CAPFlyer

Dude, really, do you need to cuss that much? You are well aware as is everyone else that there are minors on this board. Do everyone a favor and clean up your language!

While they are way too early in development for the actual flight profile to anything more than a general sketch, the profile will most likely be similar to that used by other air launch systems where the rocket is released in relatively level flight and then the rockets ignite after separation and a drop of a thousand feet or so for clearance. Here\'s some air launch examples - Orbital Science Typical Pegasus Launch.flv

I think they\'ve now changed the name to Falcon 4 as the new generation of Merlin will still allow them to meet performance goals. http://www.stratolaunch.com/ Scaled Composites is building the launch aircraft out of a pair of 747s and SpaceX is building the Falcon launch vehicle. The system will eventually be able to launch the Dragon capsule, giving an additional launch option in addition to the Falcon 9 vehicle.

Nope, real deal. It\'s also known as the PAK-FA.

If I had a nickel for every time I or someone I knew got impatient.... I\'d have a lot of nickels with nowhere to put them... ;P

1) You putting up multiple posts referencing him to your thread doesn\'t make him do it faster. 2) He\'s already said that a massive rewrite of the aerodynamics code is coming and will coincide with the release of the Spaceplane VAB and not before. There are a lot of things that need to be changed and they will required the Spaceplane VAB to be fully functional to work right without breaking the rocket code. Before he can get there, he needs persistance and a few other items to work. As such, you need to be patient. Whining to him won\'t help you, it\'ll just get you ignored because he\'ll get tired of you not paying attention to the discussions that have been going on since before you joined this forum and have continued since. There are pages of discussions on the C7 thread, there are multiple '[suggestion]' threads on the development forum, and elsewhere talking about wanting the spaceplane functionality fixed, but the fact remains, as it stands right now, KSP isn\'t designed to actually handle spaceplanes in anything more than a very rudimentary fashion and he\'s stated that outright, including on the Wiki Feature List. I\'m glad that you\'re enthusiastic about developing for KSP, but you need to tone it down a bit because you\'re starting to come off as aggressive and forceful instead of enthusiastic and respectful.

Yep. He lifted that directly from the Air Mobile ICBM test that is talked about on the Minuteman link.

Clancy didn\'t come up with the ALBM concept - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-launched_ballistic_missile You had the Skybolt that was service ready when cancelled in favor of the Sub Launched Ballistic Missile - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-87_Skybolt and then you had the Air-Mobile capability of the Minuteman ICBM - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman While neither were actually fielded (the Minuteman capability was negotiated away as part of the SALT treaty), they were interesting concepts.

It has to do with how polys are rendered. In FSX, much of the texture/effects rendering is done on the CPU (due to the nature of DX9). As such, when things like shadows are being 'cast' on the model and on the ground, having badly generated polygons can create a higher workload. Having an optimized model, regardless of actual number of polys, results in the effects and textures being rendered in a much more predictable fashion without excess 'faces' that create complex problems that have to be solved for rendering to occur. One of the biggest places this occurs is when developers (in FSX) have modeled things on the inside of an airplane and don\'t properly set their visibility as such. Thus, the interior of the airplane is trying to be rendered, shadowed, and everything else every single frame, instead of just the exterior of the airplane. Additionally, there are other parts that are 'conditional' for rendering like the landing gear. You can specify that once the landing gear is up, the system doesn\'t have to render them anymore because they\'re enclosed by the landing gear doors, allowing for resources to be freed up elsewhere. While the GPU can handle many more polys much faster than the CPU, especially through use of shader models, a badly optimized model will still place a significantly higher load on the GPU than a properly optimized one, regardless of how many polys each has.

Just FYI, Microsoft FSX allows about 100x the polys on its models than Unity does (including the separate Virtual Cockpit and External models) and the difference in performance between a properly optimized high poly model and a poorly optimized low poly one is staggering. The high poly model will actually run faster than a model with less than 1/3 of the polys. It\'s all about how you use the polys you have ,not the number.

Don\'t start a new thread. Just update the title and first post as needed. I haven\'t posted yet because I haven\'t been home to download and try the v0.2 version and give feedback. That\'s on the list for tomorrow though.

The original X-33 would\'ve had a shuttle-sized cargo bay on it. Why not do that for your spaceplane? Saves trying to figure out how to attach a cargo pod. 8)

Only when people use others works as a base and don\'t get permission first.

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=5199.0

I get a hard roll left as well, so bad that I can\'t get the thing to fly straight, it just wallows and tries to flip over all the time, making it impossible to fly.

