Hypocee

The appropriate axes do respond in the Windows joystick calibration panel?

Thanks for more amazing Kerbal content, Riess. It spurred me to finally take the time to check out Our Intrepid Crew. It\'s good times too! I hope you find success drawing awesome things.

This actually explains a lot, though I don\'t really know what to change in response.

Part of it, yeah. Subversion seems, without ever existing, to have fragmented into Gunpoint, Frozen Synapse, Monaco and Stealth Bastard. Still, those procedural cities. Never. Nooooo.

Yeah, in the fastest LKO we\'re talking about a window of maybe +/- five minutes for quite reasonable efficiency.

Sorry, what you\'re describing is either insane or self-contradictory. You\'re following the correct procedure: to raise one, thrust prograde at the other. Perhaps there\'s a hilarious ambiguity in 'at'? It does not mean 'towards', but rather 'during the period in time when your ship is near'.

When they lock down your bank account with the rent money in it for six months and won\'t call back, it\'s a pretty big deal. Edit: Oh, that was in this thread? How stupid. Well, I\'d been meaning to say here - you guys have users\' passwords properly 'salted' right? You are or will be responsible for part of your customers\' data safety...

Well, a certain degree of that is supposed to happen - it\'s the challenge of the game right now, and you can have a perfectly good craft that becomes differently stable after it leaves a narrow angle of attack band - but there are a few things you might not have considered. 1. If it\'s soon after launch, especially if it involves SRB half-stages, you may be looking at harmonics from 'bananaing' or SRB twist. SRBs on decouplers especially love to twist, but everything bends a little. Look into struts and never ever put winglets on anything radially mounted. 2. Rather counterintuitively, if you want a rocket to be stable in atmosphere you put mass toward the front, or equivalently keep it away from the back. Where\'s the heavy part of an arrow? Where\'s the aerodynamic drag? Longer, narrower stacks beat squatter stacks at this. 3. As you burn liquid fuel, it drains from the top down. Your mass decreases...and shifts toward the back. Muahahaha. A design can flip into instability as it burns. 4. You may simply be turning too soon. Going as straight up as possible minimizes the forces produced by instability, possibly delaying it until mass has decreased further or drag becomes less dangerous. 5. Steerable winglets are powerful in low atmo, and gimbaled engines are powerful everywhere.

I\'ll just tack on that if you want to have a nice time reading blog, you could do far worse than Pentadact.com, formerly James. Tom Francis is one of my favo(u)rite people in games writing. You may know him as the author of the (extremely) long-form GalCiv War Diary and its sequel Plan B for PCGUK.

Yeah, coincidentally I read Lost Moon over the last few days. I was thinking last night that currently, we can aim for the center of the planet. It might juuust be possible...hmm.

Nope. Looked. I did see a mention of shielding added after integration to the station, but it was just ballistic shielding over a few square meters, with a few (Kevlar?) panels quoted at '20 pounds' apiece. You\'re the one taking a nuclear physics course, but my understanding is that scattering/absorption is basically a question of how much mass a ray passes through and dedicated shielding is simply a matter of getting as much matter in a small space as possible, the opposite of every other non-reentering spacecraft constraint. The impression I get is that dedicated shielding is simply nonexistent in all US ISS modules, and with all respect to the Russian designers I don\'t expect them to have deviated much from the same economic challenges, especially since that specs link states Zvezda is a modified Soviet-era Mir. We\'re talking millimeters of aluminum. These people are working on optimization of radiation shielding, and they basically mention dedicated shielding once and dismiss it. The rest of the paper is devoted to grouping internal equipment racks around the sleeping quarters and rotating the whole rest of the station towards the worst cosmic rays. The fact that the ISS orbit was initially designed to stick even further in the magnetosphere is another sign that radiation shielding is likely to be light. I focused on geometric resources because my best guess is that you\'re going to wind up subtracting inner from outer volumes, multiplying by published loft masses and treating the pressure hull as a homogeneous body - with separate equipment bays if you get really fancy. Sorry.

Apollo 1.

There seems to be a thread full of those ^

Ooooh! Welcome, and thanks for making such lovely little pieces.

Cutaway NASA hi-res model Port (and apparent enhancement) of NASA model into Celestia Some relevant figures and yardsticks, possibly another cutaway if their gallery works for you Someone\'s preceding interior model for Orbiter

I\'ve been messing with Taksi and x264, ffdshow etc. - it works, if you turn off antialiasing.

Honest Abe. 'Tall guy. Long reach. Skinny guys fight \'till they\'re burger.'

Hah, you beat me. I\'d just today decided to get a bit snarky about Rekkaturvat. Probably for the best all around.

Close enough. HTH

Ah. Sorry, it\'s text, I have to ask - you have in fact scrolled down to the axes section, right? Those throttles are axes, you\'d want to assign one of them to the throttle axis. It\'s impossible in general to assign axes to button inputs in modern games.

I assume you\'ve checked that the joystick shows up in Windows\' game devices, and the axes and butons respond properly. Do you have KSP unzipped in Program Files or its equivalent? We\'re seeing that cause other permissions issues on 7, though I would expect the symptom to be that your changes don\'t 'stick'.

For the record that\'s why I went into flame mode despite being sunshine and rainbow giggles WRT Orbiter. Apparently it was a funnay inernat joke.

.craft?

The story, fine, on a technicality. It\'s not the Administration. The reality? Among those who actually write the appropriations laws? Not so much.

Not necessarily 'end thread'! This wasn\'t set up as a versus or comparison, and there\'s no harm in talking about Orbiter here. It just seem kind of futile when there\'s kind of an Orbiter forum or two or three already.