Pecan

Craft file? I'm still playing-around optimising pure-rocket launch vehicles but 30% with jet assist has to be worth it. I want to complete my 'set' first because over about 10t my VAB jet designs have become 'moar' spam :-( Love to see how you're doing it. In the meantime, as you know, I've been playing with spaceplanes when rocket-launch after rocket-launch has got boring. The hope is that this'll better inform my rocket designs though - while they're fun spaceplanes are too much of a pain to get into orbit for me to use regularly. ... At least while resuability isn't really an issue.

Yep, thanks again. Since it's only 2 or 3 days since I couldn't get an existing spaceplane into orbit I'm pretty happy to be taking my own designs there and more-or-less back. Landing consistently, instead of 1 in 5 - even if not always on the runway - is the final step but at least it's one I know I'll be able to do with practice.

Congratulations - feels good, doesn't it :-) "It goes up to about 30,000 meters on jets, reaching a top speed of 1,600 m/s. Do I need more jets?" - you've probably sorted this by now but I'd say you don't need more jets, you need to climb s-l-o-w-ly, if at all, above 25km so the speed comes up. Go into a shallow descent if you need to and/or, as capi has also said, add some rocket-thrust to the throttled-back jets. Generally, 2km/s+ is the target, not 30km altitude. Stay between 25-30km to get the last from your jets, you only care about gaining more altitude once they've done what they can. [Again, though, you don't want to sit on them too long - I tried nursing every last bit of horizontal speed out of them and was burning so much fuel for a few extra m/s it wasn't worth it]. Spaceplanes are a lot more work to fly than rockets but it's nice to think we not throwing 80%+ of the equipment away every launch. Now ... back to my launch vehicles which do exactly that ...

Thank you both - I tend to do my deorbit so I come in East of the mountains, ~20km West of KSC so I have plenty of time to align heading. Horizontally, I'm good *grin*, Bill got out and planted a flag at the start of the runway and I set that as target, knowing I have to land just after it. Usually I come in within a few degrees and can easily correct that by the time I'm 5 - 10km out. Altitude is a different matter - I find I'm having to fight a bit to lose height but that makes my sink rate something horrendous like -50m/s, which is too much to correct with flare (pun intended). Reducing that to a more reasonable -20m/s (so I can flare it down to <10m/s) my planes just float serenly over KSC and it's time for more circuits and bumps :-( Obviously, I need to get between these two - I'm using about 5 different designs from 13 tonnes to 50-ish and generally landing them heavy because I'm just taking them up, 'round and down for practice. Given that all these designs fly quite nicely (as long as I don't try to recover them too high/fast), tend to go where I point them (+5 degrees pitch + throttle tweaks) and aligning heading is not a problem - what is your vertical approach like? Constant -3 degrees until flare? High then stoop (before flare)? Low and fast (coming in hot)? Altitudes and distances? [Or just ignore me - I need to get to know each plane individually and should stop wittering here and practice more, lol!]

IF you notice it before you launch you can change the staging on the pad so no need to go back to the VAB (this flight only, remember to change them properly for the next launch!) ;-) My biggest annoyance with clamps is that whenever I think I need them they are almost bound to collide with something and cause more trouble than they solve. Now I only use them on VTOL (VAB) jet launches in order to give the engines time to spool-up to the required thrust.

[spaceplane newb writes] My ascent profile: 45 degrees to 10km, from there pitch down so that speed has time to build - 100m/s per 1km/alt over 10km (=100m/s @ 11km, 200m/s @ 12km, etc.). Usually 20-30 degrees to 15km (500m/s), 15 - 20 to 20km (1km/s), 10 - 12 degrees to 25km (1.5km/s) and then tease it up to 30km and 2km/s. (Sometimes I get bored around 27 or 28km and light the rockets early). I'd think that if you pitch down to 10 degrees at 11.5km you're spending too much time - and fuel - in the still relatively thick atmosphere below 20km. The higher you go the faster you can go but, conversely, you can't continue to climb too quickly or your jets will starve. [Edit: Oh - and the ONE thing that changed my 100% failure rate to (more or less) 100% success was throttling-back the jets when they start to run out of intake air. As long as the speed is still building I'll go to 80%, 60% and even down to 30% - possibly with a bit of rocket-assist at that point; they're not using too much fuel at 30% throttle, after all).

