TeeGee

I've been trying to build my own launch tower with its own lift system using panels and wheels, but I can't seem to get the panel up to the top of the tower without it flipping and losing control. Has anyone been able to build an elevator using stock parts yet or am I attempting the improbable?

- Build time - Stage recovery - Simulated sound effects (sonic booms, vapor trails, no sound in space) - IVA's that I can move around in. - Building things with Kerbals on EVAs - Heat shields, procedural fairings - More lively space center and Kerbin (animals, cars, Kerbals running around, maybe sea life) - Reflections on parts - Windows I can see into - Reentry damage on parts (scorching) - Much better sound effects for everything - Part failure (Kerbals are idiots and therefore that should transfer to their building habits) - Cartooney clouds - Dust clouds on launch and landings as well with rover wheels picking up dirt - weathering on parts (Duna makes parts look REDDER from the dust) - Planet shine! - Rocket and plane roll-out cutscene (put rocket on crawler in VAB, drive crawler with rocket on top to launch pad, park and launch. Planes start near hanger, roll out onto run way and take off) - Launch pad fueling (what is the point of all those fuel tanks on the pad if we can't use them to fuel up our rockets? What kind of nuttjob life form would transport a fully fueled rocket onto a launchpad on a rickety crawler?) - Solar storms, radiation hazards, life support. - Tweak everyting in VAB and SPH - Wind tunnel to simulate our rockets and planes in to make sure they are performing well before we build and launch them - Multicore threading, optimisation, make the game run smooth as butter on highest settings without glitches, krakens, freezes, crashes, slow framerates etc. No more bugs. ... look at the list I've made from what I think would make a tolerable vanilla KSP experience. I wouldn't have called KSP 1.0 until all of this PLUS what they've already announced has been put into the game. What I would have done without in KSP: Science as currency Administration (who cares about that stuff! This isn't a business simulator!) Destructible buildings... was this really needed for vanilla KSP? Spaceplane + parts. Nobody uses these for anything useful. Payload bay is too small for any useful cargo.

I think that we all need to sit down and think about how we, the KSP community, would honestly review KSP in its current state. Just stock. No mods added. To emphasize my point; try to play this game purely stock for more than 2 days after playing with mods. It is a very difficult, sloppy and overall impotent experience for most veteran players. If the game were perfect, it wouldn't need 40+ mods by the average player to keep playing it. That is what Squad doesn't seem to understand. When this game is released as their "scope complete" game, it is going to be open for criticism when it is compared to other space games. Will the visuals hold up? Will the sound design? Gameplay? And most importantly, will we be as forgiving for its shortcomings? KSP has been an early access game for 3 years and its shortcomings were corrected by the community. It's not like the mods added extra things that KSP didn't need (such as pink parts, sprinkle colored decals etc). The mods added things that average space enthusiasts would expect from a space sim game (aerodynamics, deadly reentry, remote tech). KSP's success depends very highly on the community to pick up the slack from the developers. Now people are going to start to see the flaws of the game; especially now that Squad will be charging full price for it. There is just too much wrong with this game to justify spending $60 on it, especially in 2015.

Is unity 5 really going to solve all this games problems?

Which alternate color config should I use with 6.4x kerbal system? Should I keep it stock?

I don't understand this... We have mods that literally chop the number of parts the game has to load using procedural parts (tanks and wings) yet squad wants to keep using parts that take up more RAM. Why? Furthermore... could it be feasible or possible to have procedural generated ENGINES? Let me explain: First: Pick a barebones pump system that comes in 5 sizes (small-very large). Each size has different stats that affect engine performance. Second: Pick a type of gimbal (if you want one) and modify its gimbal range at your discretion. More gimbal = heavier weight. Third: Pick one of 4 sizes of engine bells that affect thrust and ISP. Fourth: Pick what type of fuel it burns (Liquid fuel or monopropellant). One model for each level but each has different sizes that you can scale in the VAB (think tweakscale). Jet engines need to be trimmed down to one type of engine; just a turbofan (basic jet engine). Pick one of 5 sizes and attach it to a engine nacelle (needed) that can also be scaled. No more turbojet. RCS can be scaled the same way as engines causing changes in stats.

