques. I'm convinced that some people can get almost anything to orbit and back. As for me, its hard to design and build successful spaceplanes. Once I get them to orbit, its a fun feeling. Good luck!

Good questions (and a reminder that my graphs can be a bit cryptic). The "2" or "3" mean 2 or 3 radial engines were tested on a particular line. The diameter 2 or 1 was used due to performance differences for the Aerospike engine between what are now called small and medium diameter fuel tank assemblies. My latest testing indicates that this information is now outdated and the 'spike's performance is not adversely affected by the diameter of the tanks used in a craft. My more recent graphs and explanations are found here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/133878-engine-launch-graph-for-ksp-105/ You will see that my testing approach has been modified and explained. I hope you'll find these useful (or at least entertaining, hehe). The most recent chart (not graph) I have is a little old, and linked in my sig line. After KSP version 1.1 is released, I'll do new testing and create new graphs based on a new chart, based on updated results.

I watched a few You Tube videos of early access Tubers (as opposed to potatoes) playing and highlighting version 1.1 and I backed up my Save files. I think 1.1 will be available officially within a week or so, based on past releases in connection with Tuber presentations. I'll be testing the stock engines again and will update my graphs and charts, which are mostly for my benefit, even though I share them. I look forward to seeing how gameplay will improve for my 9 year old iMac.

My start with KSP was when Sandbox was the only mode of gameplay. Regardless of how many or how few parts one has to experiment with, the in-game tutorials were (and remain) irrelevant to much of the current gameplay, or simply confusing or non-intuitive. I understand from posts above that this should change by version 1.1. I hope so. It makes no sense to have to search the forums or You Tube for tutorials and explanations for the basics of playing a game. I started out by building and flying planes and only later tried making rockets. I also made rovers and boats before landing on my first "moon". Essentially I tried doing some of the more difficult tasks first (aside from attaining orbit and traveling to and from some of the planets). For new players, I recommend starting either in Science mode or in Sandbox, and test what each engine will do (the basis of my own charts and graphs) using simple constructions and goals. Also try out each non engine part that has some kind of function above and beyond that of a fuel tank. Pay attention to warnings in the VAB (start there) as to what parts and resources you may be lacking. Try out science and utility parts in the vicinity of the KSC and see what they do and what they fail to do. Once you get familiar with what the parts can do, you can eventually get into staging and more complex craft. Above all, have fun! Edit: ... or just go get this; it should be the stock game IMHO: http://kerbaledu.com

This time another Myth player joins in, as does a new game character. The level is "Silvermines":

Those are indeed contra-rotating blades. The plane is a Navy version of the Spitfire.

This time the textures and denizens of Myth are rendered in High Definition; everything looks much better! Turns out that the guy rescued in the previous video is more than capable of taking care of himself. "Out of the Barrier".

When I fly imbalanced craft, I place other parts (usually science parts) to balance the overall mass. It works well enough.

This time the brothers ignore each other's advice even more than usual. 5 soldiers take on hordes of enemies in this 46 minute stint of "The Five Champions". Grab some popcorn or fish and chips and watch the bottles fly:

What you say is quite interesting. I may well do something like that. However, my tests so far have indeed been about not only performance but also of practical design. See my rough launch chart/ graph here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/133878-engine-launch-graph-for-ksp-105/ Edit: OK, I performed the first (and easiest) implementation you listed. The first image is of the craft as you described it. What follows are the flight test altitude results. I set the default (lower) engine as the first to activate via the space bar. Notice the altitude reached in the forward (normal) thrust test: Next I used the upper (reverse thrust) engine; activated using action group 1 (or I could have just right clicked on the engine and activated it there). Notice the lower altitude reached: There is no aerodynamic difference between the two flights, but maybe the reverse thrust from the engine above is adding drag to the parts below it. Just for fun, I next launched with both engines firing at the same time (using action group 2 in this case): While the altitude wasn't doubled, the engines did flame out at about 23,000 meters. Here's what I think. If you want to design a ship with no real differences between the forward and reverse modes, you will need to attach these engines radially and with enough space between them and the fuselage/ hull to negate the effects of reverse thrust drag on other craft parts. Otherwise, for practical purposes, there IS a difference between using forward and reverse thrust modes; at least when limiting a flight to only one mode. As for VTOLs, I suspect that there will be no problems.

Yes, its 2016; where is that flying car? I retested the Wheezley in both forward and reverse modes. These raise a few questions. You will note in the images that the craft are identical, with the exception of the placement of the shock cone and engine, which I transposed. I used the pre cooler as the jet fuel tank (which is fair when comparison testing against rocket engines due to the increase in tank mass on the one hand and the fact that the oxidizer is supplied by a virtual column of air, to a point, surrounding the craft on the other hand). You can see the toggle setting of the engine as well as just the look of the engine for each mode. I flew each craft using identical settings (full throttle at launch, SAS on) and did no manual flight input. The starting TWR does not display as 1.2 as with rocket engines I tested, however the pre cooler tank in each case is full of fuel. The TWR shown may be attributable to the way the game calculates TWR for jets or to the fact that the oxidizer is supplied externally, or both. My test goals were to maximize the altitude attained and you will see that the craft starting mass is identical for each test. As you can see, the ships didn't achieve the same altitude. I suspect that besides possible drag and shock intake variances, the engine outputs do differ slightly. I say this because when I tested in reverse mode, there were particle effects not only moving retrograde (how we'd want them to move, as these show a downward thrust), but particle effects moving ahead of the ship toward the prograde; indicating that some of the thrust would leak "forward" and thus help slow the ship a little. So while the engine may operate at the same thrust in each mode, it seems that some of that thrust remains in the "forward" direction of the engine when in reverse mode. The only improvement to these tests that I can think of is to remove the shock cone and replace it with a simple nose cone. However, I don't know how significant that change would be. Check out the images. Wheezley (default forward thrust): The crash was so hard that the camera flew through the planet, apparently. Next, reverse mode: Since the ship has peaked, the prograde particle effects have shifted to the side. Altitude results confirmed next: As my results were different between modes, I wonder what factors actually contributed to that? My only guesses are differences in "spinning up" time, drag, oxygen intake and possible thrust leakage forward.

