Khobai

Life support should absolutely be included in vanilla. It should be toggleable on and off though. 1) There should be three critical life support resources: oxygen, water, and supplies (includes food, spare parts, medical supplies, etc). Kerbals should be able to live 3 minutes without oxygen, 3 days without water, and 3 weeks without food. 2) You should be able to produce oxygen from water. You should be able to produce water from fuel cells. Supplies however would only be replenishable from Kerbin. 3) There should be random failures of life support parts that require EVA to repair. 4) Optionally they could add "exposure" to the game. Kerbals would suffer exposure in hostile environments (radiation, extreme temperatures, acidic environments, etc...). The EVA suits could protect Kerbals from several hours of exposure before the Kerbals have to find proper shelter.

definitely. we need a medium-sized engine that uses monoprop like the real space shuttle used for its OMS. but also the vectors need their weight and thrust reduced. they weigh too much at 4 tons each and make the shuttle too butt-heavy. youre better off using x3 skipper engines IMO.

the vector is WAY TOO heavy, three of them makes it hard to build a shuttle that glides properly IMO they need to redesign the engine with like half the thrust and half the weight to make it more suitable for shuttles

i make big ship too. patch 1.00 broke it though lol. oh wait i still make big ships XD

part count limit is still going to be the biggest problem with a floating city. especially if you try to bring other aircraft/ships near it. dont see any way around the part count problem other than using a welding mod

Yeah but even with armor, a single strong missile could still destroy it. For that reason, armoring is pretty pointless, and a waste of part count.

3000+ dv is wimpy. mine has infinite DV. the kerbal provides the propulsion and the command module provides infinite fuel. the landing gears clamp around the kerbal and cage him in so he drags the command module with him. its pretty much the dumbest thing ive ever built.

your ship is pretty enough to come to the prom too I uploaded a new version (same download link) that fixes the staging on the i-beam lances You can now fire them in three groups of x4, x4, and x6 instead of them all firing at once.

thats basically what I use. except if its 0.625 and unguided its a rocket. If its 1.25m or bigger and unguided its a torpedo. if its any size and guided its a missile. And anything that isnt self-propelled is generally considered a railgun

Lancer Frigate (Mk2) Main armament: x14 i-beam lances. Auxiliary craft: two light ion fighters (x2 i-beam lances each). Designed for independent deep space operations and patrolling the outer rim planets. Has enough DV to get almost anywhere. link to .craft file

I-Beam Cannon I-Beam Lance launched from a barrel.

These are stock builds so they dont have moving limbs... But they are definitely derpy.

That might have been true prior to the addition of the srb-5. But the srb-5 gives fighters a compact weapon that can damage or even destroy most armored ships. I like the way it looks. I think armoring the engines would ruin the aesthetic. Besides adding armor on top of a crash tolerance 6 fuel tank wouldnt help anyway. Armor really only helps if you attach it to crash tolerance 80 structure and even then it doesnt really do anything to stop srb-5s.

you need a length scale too so you can tell how long the ships are

either 1) armor bounces small torpedoes in which case you shouldnt use small torpedoes. And if everyone uses large torpedoes, then armor is pointless; or 2) armor doesnt bounce small torpedos in which case armor is pointless. either way armoring is pretty useless like ive been saying all along. it just increases part count and decreases ship performance for no real gain in durability. really what it comes down to whoever gets the first solid hit in. for turn based combat thats usually the lightest ship. A very small and light ship that carries srbs is basically the best ship there is for combat. and no armor usually means youre going to be the lightest ship.

if youre using small torpedos youre doing it wrong it may or may not. but it does drastically increase the part count, weight, and lower the DV. I dont think the sacrifice in performance is worth it.

IMO if it looks good it doesnt really matter how its constructed It all dies the same when a big torpedo hits it

<3 rt5s. even these tiny bombers are a huge threat to most ships. My fleet carrier can hold upto 16 of these bombers with x2 rt5s each. but also the bombers are pretty agile so its easy to line up your shots at the right angles.

true dat. fire enough rt-10s at anything and youll obliterate it armoring ships just isnt worth it because of the part counts it adds... youre doubling or even tripling your part count and likely wont even bounce an RT-10 anyway. And certainly youre not bouncing an RT-5 cluster round.

thats hardly a weakness. theres very few if any ships that a clustered srb-5 cant cut in half anyway Besides the carrier should get a chance to intercept anything before it gets close enough to launch anyway. Because the carrier gives up having the ordnance and durability of a dreadnought. There wouldnt be much point to a carrier if you couldnt use your fighter's mobility/range advantage to preemptively attack anything moving towards the carrier. As for armor, the ship is already pushing the limit for part count... I had to choose between functionality as a carrier or durability and I chose the former. yes. when im satisfied that the ship/fighters are ready for release ill post a .craft file here and in the uksc thread.

533 parts with 12 fighters loaded (the cargo bays on the other side are empty) its like 150 parts without fighters.

not srb-5s typically dreadnoughts carry the largest ordnance possible. srb-5s just dont convey that. although an srb-5 with six srb-5s attached to it radially makes for a highly devastating, very compact, and stackable dreadnought main weapon. Also here's a preview of UKSC's new Fleet Carrier. Has 8 fighter bays. 3 light fighters can fit in one bay. 2 of any other strikecraft fit in one bay. Can be loaded with 5 different strikecraft (see below). All strikecraft have RCS engines for spaceflight and are capable of unpowered glides to land on Kerbin (making them double as escape pods). Light Fighter Heavy Fighter Bomber Dropship Atmospheric Attack Jet

reminds me of that episode of southpark

This is my new design thats also based loosely on the XC series, I used MK2 parts for the hull because they have better crash tolerance. 160 parts, 75 tons propulsion is 6 nuke engines (~3000 DV) primary weapons = x6 small SRBs or x2 large SRBs mounted on the prow spine. secondary weapons = x15 small I-beam rockets or oscar-b smart missiles mounted in port/stardboard weapon pods (and x1 at the tip of the prow) optional equipment = x2 large srbs, x1 fighter/bomber (with x6 rockets), or x2 droptanks for extended range mounted on ventral docking port

thats the whole point. the more impractical, inefficient, and obnoxiously large a warship is the better