Clockwork_werewolf

I know other people have gone over it but it REALLY matter what "backwards compatibility" means. Does it mean A: Bricks can fly plus all else B: Unsightly but still possible craft fly such as craft with engines and tanks in an x configuration all 1 meter apart attached by girders but still with nose cones and such. C: Craft with blunt noses can fly but only if given enough force and control D: Without this all save files are lost no matter what E: Only well designed craft can fly but most planes will still crash without updates. Which option we are talking about greatly affects peoples answer to this question. I don't want to see A or D but I am OK with all other options. I would prefer B but I'm OK with C and E. Remember is is important that things like this are still build-able even if not sensible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNECMA_Col%C3%A9opt%C3%A8re

Arienette, I had the same problem but I seem to have found a solution (maybe). My stick was working but ksp would not detect it's movements. I could however assign joystick buttons to functions. After I had assigned some keys I quit the program and reloaded it, after this KSP responded to me moving the joystick. I hope this works for you but I can't promise anything. On an interesting side note ambidexterity has it's plus's and minuses. Plus I can use my mouse with my left hand because minus I didn't think about the joystick being left or right handed I've ended up binding it to translation and kept WASD as rotation. This should making docking faster and easier.

I probably should have specified all of the exchange rates or that I had loping currencies but long posts make for unread posts. Present set-up, rep worth too many funds and Sci. Funds => Rep 0.0041667-0.00520 Rep => Funds 70-90 Sci => Rep 1.1-1.4 Rep => Sci 0.6-0.72 Funds => Sci 0.0027778-0.00347 Sci => Funds 80-100 I'm thinking for the future of Funds => Rep 0.020833-0.0260 Rep => Funds 14-18 Sci => Rep 11-14 Rep => Sci 0.06-0.072 Funds => Sci 0.0027778-0.00347 Sci => Funds 80-100

I've been playing around with the strategies and adding my own for a hard carrier mode. Firstly I think my funds to science and back are set at 10x the level which is actually OK so far. 20k contract at 25% gives 15K funds and 15 science, which seems about right. The big miss calculation I have at the moment is all around rep. If you don't want it because you need 1,000,000 to upgrade your building to be able to build the larger craft to do a mission then it is a dump stat. When I get back home after Christmas I'm going to try setting rep as worth 1/10th of science and keep rep-money about right. 40 rep at 100% would give about 400 credits, which is nothing and that sounds about right. I've not used any of my custom strategies yet because I'm not at a point to use them yet or they don't suit my play style.

I think the spike in an aerospike is an external inverted nozzle. The nozzles are technically right at the top and pointing inwards and down. In this way they work the same, however the OP rockets nozzles seem to big and far back to make good use of the spike to orientate their exhaust.

Its 4 rocket cones like the rapier engine but focused inwards to a toroidal Aero-spike so that it is almost as efficient in air as space.

Updated with real fuels integration and a bug fix. Also changed the file set up to be more standard i.e module manager in the higher directory. I'm afraid I couldn't add batteries with present setup but I could create a copy file with batteries instead of fuel. Please continue to post with bugs and suggestions.

I'll try giving realfuels an install tomorrow and see if it clashes. Also my work on forum post to make it shiny. The license is on kerbal stuff but I will add it here when I do a revamp.

Well I felt anything that was that large and heavy needs a reason to be used apart from aesthetics. In reality most adapters are also decoplers and engine fairing for the next stage which would be more efficient but less modular and fun to build with I think. I think if the adapters were not used as fairings then they would have the tanks below jutting up from below and down from above into the space they take up.

Download Site Kerbalstuff.com : Fuel it all Curseforge.com : Fuel it all Dropbox : Fuel it all Wordy Stuff I have always been annoyed that for a stock game (I will address FAR later) adding nose cones to a rocket was counter productive, even if it looked nice. So I decided to fill them with fuel. While adding a mod like FAR will make nose cones useful again, it does change the way the whole game is played in atmospheres and some people don't want to do that. Also any coded mod can have problems when KSP updates. I realise that I am using the brilliant ModuleManager, but due to it's nature it is less likely to have update problems. As all this mod does is add fuel to items it is also very unlikely to break even if ModuleManager does. With the introduction of Tweakables adding fuel to an item is also reversible without taking out the mod and as it's mass it not changed (apart from tow of them) it is almost exactly the same when empty. The Technical part: The first thing I did was decide on which parts to add fuel to. I decided on all adapters and nose cones that didn't have another purpose (intakes and air sensors are not included) and looked big enough to have fuel in them (FL-A5 Adapter is too flat). Next I used their mass and the mass to fuel ratio of standard tanks to work out their fuel. Most tanks have a empty fuel to mass ratio of 0.000625 (less is better) so I added the fuel at 0.000833. This means they are less mass efficient than most tanks. I can always make them less efficient if people think this is too high. Finally I added fuel and oxidizer in 11:9 ratio to the parts based on their starting mass. After all this I found the tiny nose cone held more fuel than a FL-T100 Fuel Tank and had the same mass as ten RAM intakes when empty. It is also three times heavier than the next largest cone. I suspect it's mass is a type and should be 0.01 not 0.1. So I changed it to such and its fuel is now 5.4:6.6. I also reduced the tiny to small adapter to 0.1 from 0.3 for the same reason. Module manager: This mod requires the wonderful ModuleManager to work and as such is included in the download "Plugin developers and other modders have my explicit permission to redistribute this .dll with their own works, so long as you give credit to me and provide a URL back to this forum post." And here is the forum post. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/31342-0-20-ModuleManager-1-3-for-all-your-stock-modding-needs Here is a screen shot of all the data if you are interested. Data Change log: Version 0.03 Added Licenses inside install file Version 0.02 Added support for real fuels. Edited small nose cones to have the correct maximum fuel limit. Added installation instruction and license inside the file. Removed Herobrine. Version 0.01 Install release Other Mods Spare Parts http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107407-0-90-Clockwork-s-Spare-Parts-%28v1-00-15th-Jan-2015%29?p=1671858#post1671858 Prudent Strategies http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107745-0-90-Clockwork-s-Prudent-Strategies-%28v1-01-18th-Jan-2015%29

