StevenRS11

Yay! Tankbutt free engines!

I get the feeling that ferram is a little excited about NuFAR, heh. How long has this been in the works? Personally, I can't wait. Parts won't need special far configs, and I never have to worry if my clever arrangment of parts is actually behaving the way I think it will. SO EXCITED AAAA!!!! Ok calm now.

Mobility? I think Jeb has that (barely) under control.

Pretty sure this is what's happening to the servers.

Pretty sure that 'smoking' is the front of the hypetrain ablating.

It took me like 15 tries to finally log on. For some reason that made me happy.

To make the system stable, you could have a backwards facing probe control the plane, and have the target probe orbit behind you. Going too fast, you go down. Going too slow, you go up!

Pretty sure in that startrek example the enterprise was holding itself up, not orbiting. It wasn't moving fast enough to remain geostationary at that altitude.

I HAVE THINGS TO SAY So, um, I'll say them I guess. First of all, I don't think anyone thinks that putting realism above fun is good. It's just that for some people (and to varying degrees) realism IS fun. With that in mind, debating whether or not some element of realism is fun or not is impossible, because it's different between people in a rather fundamental way. Now, a totally different thing. It seems like people are equating realism with "hard". Sometimes, yes, but always? No. We have lots of experience with reality, so lots of things "make sense". I used to make paper airplanes a lot, and stock aero made zero sense to me. I installed FAR, and things actually got easier for me, cause my real world experience carries over to KSP if the models line up close enough.

I havent seen it mentioned, but do these/can these be made to show up via scansat? That would be pretty cool, and useful when deciding where to launch from.

The question about turbojet engines running in a vacuum was a joke, because of how KSP reports isp values. I understand at-least the basic principles behind turbojet/turbofan operation. And the turbojets from karbonite do require air to work, don't worry. I think they are pretty balanced, maybe masses need to be tweaked a bit, but good.

Huh. My propfan reads 1400, radial jet 1100, and inline jet engine 950. Maybe a versioning thing? Karbonite does update quickly. And how would a turbojet function in a vac anyway?

Considering that my jet is karbonite fueled, I may be a bit biased. That said, there is a world of difference between karbonite and interstellar. Karbonite is very heavy, the jets get only 950 ISP, and you can't run them at full thrust. Are they more powerful than say, firespitter? Yes, for sure, but they come with a whole set of challenges to deal with first. With the fuel, tanks, drills, and intakes, they probably provide a twr similar to using a crapton of props, honestly. Interstellar, on the other hand, provides orders of magnitude greater twrs at higher tech levels, mainly because it is balanced differently.

I have heard it calling me from across the void, its tenuous atmosphere singing its siren song. Duna calls to me once more, and I will answer.

Love this mod, especially the rover and aerial survey missions. That said, I think they could use a bit of tweaking. The distance between waypoints can be very, very large for the aerials, often spanning kerbin, and flying a spaceplane to all of these can take a very long time of very repetitive play. Once you do one, then it is just a matter of time before you reach the next, you know? Maybe keep a few of the high altitude waypoints and place them slightly closer together, and then add another type of waypoint mission where they require a much, much lower elevation and are much closer together. This would require a different type of play, and some difficulty maneuvering a plane near the ground. I have similar thoughts about the rover waypoints- they can take a looong time to reach. The real satisfaction with these missions is that I actually need a rover, but I dont think you need to place them quite so far apart. As a last suggestion, it would be exceedingly cool of you could take terrain into account when generating contracts. I don't know exactly how unity or ksp work, but looking at scansat there is method to get terrain heighmaps. With those, it wouldnt be difficult to design an algorithm that finds 'interesting areas' to explore, and places waypoints accordingly. For example, an edge finder operating over biome and/or height would find rugged terrain on the boundaries of biomes. Cool!

Honestly, I think that the disintegration stuff is pretty spot on, in terms of gameplay. Its at a point where I need to be aware of it and at least plan for it, but it doesn't really limit what is ultimately possible. It took me a while, but I make a relatively heavy plane that can pull a continuous 20g loop with Q hovering around 25 kPa and if I'm really careful, pull out of dives up to 28g at 35 kPa. Haven't got it up to 30g yet, but I will. You can still get into fast spins, too, at high altitude. Its just if you don't recover fast, the denser air tears you to pieces before the ground does. And its nice that I can't do loop-de-loops with rockets anymore. I have launched many rockets with too many boosters that used my patented doughnut maneuver to prevent in-atmosphere overspeed. And yea, scale gets really lost. Try switching the readout to mph or km/h sometimes, if you are more familiar with those. M/s is generally reserved for projectiles, in my experience, so its tough to get a scale from it. Consider that the strongest recorded windspeed in a hurricane is like 95 m/s, and that can level buildings and toss cars around. My airplanes generally don't even take off until they are going faster than that. The worst tornadoes, which literally will rip roads off the ground and pulverize them never reach windspeeds over 150 m/s. Could you picture what an F5 class tornado would do to an airplane? It would turn it into scraps of aluminum foil. Now, imagine what the FAR Hypersonic Demon going Mach 2 at sea level, or ~600 m/s, is dealing with. Twitch once, and it should disintegrate to confetti. Honestly, its fuselage should probably just implode regardless.

Ill be honest, I have given up now ;-; As far as I can tell, the old method of modifying the old joint is simply no longer possible- the new joints are constructed differently.

It does necessarily take some of the creativity out of using them- for every part that is 'pre built', that removes one degree of freedom which the player could have used in a different way. Though I don't think its the pre built nature of the parts that is the issue- its that they become first order optimal solutions to a disproportionally large amount of problems because they are so good.

That is almost exactly what I have done as well- just set the fields in attachJoint.Joint. As for setting the rigidBody, thats what I am currently trying to figure out. We may need to make a completely new joint object that allows us to set the fields that we need. Again, I am thinking in terms of java, so I may be a bit off base, but code is still code.

A mod, station science I think, has a docking port that allows real docking but with no fuel transfer. Not exactly sure how they do that, but probably not hard. Just a simple tree traversal.

Yea, you can copy KSP to anywhere you feel like, and have multiple copies.

Well, it was *not* a simple bug. That said, I am having a blast taking apart this plugin. I got some of the parts working, but even then they behave... strangely. Considering I have a very limited understanding of anything thats going on under the hood in the first place, thats not too suprising.

Sometimes desperation wins over- time to install Visual Studio. Ive heard C# is similar to java, so here goes. Maybe its a simple error.

Been quietly watching this for a while now, and getting super excited. Now all we need is some sort of artificial muscle part, and we can make anything!

I uh, yes. Hmm... I think my brain leaked out of my nose, reading the OP. I salute your maths, and will now run very, very far away.