Huh? It shouldn't be in C:\Progam Files? I simply unzipped the download to there, where is recommended instead?

Possibly off-topic and I don't want to hijack the thread but don't think this deserves its own either: I have several game days to wait for a transfer window and have been spending the time learning to fly spaceplanes instead of just warping. From a 100% failure rate I've progressed to reliably being able to design, build and fly high and fast, orbit with just a rocket nudge, re-enter* and land-ish**. So here's the questions - * re-entry and transition back to flying, rather than falling, has been tricky because all my ram intakes line the front of the wings, giving the planes too much drag at the front. Solved by holding prograde until speed (and height) are really low, but what are your tips for intake placement - preferably without special clipping? (I am using 3 or maybe 4 per engine and, yes, I've found about 1 engine per 12 - 15 tonnes) ** landing-ish, erm ... probably only 1 in 5 is survivable at the moment ^^. Practice makes perfect and all that but I think I'm probably using a bad approach plan - too low, too early. Instead of going off and reading a flight-sim manual, while you're here - what are your landing tips?

I don't think we disagree at all, I was just pointing out that qualified, experienced, professional people are expected to use the aids available to them. This does not remove the responsibility they have - that makes them qualified in the first place - of knowing how to do these things without the aids. The pilot of a plane is captain of the ship and the, er, captain of a yacht is, erm, captain of the ship; final responsibility must rest with them as to what they will do and how. ;-0 Something to consider for those that think some people are having fun the wrong way [That's a great expression that I only read in these forums. Who claims it?] As Wooks said "sometimes performing the same maneuvers over and over again can be boring, and having an automated aid for experienced players surely is handy, but it would be ill advised to use it without knowing to perform them by yourself." [my underlining]. And not only are you likely to do worse relying on aids; you're missing out on a lot of fun too - your comment "... appropriate warnings that if you use it, you're giving up on some of key aspects of the game." Back on topic: Don't forget a ladder. Again!

Christmas was a month ago. KSP was my early christmas present to myself. Squad's (or someone's) late christmas present for me is Whackjob. Probably only you would think of such a plan. Almost certainly only you would DO it. Thank you, just for even being there ^^

IBTL: Commercial airlines have qualified pilots. Commercial airliners have auto-pilots. Commercial airline pilots get some sleep during long-haul flights while the auto-pilot does the boring bit. Commercial airports generally won't allow commercial airliners to land manually. ["Heavy" planes, except by arrangement] Even most yacht harbours discourage maneuvering and docking under sail, instead of engine. [To the chagrin of many purists]

One slipped through Quality Control at the supplier's factory? Alternatively - when bugs like that start showing up your copy of KSP is getting near to crashing. Exit and re-run it and, with luck, everything should be ok. [from: IT support handbook, P2. Have you tried turning it off and back on again?]

