Tuareg

yeah, that could be done as well (at least temporarily), its just and extra line per connections saying this docking port is connected to that docking port though to give unlimited possibilities of connections it would be far more sensible to make a matrix growing with the part count and it can model any amount of connections easily...

it would be far easier and a lot more sensible simply just when you enter moho soi or get orbit around moho or whatever it would just appear in your DONE mission without actually receiving and accepting the mission. it should be active from the very beginning of the game hidden and when you do it it would just say, congratulation jeb you have done a great step, you made a kerbal dream a reality. full stop. mission done. you are a cool guy

its all right if u stopped using them but casuals need it. 90% of the players will never launch a rocket like you do... i want flying saucepans with candles and i expect them to work because its a game. i wanna strap 2 rovers with dockingstations plus scienslabs and solar towers and so on to one single rocket and send it to the mun because i want to play on the mun and for me to launch a rocket for every bit of these is boring and i want that craft to turn when i want it to turn even when the engines are off... and i want that rocket to land on the mun. I want this to fly because i dont want to send 10 rockets to bring them to the mun and i dont want to build a giant copy of the saturn V either when i can send this stuff up with a simple 2 stage monster... so ppl who comes just to PLAY and have fun needs these extra controls

lol. we are long over those times when realtime physical meshdeformation runs on 5 fps check out spintires. the entire terrain has permanent physical meshdeformaition and runs on 120 fps on my pc

what? lol. engineers fix broken solar wings, not calculating spherical geometry paths. those are mathematicians and physicians lol scientists... and we have scientists.

well, u have a weird and different view on creativity, what is alright, but keep it for yourself, live by that and dont want to force ur view on others. if you "have a fairly good idea of what you want" is already the creativity. the creativity is not how you build a dream in a restricted world but the dreaming itself...

i didn't say on-flight scientists calculate the burns, i just said its done by scientist, but as we don't have them on the ground who else could do it? sure not the pilots...

this^^ haha, u made my day m8, i like it yeah. actually limits are there to kill creativity... and if some things it different, its alright, but as many of us said already, they could still set limits for themselves but leave us alone pls..

well, ISS has 4 little momentumgyros to stabilise it, in the meantime it also use those gyros to keep the station rotating in sync with its orbit (and yes, it has to desaturate but just because of the rotation effect) the gyros about the size of a human torso while the ISS is HUGE compared to them...so yes they are used both way in practice. what we have to clear up i think, if reaction wheels will be changed, saturation is a problem only if you keep spinning the ship faster and faster for so long that the wheels reach their maximum speed. then they should eat rcs for desaturation to be able to keep accelerate the rotation (negative acceleration is acceleration too, so if you want to stop a rotating craft it would have the same problem). while keeping a craft stable (landed or not) needs a different effect from the same wheels but it should be weaker than the active acceleration effect. if the angular force exceeds the passive (gyro) effect, the active can still help to stabilise it, but then saturation comes again. my personal view is that this would be way too complex for a game like ksp (they cant even manage a proper sas sadly)

agree. actually the most boring thing in this game is the launch... launch... launch... once i build a nice ship and i launch it i want it to serve its purpose. not wrecks all around with dead kerbals. or wait...

and so other than using them constantly or just spin them up from time to time whats the difference between them? a wheel will be reactionwheel if we use them like that and can be momentum wheel if we spin them up... thats it, no other differences, except that as i already wrote many posts ago, the sideway effect is smaller than the active effect and this should be modeled if we want to change something as i agree that a pod shouldnt keep a craft on one leg, while a separate reaction wheel module can hold a light craft easily on one leg especially on low gravity... and no, gyro wheel dont have to be big and heavy to maintain stabilisation on far bigger things... they need to be fast. you dont seem to know how powerful a little gyro can be.

nope, actually irl scientists calculate the burns and pilots do it... i think op has a perfect sense on it

momentum gyros doesnt need desaturation, only reactionwheels... you dont seem to get what the difference is between them. reactionwheels act with force into the direction they rotate, momentumwheels act in 90 degrees to that direction and has nothing to do with saturation. flywheel is a reactionwheel, bicycle wheel is a gyro

what a lovely idea \o/ yes please. it could be the answer to launch windows, kerbal skills, science usefulness, double yes please

http://www.gathering.org/espresso/pages/tg05/newsarchive/Segway/view_top.html well, this thing has 2 little gyros and can carry a human

nope its not true... a highspeed rotating wheel can balance the craft, no need of changing speed. thats called gyro effect... you can try it at home with a bicycle wheel... but it balances the craft in the direction 90degrees from its rotation. changing the crafts alignment need acceleration of the reaction wheel. on this little diagram if you want the craft to rotate along the big red arrow, you have to give spin to the wheel along the smaller red arrow. but if the wheel is spinning on constant high speed it balances the craft along the green arrow and as long as the speed doesnt change it has no effect on the rotation along the red arrow... saturation is a problem as if the wheel spins on its topspeed along the little red arrow there is no way to rotate the craft along the big red arrow. if you wanna spin it down (desaturate) it will rotate the craft to the opposite direction. but it doesnt matter for the stabilisation effect along the green direction because in that case the effect is caused by the centripetal force not the torque

sure. i love these, i dont know what am i talking about but i pull some numbers out of my... posts. worth it... this thing is all about save resources not to use more...

nope. forces are vectors not numbers...

erm, fix me if im wrong but reaction wheels are reaction wheels when they are used to change direction and there saturation is a problem but while stabilising a landed craft they work like momentum wheels and as it about running the wheels on constant high speed in 90degrees to the stabilisation direction so the saturation doesnt affect it at all. a momentum wheel, as long as it can spin (aka has enough energy) can stabilise a landed craft even if its standing only on 1 single leg? sure, that effect is far weaker but its still there...

And you cant save the weakest joint as the breaking point of THE CRAFT, and if there is a force bigger than that you check if it was THAT JOINT or not?

except that the way is always there to switch back to per part calculations when the craft reaches breakingpoint...

you mean like this?

in VAB you dont have any "port" or whatever to connect bits. what i mean is, if we want to assemble things in space, it would be far easier to move the objects close enough with either infernal robotics or rcs or any other way, position them as you would in the VAB and with eva kerbal apply the joint. It would be a completely minimalist solution and would be easy to do. Set up angle and distance rules for sure, but thats it. if you want to add jointparts its up to you but they are not necessary i think

omg. there is no programmatic blockage in the gameengine to make either of those stuff working... it would just need some programming actually from squad

yes, it would remove tree structure but it wouldnt change anything u can see except that there would be the chance to connect close enough parts. here the green is the stock connection but as you can see the top structure is held just and only by the filled green joint. the red ones are not connected. would it hurt your "I also don't want to make my crafts too stable" feeling if it would be possible to connect them?