Hi Starwaster, I had done flight tests of KSP engines, including jet engines; also reverse thrust tests of those with that capability. But I can see that those tests might be skewed when a similar TWR is sought when launching vertically. Its also true that when testing the Goliath as radials (for example) that some design differences occurred in order to stabilize it prior to launch, as opposed to the testing of reverse thrust after turning the engines around. I also note that in order to simulate a similar starting TWR for these jets, I sometimes varied the starting mass, and thus the altitude achieved. I think its likely that my design constraints allowed differences between otherwise identically engined craft, which would account for my results showing differences in engine mode performance. I'm satisfied that you and Sal are technically correct in saying that the thrust between modes is the same. I'm also saying that actual results may vary depending on design constraints of the craft involved. For my reverse thrust engine tests, I actually turned the engine around and mounted it to the craft backwards, prior to setting it to reverse thrust. In craft that would normally be built and flown in KSP, the engines would not be turned and moved, only the mode would change. Looking at my test results, the starting mass figures (when those were different) were relatively small and the altitude differences were similarly small. I can attribute that to design considerations. Sal-vager has gotten me interested in VTOLS now.

Sal, the reverse thrust was not 100% of the forward thrust in tests I performed. This may be due to design constraints. See the appropriate link in my sig line.

This graph is different from those I have done in the past. It differs in that all types of engines are presented here (previously I left the SRBs out of the load tests since their propellant mass was limited when compared with a liquid propellant engine). Also previously, all engine load tests relied on an arbitrary 50/50 ratio of propellant mass to payload. This time I capped the liquid fueled engine propellant mass ratio to that of the SRBs; all engines having a starting TWR of about 1.2. However, to complicate things, the game does not impart the same propellant mass ratio to SRBs when launching with a TWR of 1.2. As you will see in the chart's 4th column, there is a range of propellant mass ratios, and some of these were derived. The Kickback and Thumper propellant mass ratios are about 39% of the total ship launch mass when the TWR is 1.2, however all the other SRBs have lower ratios when launched with the same TWR. My percentage for radial SRBs (Sepratron) is based on the use of 3 radials when testing these engines. You will also notice that I equated various size/ diameter liquid propellant engines with various size/ length SRBs. This is how I determined which propellant mass ratio to be alotted to each liquid propellant engine. I feel that this is justified, since in real life larger rocket engines are allotted more propellant than smaller ones. Also, since some "engines" are actually multiples of smaller engines, I equated the Twin Boar to two "small" engines (in terms of perceived diameter and bell nozzle size), the Mammoth as four small engines and the use of 3 radial Thuds as 3 small engines. Accordingly I adjusted the propellant mass ratio for these engines. Another change is how the air breathing mode engines were tested. This too is arbitrary, in that their launch mass and altitude allow them to achieve flame out, which is a measure of their operative range. The Juno and Wheezley altitudes are at their maximum loads but while the "flameout" sound effect did not play, the fact that these engines did not use all the jet fuel means that they became sufficiently oxygen starved. Unused fuel became part of the payload. For engines not exceeding an altitude of 150 meters (launch altitude in this case), the total mass is the approximate minimum mass of parts and propellant required for a particular engine to operate in space. You will notice that some engines are listed more than once, tested in various ways or modes. I hope to use this methodology when testing the stock engines in KSP version 1.1. Please comment suggestions or concerns or questions below. This is a work in progress and the intent of the graph was to compare the diverse set of KSP stock engines for practical applications, on a single graph. Below is the same graph without the Mammoth engine results, which gives us a somewhat zoomed in view. The averages for all are retained.

This will get you from prelaunch to post-circularization. The shift from ambient musical sounds to SwellMusik's beginning is a convenient time to hit the "Space" key: If you've seen this video posted before, well, I like the music (and the movie, for that matter).

"Ambush at Devil's Overlook". A better title would be "Casualty":

This is science fiction from the early movies with sound. The following is a short excerpt from the movie. You can find the full movie online or purchase a DVD from sites like TCM or maybe a local DVD store. It has been remastered and stabilized though you can find it in various conditions. Its interesting to see what they got right and wrong when looking at their view of the future in this comedy. Just Imagine:

Windows/ Linux? Those two OSes have less in common than Linux and the OS X Unix do. If you just consider Windows, he could partition his HD and install some version of Windows if he has the HD space and compatible specs; keeping Mac OS X on the main partition. If you just consider Linux, it happens that such a flavor of Unix is not as large as the Mac market, so the Mac seems better supported than any one distribution of Linux, from what I can tell.