It's finding better payload-ratios than I usually do. Even letting it run for a while it's quicker than building in the VAB and launch testing too :-) I've just let it run for some 9,000 designs (4,000 valid) to provide a stock, 8t-payload, asparagus staged, Kerbin-atmosphere launch vehicle, optimised for mass. It beat me by around a ton (48.9 vs my 50). Some observations that I hope will help: i) In a couple of the top designs it says to use decouplers, fuel lines and tanks in multiples of 4, instead of 2. I assume this is because it had calculated that the stage should have 4 engines but it is simpler and lighter to cluster these, rather than build them as separate stacks. In at least one case this also allows the fuel-tanks to be better optimised too. ii) It seems to quite favour slack-tank (engineless) stages between other, powered, ones which is quite interesting. I'd always assumed they should be the first stage(s) jettisoned to get rid of the dry weight, but I can see the logic of the choices it finds. In one case, however, it's slack-tanks were entirely Round-8s and Oscar-Bs, neither of which will attach to radial decouplers. Not a problem when it comes to building it, as it happens, but an extra 'twist' in KSP. iii) In the case above the total fuel in the stage was ~60 (can't be bothered to calc the Oscar-B fractions ^^). It seems unlikely that such a small, slack-tank, stage would be optimal on anything but the smallest vehicles. Since the previous and subsequent stages both included more substantial amounts of fuel this design seems odd. iv) And finally; the best design - by mass - included a couple of 24-77 engines on the outermost (first to be jettisoned) stage. Haven't tested yet but I don't think these will prove to be worth their weight, even for the short time that stage lasts. Good job. Now I really have to start work on my YARD (Yet Another Rocket Designer (with a nod to YACC)).

1. KSP lets you build (ground) rovers, planes and rockets. You can take them to space, orbit, Kerbin's moons, other planets and the sun. 2. You don't have to. If you feel like it you can have fun just driving a rover around KSC (or further) or flying a plane around Kerbin. [http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66887-I%C2%B4m-circumnavigating-Kerbin-on-a-Rover http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66206-Video-Wednesdays-Today-I-Build-a-Rocket] 3. ISP, TWR and deltaV are essential to efficient rocket and plane design. Struts will usually save an unstable design but can't help an underpowered/fuelled one. 4. You are under no obligation to make efficient designs. Moar boosters and massively over-engineered vehicles are fine if you like them. 5. If you want to go somewhere in space understanding the map view, navball and maneuver nodes is pretty essential. 6. Or you can just let MechJeb do it, if that's what you want. tl;dr Understanding the theory and calculating the complex parts gives the game more depth. "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not" (Einstein) - play the game, have fun and, if you want to do the theory first, be prepared to test and correct several times.

Who will produce the first billiards/pool mod?

Or http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/61263

Congratulations. From your posts I think you're consistently one or two steps ahead of me in exploring KSP so no doubt I'll inflict this pain on myself soon too ^^ Thrust plate tutorial -

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Controls http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorials and here.

It is inevitable that any game/simulation will become boring after you've "mastered" it to your own satisfaction. If any of us were given a job in a real rocketry organisation within a couple of years we'd be moaning about the work, boss, colleagues, pay, etc. etc. Routine is dull, by definition. My absolute favourite games are the Total War and Elder Scrolls series, but I couldn't play them all the time. Currently I'm hooked on KSP & associated space simulators, I used to spend huge amounts of time in Second Life. Variety is required - just leave KSP for a few months then play with it a bit intensely when you feel like it later.

"Thrust plate" instead of just struts.

More struts. My first pull tractor (when I didn't realise how well-recommended they are and thought I was being clever ^^) had the same problem - the nukes were on I-beam girder outriggers and oscillated moderatley badly even without a load. Strutting the engines to the tractor body damped it all out and now (Mk II) there's no movement at all. Thanks again to everyone who was actually clever in the first place, unlike me, and has posted so many tips here.

Plan B; since plan A seems to be done better already ;-0 (Plan B is much more cupcake style - it flies - but nothing like as clever)

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/65788-Fastest-Plane-under-1-000m-able-to-go-back-and-land-in-the-runway

Coincidentally, someone last night was asking me if there was one of those, or if anyone had looked for it.

I have just tested a prototype which works, but I not sure if the plan is eligible under the 'hard' rules. The identical (at the moment) sections are assembled by a, single, rover into a line and align and dock themselves by rising on landing legs (releasing the under-docked rover). Launch with engines on outer pair, stage to inner pair (undock/jettison outer pair), stage to circularisation/payload section (undock/jettison inner pair). While I think that follows the letter of the rules I think it's against the spirit, since I don't need to fly to assemble it and it isn't a single stack. Thanks for inspiring me to practice rover base-building and I've had a couple of hours fun anyway. What's the ruling?