I\'ve just been using one of the 'long' decouplers that are available and that seems to resolve most of the problem with flight for the missiles both from drag and from mass. Ultimately, I think it\'d be a great thing if Jelly would create a dedicated decoupler for his missiles. It doesn\'t have to be anything fancy, just enough to work right on a hardpoint or surface mount and show a link between the missile and the ship. For example, if you look at most missiles, even the AIM-54 Phoenix, there are simply 2 mounting lugs on the top of the missile, thus any launcher that has 2 hooks and the proper data cable and ignition wiring can handle the missile. Something simple like that would be more than enough and ensure that whatever you attach it to creates sufficient clearance from the craft for your missile\'s fins.

Sorry I didn\'t make a full sentence. Yes I know the first movie came out in 1979. Either way, I said he retired in the early 1980\'s. Does it not go to logic that the term came about sometime prior to that retirement? As the film came out in 1979, does it not make sense that it all started for Mr. C prior to that during his 40+ year career?

You can never have too much off topic.... I\'m sure the joke goes way back before that as Mr. C retired in the early 1980s, well before even the first Star Trek movie. It probably could be traced back to some guy asking the foreman in charge of building one of the pyramids if one dug hard enough. For whatever reason, Tuesday seems to be the favorite day of procrastinators.

Sorry to burst the bubble, but the Tuesday joke goes back much further than Kerbal (even if you didn\'t realize it) - http://www.warbirddepot.com/aircraft_transports_c47-cfm.asp The name of the airplane 'Mr. \'C\', It\'s Tuesday', comes from the joke that Mr. Cavanaugh (the museum founder\'s father) used to have this running deal that he\'d take care of something (anything) on Tuesday and then his employees would remind him on Tuesday that it was time to take care of it.

1) You\'re not required to pay a damned thing for this program at this point. If you don\'t like the fact that Harv is trying to improve the program and is sharing the development with you to be able to test and develop for early, then LEAVE. We don\'t need people with attitudes like yours around here. 2) The software is a BETA in the trunk uploads, and an ALPHA in the Experimental. If you don\'t understand those concepts of development, then you need to find somewhere else to be an ass. As it is, I\'ve now deleted your 'Failcan' work because I\'m not going to support the development by someone who obviously is a 5 year old kid that has no clue how to play with others. I\'m hoping others do the same, and I\'m also starting a petition to have you removed from the forum as at this point, you\'ve crossed the line into becoming nothing more than a troll trying to cause problems.

Umm, he stated many moons ago that the struts were never intended to also be fuel lines and that he was separating the two to prevent the problems that were being caused by the struts being able to transfer fuel and the resulting undesired fuel consumption that would occur. So, for you to have fuel pass through any structure, you need fuel lines, either externally using the part, or internally by designating the part properly.

This is a fun little addon to try and get your MIRV\'s where you want them. As a test (while not necessarily accurate), I did do a 'scatter test' by using an addon spin booster to spin the bus after staging and then releasing the MIRV\'s in pairs, roughly 5 seconds apart just past apogee. Made for an interesting reentry with all 4 hitting nearly simultaneously, but separated by several kilometers.

To reply to your Vernier thing - I would rather it be an LFE, that\'s what they are in real life - constant burning motors that add a tiny bit of thrust, but are mainly used to constantly direct the vehicle. To turn them into big, powerful, RCS thrusters would be to defeat their purpose. Additionally, the real vernier thrusters usually use the same fuel supply as the primary engine, so that adds to the need for them to be LFE\'s in KSP.

Well, the problem isn\'t weight though I don\'t think. It\'s the fact that all attachments are at a single point instead of allowing for multiple connection points (i.e. for the shuttle, you have 3 connection points, one up front, and two aft, the SRBs are also connected in two points, one high, one low, and the bolts fire top first then lower to assist the jets in getting the proper separation). Because of this and an apparent issue with the collision mesh (which seems to have some effect on how parts behave together right now) seems to result in engines with a small attachment point or with a large plate to 'swivel' when connected in certain ways. I\'ve not had the issue with the other addon engines, only the KW pack when paired with the uncouplers shown. However, the bigger issue in the meantime before a fix is found is that I\'ve been unable to get struts that will connect between the KW engines and tank above to fix the problem. Is there a secret to it or are you connecting the struts differently?

Not to stop you guys from releasing, but I\'m finding a major issue with the strength of your engine connections. Here is a basic 2-stage using only 2-meter parts. The decoupler has been tried in several positions, but this is the one where the top of the decoupler matches the top of the engine mount, which is what it should be at. Notice how much it stretches at that point only. There shouldn\'t be so much torque to do that. I\'ve tried using RCS placement to 'relieve' the stress and keep it more in line, but that\'s not working. There\'s something wrong with the connection that\'s allowing it to stretch too much.