I'm surprise there is much discussion on the intakes efficiency, although there is one point that I would be interest to see the results of. Usable air is directly proportional to the intake area of an intake. Circular is 0.008, Ram is 0.01, Shock cone is 0.012, New Long radial is 0.0025 x 2 = 0.005, old radial is 0.006 x 2 = 0.012. The difference between shock cone and XM-G50 Radial Air Intake can be accounted for by the difference in mass of 0.025 (cone) to 0.01 x 2 = 0.02 (radial). This does lead to the interesting question though. Does the maximum drag of an intake (2.0) always equal the same drag or, like other parts is it related to the mass of the part multiplied by the variable drag. A radial would have 2.0 x (0.01 x 2) if true and beat 2.0 x 0.25 for the shock cone OR are the difference in results just due to the extra mass lugged up to space? I would also like to add that the radials look the worst so I don't use them but that's another story.

Right I've been playing around with this for a while and I can't get it quite right but this is near enough for estimates. Area: A Air Speed: S Height (on Kerbin): H * multiply / divide ^ to the power of flow = ((A*100) * (squareroot(S+144)) * (1/ (2.65^(H/5000))))*4 intake = flow * 0.02 so with a ram (A=0.01) @ speed 1000m/s @ 20,000 meters up flow = 100 * 33.8230690505755 * 0.0202775977788933 = 2.74340235942122 intake = 0.054 and it would take two rams to keep a jet working. I did 21 measurements and this equation worked well enough (within about 5%) for all results. I turned off gravity so that I didn't need a positive angle of attack and so did not need to work out the intakes angle to air flow. it's also worth noting that an engine doesn't instantly cut out at lower than 0.1 air AND it can be throttled down to save air as well to two rams equation is just for full throttle 0% failure.

1. Area is the intakes, intake area. The more the better. The only downside is that a larger area produces more drag but this is usually negligible. 2. Amount is the parts temporary storage. It is easier to think of it as a flow rate. If you have only one engine and an "amount" of less than 0.1 then it could still even with plenty of air. The intake can be stopped from having it's air flow and this amount can be saved for space BUT it is such a tiny amount this is almost never useful (except for specific challenges). 3. Air speed refers to the speed the air is entering the intake plus about 100 m/s to stop stationary craft on the runway having no air. The higher the speed the more air will enter the intake. At higher altatudes the air speed might be 1000m/s but the air is thin so only a fraction of the usable air is present and at low speeds an engine could not be powered.

It is worth noting that at very low speeds it is better to have intakes open. At about 20m/s the drag will be about 0.10 (I can't remember), where as the closed drag is 0.3 . Once you get above 100 m/s it starts to go above 0.3 while open so closing reduces the drag. Drag maxes at 2 so 2 -> 0.3 is a great reduction. When you start to get near to running out of air you will need to open them again. It's also worth noting that you will always need some open or you will run out of air but in a intake heavy craft you can go up to 50% faster with them closed (50% is an estimate and it all depends on the number of intakes).

Building SSTO's is a tough thing to do. Pictures would help but there are a few suggestions that I can give. Burnout is a big problem and usually the hardest to deal with. Some people add up to about 15 intakes per engine but this looks silly or can lead to needing to clip many parts inside of each other thus enticing the Kracken. I always stick at least on nuke on an SSTO so that I can do orbit alterations or deorbit burns for half the fuel BUT this is only worth it on larger SSTO's as on smaller ones the mass of the nuke (2.5) is more than the fuel mass you save. You need to have at least 2.5 tons of fuel left before this helps. You can however use the nuke in the assent burn (after running out of air) as past about 2k the nuke is a better rocket than anything else that uses oxidiser. I like the Rapiers as they tend to have a much lower burnout ratio than turbo jets. As long as you don't give them access to all your fuel they can also give you the thrust to get out of most of the atmo. With the new (ish 0.24) nacelles I build rapier nacelles with one nacelle, one FLT-200 tank, one rapier and one ram intake. This doesn't give them quite enough air or liquid fuel but you can make some intake nacelles and pump some fuel from them and just generally customise from there. I also like to add a few reaction wheels to keep the craft steady and also to point it's nose upward for the escape burn. Quite often at high speed the momentum forward is so strong that getting the craft to turn more than 20 degrees upwards a problem and you use a lot of rocket fuel burning forwards in the atmosphere rather than upwards out of it. The more you turn upwards the less air goes to the intakes so starting the turn ends your air breathing mode and you want to get out of the atmo as fast as possible before it saps your forward momentum or you use rocket fuel to fight it. Perhaps for the same reason I started building them. After a while I realised I hadn't built any and it was a skill I wanted. Rockets can build fast and heavy SSTO's but they aren't much of a challenge once you have them learned. The other point is that without mods, landing an SSTO rocket on the runway or landing pad of KSC in carrier mode is very VERY hard. My deorbit burns usually only put me within 2-20k of KSC and I then fly my SSTO or shuttle back to the landing pad. This kind of distance is very inefficient with a rocket SSTO.