Gold star to you and Ippo! You guys/gals have proved your point, next time I shouldn't use absolutes like "impossible"... I was just trying to make a point. - - - Updated - - - The biggest obstacle of reaching orbit is delta V. Stock orbit requires 4600 m/s delta v. Stock KSP with FAR installed removes 1000 m/s from that requirement. Second, reentry in stock KSP with DR and FAR is childs play; you don't even need a heat shield. The object barely reaches the max temp of the heat shield from orbital velocity. Try reentry in RO after expending 9500 m/s of delta V to reach orbit and losing all that velocity to drag... lets just say you'll need a heat shield. I think it's cheating to play KSP with FAR in the stock solar system. Someone once said," Once you reach orbit, you're halfway to anywhere." Getting into orbit is the biggest hurdle of this game and if you chop that requirement down it makes the achievement easier. IMHO everyone that uses FAR should automatically scale Kerbal up to either RSS or 6.4x, install real fuels, DR, remote tech, engine ignitor etc. to balance the game in accordance to the new game mechanics. in reality, no planet the size of Kerbin can sustain an atmosphere at 1 atm pressure. No planet in reality can have 1 G gravity at that size either. Yes I know its a game but everyone who has been singing FARs praises has always claimed that realistic = better. Well if you like realism, play the game with proper proportions. I do because I like to learn about how reality works. Do I get frustrated? For sure but when things work out for me, I'm ecstatic. My first time reaching orbit in RO was my most proud moment in KSP so far; even more proud than my first Mun landing in stock KSP.

Sounds good, thanks!

Are you serious? Every rocket that has had what I have asked for exhibited a CoL ABOVE the CoM. That is a fundamentally unstable rocket. How am I wrong? If you put a light weight payload on top of a small rocket in FAR it is going to want to FLIP. Do the same thing in stock KSP and it won't. The one person that I've seen achieve orbit without tail fins to launch one payload used a heavy FUEL TANK; plopped it onto the top of the rocket above a decoupler and launched. How is this cheating? When the fuel drains from the rocket below the decoupler, the CoM will start moving UP towards the heavier part of the rocket making it MORE stable. I asked for people to build a probe core payload launching rocket without tail fins using stock KSP and FAR. Only Ippo listened to me and understood. Short rocket; light payload = flip. That was the point I was trying to make. And Iddo, the tailfin on the nose does shift the CoL above the CoM BUT it does also make the rocket more stable flying through the atmosphere. I bet that when you reached the typical 100 m/s velocity for your turn, you started to very lightly tap the yaw button about 1 degree every few seconds until you reached 87ish degrees and stopped in order to keep the rocket in check. The fins on the nose kept the rocket from rolling and since they don't articulate, shouldn't have been a huge factor in flipping the rocket at higher altitudes. Basically, launch: 100m/s tap yaw and hold pitch at 87 degrees until 30km+, THEN start turning for real when the air is thinner. Smart but inefficient. Anyways I'm tired of talking about this stuff. FAR won't be stock because stock KSP isn't balance for it.

Hypothetical scenario: In your opinion starwarster, what should my DR settings be with regards to density exponent, shock multiplier etc given the thick souposphere atmo in stock ksp? I'm trying to tweak the settings of DR so that anything without thermal protection burns up in the atmo and haven't decided what settings I should touch. Should I just use the shockwave multiplier at 1.12 or should I look at a different value to attain what I am after?

Cheat. You took up a heavy payload to keep the CoM above the CoL. Nice try though.

It does make Dangit a MORE realistic mod than stock! PS: Technically the point I was trying to make has been made with your attempt at building a finless rocket. I still don't see a finless stock rocket by you. - - - Updated - - - I'm pretty sure vamp added some different stats to some of his parts... like pretty DARN sure.

