O-Doc

I really hate to say this. I've had a QQ moment half an hour into 0.25. Sorry Squad, the quality control is non-existent on this one. You guys are paying too much attention to the hype-train threads. I was really looking forward to this update too. I knew I was going to have to do some work to rebuild my spaceplanes but the new wings make planes look like patchwork quilts. So, all of my planes have to be rebuilt and most of them are going to look silly. Unless you're into that quilty goodness. That's not to mention the clipping on the wings literally make my right eye twitch. It's the reason why I refuse to use B9 parts. That horrible, horrible clipping. Talking of clipping, why are the cargo bay doors so razor thin that any wings I attach to the sides clip straight through? I assumed that would have been fixed with stock integration. I'm a blender novice and can fix that in 10min. Again, another reason I don't use B9(as much as I would like to have cargo bays). Did you guys not even bother building some planes using SP+ parts to identify this problem? So, spaceplanes are out. Cool. Let's shoot some rockets. Woops, launch pad blows up. lulzwot!? Because physics so horribly borks rockets in clamps on load I have designed all my rockets without clamps. So, now the option is to have bits randomly fall off your rocket as it does the jiggly wiggly in launch clamps, or, the entire launch pad blows up. Nice. I've got 70MB of craft files and about 5MB or so which are usable. Yeah, I might be taking a bit of a break from playing KSP(I'll probably do some modding instead), come back at v1.0, rip out each and every stock part and build a full custom install with usable, quality parts.

Just looking at the aesthetic damage done to my fleet of 50 odd space planes and having some real wtf moments. I'd really like to understand the decision in regards to the black lining of the SP+ parts. Why not use the grey we already had is stock or, make those grey parts(swept wing, winglets, etc) black? Personally I think the grey was fine, the thick black lines that have been introduced look bizzare. Talk about contrast...

I need to rebuild every plane in my hanger so all my entries are in suspension until I can figure out which planes I want to salvage and which planes need to be replaced. *sad face panda*

I think that is related to the double parts issue. I had the same experience until I removed the gamedata/squad/parts folder and re-patched. All the textures look find now.

Looks like O-Dock Industries will now be able to resume business as usual. Expect a spate of new designs soonâ„¢.

I love that we can start with negative rep!

No quarter. None.

I'm re-designating my SSTO approach vectors as C18 and C36.

Runways? We don't need no stinkin' runways!

I'm going to bite on this. "...when you start thinking about how to put one pound satellites into orbit in real life."

That Aurora looks hot Avera9eJoe! I'm going have to get the rest of my entries in order when I find the time.

So you made a release thread about there being too many release threads. I see what you did there.

The CoL in the OP is well in front of the CoM. The best way to design a plane is to get your CoL/CoM relationship right before adding control surfaces. Rizzo was using control surfaces as a crutch to fix the Col/CoM. Without some solid experience and the explicit goal of making your craft aerodynamically unstable, you will get into trouble when the plane is not flying dead straight. Mostly due to a very dramatic shift in CoL when servos are in a non-neutral position. With SAS this is "most of the time" during ascent.

It's a .If people want to get hyped about something then let them. It doesn't affect you. Why should it affect you?. I don't line up to buy concert tickets or the latest technology, but some people do. That's cool. I'll say this much, I generally wait a couple of days to download the latest patch. I like to do it once and have it work the first time.

If you just want to cruise around to locales on Kerbin I've found you can push a one basic jet engine with 2 radial intakes to around 550m/s at 18km altitude with the throttle setting at one third. That's pretty fuel efficient. Granted, you need a fairly light plane which means not alot of fuel to burn(1t/engine). I would say you can still do a circumnavigation with this setup.

I'm definitely worried most of my SSTOs will have to be junked. The big lifters have had many, many hours put into making the wings fit together. It's going to be hard when I load them up all broken. Considering I've been designing in stock to prevent this exact same issue from occurring means I might abandon the stock install policy for craft design altogether. The good news is the new wing geometries may finally make designing large SSTOs easier and prettier. I have been looking forward to some large wing sections making it into stock. Of course, procedural wings should be in the game by now. Because other people play the game differently to you and this is an issue. Hard to know if this is a troll or not.

Around $30, considering the game's limitations which don't like they're going to be solved. If Squad creates on-the-fly WeldIt type functionality to make decent sized ships, stations and bases it could be worth a lot more and generate a wider appeal like Minecraft has. They'll also need to put in some kind of end game or win scenario because sending rockets into space without a compelling reason to do so is not going to excite the imaginations of your average video gamer.

Or 0.26 is new physics...

From what I can see in the new video is the explosions create force vectors on all parts around them. I assume that's the new feature, cheekly put right in front of our faces.

Looking good there Upsilon. You're probably going to need another set of wings and some forward control surfaces for the extra fuel you'll need to get into orbit. I don't know those tails fins you've chosen are going to provide enough yaw control, though I do see much ASAS.

@Kasuha: Because you made this statement. Which is not true. It's intakes to TWR as the measure in stock aero. Show me a 100T craft with 400 RAM intakes and one turbo jet engine that can achieve orbital velocity. This is not the topic of the thread. We are talking about efficiency to orbit. I have 6-7 ton craft with 2 RAM intakes that can achieve a periapsis at their own altitude in atmo but, they don't go to orbit as efficiently as different ascent profiles or, with craft on that type of ascent with a higher TWR.

You can't get orbital velocity from any amount of intakes and jet engines if you want to take this argument to it's logical conclusion. So, you are engaging is sophestry. Is that not the point? The craft I posted will probably take one ton of rocket fuel to get it to orbit leaving it at around 9T total mass, a third of which is fuel. That's quite efficient. And yes, with one RAM intake this craft will reach orbital speeds, just not on turbos alone. An obvious point I responded to Stratzenblitz75 which, you already know is implied in the statement you made.

Is that a fact?

It might be a case of your ascent profile being wrong, it also might be a design issue. It's probably both. Given that everyone has made a good fist of discussing ascent profiles and we haven't seen your design yet, I'll do a quick checklist of design considerations. 1. TWR. On the runway you turbos jets should have a TWR of at least 0.75. So, for every 15 tons of aircraft you should have 1 turbojet. 2. Air intakes. You should have around 4 RAM intakes per turbojet to get into that efficiency zone. You can do it with less but you need a higher TWR. TWR and intakes have a direct relationship. 3. Orbital engine. 909s are fine and will serve you well if your craft is small. Beyond about 15 tons you will want to consider a NERVA powerplant to make the most out of your rocketfuel. 4. No useless gear. SSTOs are like rockets in that your really want to take up only what you need. Leave Bob's snack machine back at the KSC.

Never heard of Wheaton's Law before. My approach is just not to include negative value statements in my online interactions. I have no idea if it works or not because I might be raging in my head sometimes and the absence of any value statement can come across as condescending. @Voculus: Isn't it easier to just resize your images rather than storm off in a huff? It's just good manners to give other users more control over their browsing rather than foist 100+MB onto them without their "consent". You can just as easily put a link to your high quality images for interested parties. @Sirine: Isn't it easier just to run a block filter on a user's upload hosting account rather than block their forum account? Telling people you're blocking them is a big GTFO. It's better to keep that sort of info to yourself. I'm a web dev so, I've got a particular thing with asset optimisation and understand that bandwidth speeds and capacities vary widely between users. There's also the whole socialisation with technology issue I have to deal with everyday. Both these sets of issues are not going to go away in the short term so, it's more or less incumbent on everyone to step back a bit and recognise everyone else's point of view. You know, be considerate and play nice.