KSP moddability is a wonderful thing and as your 471 download on curse alone shows even something that has only 1% of the "Strong Likes" (not necessarily an even survey demographic) and 13% moderate likes gets that many downloads on just one of the download sites. I wanted this survey to argue against the people that seem to assume if you have 80% of the people agreeing with you that it should go into stock. However for mods as they are entirely voluntary, feel free to go against the trends and make hundreds of people happy

Yea I'm officially old (I'm only 29 by the way) I enjoy data analysis.

Unfortunately I think I know why, I'm now capped at 100 results for the free version. Will try and find a better free survey site. Also the Dev's may not want answers to some questions, things like better Atmo models are a lot of work and (said to be) on the cards but not for now. I did state this as "This is NOT intended as a suggestions board for the Dev's" but it still got moved here anyway.

Yea I would love a lot more data, this is a bit too small a sample to make any concrete conclusions. Even I feel like I might be weighting the results a little with my analysis. On the other hand too often people seem to suggest idea's that cause large arguments and I wanted to show that even high scoring answers can be very contentious. Mass readouts in VAB/SHP was the only one to pass unanimously (aside from 3 abstain/no side).

This is one of the reasons why I did the survey and broke it down as below. Re-entry is the third most cared about topic BUT there is a lot of argument on the subject. With weighted dislikes, almost none of the ideas gets positive results. Only "heat shields built into some capsules" gets anywhere near a positive consensus.

Thanks for that breakdown. I would have loved to split auto pilots from readouts but I only get 10 sets of questions on the free version of survey monkey (sux I know). Version 2 will also need to include questions about engine ISP (which could be big). Ive done some data breakdown but in a different way to you as variety is the spice of life. Giant Spreadsheet! Why did I include weighted dislike? The idea behind this is that idea that get 3 yes votes and 3 average votes are much less likely to make players stop playing the game than ideas that get 3 yes votes to 1 no vote, that's one player that will be very annoyed. Why have disparity? Disparity shows the amount of argument on a subject, for instance "Stock drag but thinner atmosphere" is greatly disliked, but there is a high level of AGREEMENT on how much people dislike it. I'm sure people will have other questions and disagreements with my style of breakdown. Some parts are arbitrary such as how much to weight dislike to likes.

Heh, yea totally agree with that. I'm still (and feel free to think of it as vaporware) working on a life support that's meant to be based on game-play (but using real physics) Instead of just adding 5 new exactly the same resources(that being said TAC's coding is much better than mine). Each resources should work over a different time scale and in a different way. Air is the first one and needed for everything up to the edge of Kerbin orbit. Water Next needing more than a capsule will hold for Mun journeys. Extra food is needed for Minmus journeys. Other Kerbals (so you can leave one guy alone in a tin can for years) are needed to Minmus and longer. Radiation is only important in Duna journeys or bases (got to give bases a purpose though). Hydroponics are end tech and should be perfectly possible if we can get them to work. weirdly I thought I was a bit different in wanting a different life support but apparently the data sort of backs me up (not on the rads but I get I'm going to be a bit different).

Yea try telling my spellchecker (I mean it, it would be nice). I'm dyslexic by the way so if the auto correct tells me something I usually just go with it. Also Thank you.

@Liowen Thank you for the input, I think on quite a few questions I should include the option to ask about customisable options (i.e. difficulty). I think people agree with you, "Water and water craft", "Advanced technology's", "Weapon systems" are voted the least important of the subjects. It's worth noting however that a lot of the water options score as fairly highly liked with five scoring 3.9 or above. Weapons systems scores so lowly on both importance (bottom by a good margin of 1.45 to 3.21) and desire for anything other than stock both below 3 (not caring/ average) that I think I will replace it with a different question in the next quiz (on the free version I'm only allowed 10 questions).

I think we now have enough for it to be a small selection of possible answers. I think I will have to post a second survey MAYBE tomorrow to include all the questions, alterations and suggestions people have posted on the quiz and here. I will still be using personal judgement as to what to include and do keep answering this quiz as alterations will show the differences in the quiz for the same answers. Plus comments will affect the next quiz, consider this a real one with just a few flaws Results so far. https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-8QV83KDL/