Where is your center of lift on that rocket? Show me. EDIT: I meant build a rocket and launch a PROBE into orbit. Not launch a rocket with a probe core on it. My bad. And with regards to Dangit... and I suppose having 100% reliable parts is super realistic?!

Why is everyone knocking FAR down? It is an optional mod created by ferram! He has put a lot of time in to his work and it shows! I still don't even know why this thread even exists... stock aero WON'T BE FAR. Get over it. I think the best reason as to why FAR shouldn't be made stock is to play RO. Once you start playing KSP with realistic, simulated aerodynamics; you have no excuse to NOT be playing KSP with RO. Anyone that plays KSP with FAR on stock planet is a huger cheater in my opinion. If you want THAT much realism in your game, why aren't you playing with: real fuels, engine ignitor, DR, RSS, Dangit!, TAC, Remote Tech, soviet engines, KW rocketry, AJE etc. You can't just pick up FAR and play with stock ksp because it isn't balanced FOR stock KSP. In real life, engines have HUGE gimbal ranges in comparison to their kerbal companions and therefore they are easier to control in real life in comparison to this stock game. That's why we don't need tail fins on our rockets! Try launching a single probe rocket with stock parts in FAR without tail fins... I triple dare you to. If you can make it passed the gravity turn, you deserve a gold star. It's all about balance and FAR has NONE when it comes to the stock experience. To everyone that plays this game with FAR on stock... stop antagonizing everyone, grow a pair, and play RO like the rest of us big boys and girls. THEN lets talk about FAR in the proper context. Squad is going to do a stat revamp of all the rockets/engines after this aero update, I guarantee it. Why? because the game isn't BALANCED with proper aerodynamics in mind yet.

Shaw this is awesome! The reflections on the visor are amazing! But... Maybe you shouldn't put reflections on the pods and other parts. I don't think they need reflections. What does need reflections are things like windows and maybe engine bells. Just my opinion.

Illusion; both wings and tail are mid wing. Should I put the horizontal stabilizer anhedral and the wings dihedral?

Actually I decided to use slats and increased my control authority via increasing flap deflection for pitch and roll. I also activated flaps for BOTH aerilons; solved the problem! The tail aerilon is one of, if not THE, most important control surface during landing. With my current config, I set my takeoff flaps at setting 1 deflection (10 degrees), throttle up and let go of my pitch controls and watch her take off by herself. It's beautiful. Then I swish swash between flap delfections during landing and use my airbrakes to slow her down further. I make landings easy now. My roll lateral derivative is an issue though.. I treat it with FAR flight assist to help calm my craft down during flight. Thanks for the reply though!

Hi everyone! I need some help with airplanes. I've built a single seat fighter that flies pretty well (aside from SAS causing wobbling in the roll axis) but I can't figure out how to use FLAPS for take off and landing. I've tried both positive and negative flap deflection but my nose keeps plummeting whenever I activate flaps for takeoff and land. I have 2 elevons on my wings with the innermost flap activated as the only flaps. I've tried 10 degree flaps and even 30 degree flaps but the same stuff keeps happening. I know that a flaps function is to increase lift AND DRAG to control speed during landings and takeoffs, but I don't know how to use them properly yet. Any advice would be appreciated.

Both tanks were completely full when final orbit of 80x80 was achieved.

I think I need a bigger payload bay to accomplish that... I most recently pushed up 45 tons with a newer design that looks closer to the shuttle. I'll post pics soon.

Wasn't even aware of that craft! My shuttle is very modular. If you want to lift light payload, use 2 srbs and less fuel on the stack. If you want to lift MORE, add more srbs and fuel. Easy. The only problem is that the cargo bay is not big enough... my next goal is to lift 2 orange tanks with this config.

WIP. I'm going to polish her up a lot more before I say she's done.

Can lift as much as you want; just add more fuel to the external fuel tanks.

Absolutely incredible update! The gizmos is BY FAR the best thing to happen to this game this year. Now all we need is the polish, improved parts, better aerodynamics, reentry heat and I'll be a happy camper! Well done Squad and ENJOY YOUR HOLIDAY'S!!! You guys/girls deserve it!