NikkyD

Original from Thomas Edison "Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration."

@ miravlix, its a new part that everyone wants to try out i guess. I built a MPL-base on the mun only to realize that it would net 0.4 science a day and would require more solar/batteries than i gave it. Trashed it.

In a sandbox game you can play for creativity if you like, i like to go for maximum efficiency, its what WOULD make me happy. If you look at the engines, they are somewhat balanced in regards of weight and thrust and ISP. But such a simple number like "whats the weight per kerbal" on a command pod no one ever bothered...

If you can manage to land properly on minmus/mun with something rover-like you can get 3 biomes in one trip and that gives you about 1k per trip. 2 trips each nets in 4k science just from the moons. The 2+ MILLION for RnD lvl 3 is more of a problem.

I'm sorry Roderik i got a little mixed up there but that isnt really the point. 1.33 or 1.25 when the lowest end is 0.6

One of the major annoyances for me is the cockpits. I like to build minimalistic and efficient, so the least weight per kerbal. Now in the old versions there was no need to bring more than one kerbal into space, but now with the 3 different classes it makes sense to have one of every type on board. Every single time in the last 2 years when i start building a new rocket it goes like this: 1 lander can, monoprop out, 600 kg, 1 kerbal. It isnt aerodynamic but that was never really an issue. Now there is aero but also fairings, problem solved. For cheap missions its ok to take a MK1 pod with 800 kg and put a 100 kg parachute on top, perfect aero for 200 kg more weight... acceptable. But now i want to take 2 or 3 guys on a lander... HOW ?! So i start with 3 small cans stacked, 3 kerbals, 1,8 t weight, parachute on top... where to attach the fuel ? Bottom ? +engine its a really long one and has a bad CoM regarding landing gear. The other option, one center fuel can with engine below and 3 cans attached to the side of it. Landing gear at the side of the cans, perfect. But now i need 3 nosecones and it doesnt really look like a rocket. Besides, a thing that wide is VERY troubling for fairings or cargo bays, sure it could be done but only with major overkill for a small mission. So what else is there ? Mk2 capsule, looking good! It has aero, chute on top, flat fuel can below, wide base for landing... all good but... 4 tons! thats 1.33 per kerbal, TWICE the weight of a small can. Usually when u make a bigger container you have less weight because you only need certain stuff ONCE, like a door. But here we have twice the weight per kerbal and for what reason ??? It has 45 m/s "crash tolerance". WHO ever needs that ? I dont plan missions that include dropping a cockpit from orbit hoping it will survive the impact! Reentry heat ? I can build around that, thanks, i just want a LIGHT WEIGHT cockpit that is aerodynamically slick. What about a big lander can ? Place for two, 2.5 t EVEN WORSE. 1.25 per kerbal and for WHAT ??? It has the same resistances as the small one, so where does the extra weight go ??? There is one better one, the Mk3 cockpit, 3.5t for 4, that is 875 kg per kerbal. But its not exactly a lander can or rocket cockpit but a rather a plane cockpit. Same goes for the Mk2 cockpits with 1 t per kerbal, they are not suited for a slim lander. So is it that no one ever bothers balancing the most important parts of the rockets ??? I want 2 or 3 kerbals on board and still be able to build a lander that doesnt look freaky. Yes i know, i could just install mods... mods mods mods. But then there is a new version out and i have to check if that mod is still compatible etc. Or i just edit the cfg file of the command pods BUT then i go here onto the forums which i like and i ask "whats wrong here and there with my rocket" or "what do you think about this design" BUT i always have to include "but wait, you need those 3 config files because i altered the sillyness out of the parts". Not exactly comfy. Am i really alone with this opinion ???

It's because you don't have cost per month, so time is free. A kerbal can survive in a capsule forever. Being immortal highlanders, THAT is op.

What you are suggesting is a mere compensation for the whole issue. Why do i get drag sideways ? Because the whole thing wobbles.

@GoSlash27 it is actually shooting an arrow with a rocket mounted behind the fins. It works for as long as there is no deviation from the course. All the control surfaces i added to fake more stability but it just prolongs the inevidable. Since 1.0 or dunno which version the whole SAS thing can no longer hold a rocket really steady. If you look at my design, if i use MJs Smart A.S.S and keep the rocket at 90° dead on... well it SHOULD work, but at some point for BS reasons something moves and suddenly the wings get lift and BOOM DEAD. Sure i could place the wings somewhere where they would fight the mass of the fuel etc pp add controls to counter the "lift" but the issue is the unexplainable sudden wobble and change in direction. I see blue arrows coming up at about 4000m and suddenly BOOM they are really big and everything is a mess. Setting SAS prograde doesnt help, using MJs control doesnt help... the game is broken atm

My problem is NOT the gravity pull but that my huge wings create so much "lift" sideways the second they are 0.1° off 90° that the whole thing flips. Reducing the wings is not an option as they are supposed to be like that. See image above

I am telling you, it's nearly impossible because i am trying for a day now to get my Rocket-Assisted-Space-Plane into orbit. Neither MechJeb nor the joke SAS with 10 control surfaces can keep it steady. There is no streamlining effect on the wings, so the whole thing starts wobbling and suddenly there is massive lift on the wings and either you can't compensate for it or the joints break and everything explodes. I don't think this can be done in 1.0.2 without building a very special plane just for this purpose which is a bit annoying

I NEVER pay attention to the atm, when i am falling through 5000m i open the chutes and manually set a higher altitute if its moutains otherwise the game...

Engines are the thing that bugs me the most ever since KSP came out! I love to build minimalistic rockets and there simply is NO variety in engines! For a small "to mun and back" stage if its really small its a 48-7S because of its awesome TWR or a 909 because of its ISP. Bug what if i need more thrust than the 60 of the 909 ? I COULD combine 4x48s BUT the game has no adapter, and if they implement an adapter im pretty sure it has 100kg of weight and thus make an engine with 80 thrust and the same weight but a worse ISP so i will lose dV. Again i like small rockets. Before 1.0 i could use LV30 because i never needed gimbal, now its either lots of torque (= weight) or LV45 with gimbal. If you look at the ISP it has 320 vac which almost raises the question: why should i drop it ? Why should i stage at all ? WHY should i stage ? Building a 3 stage rocket to LKO is a joke. All those "starter" engines have really good overall stats so you dont need to drop one atm engine to have a better vac engine because carrying a 2nd engine is a lot of weight because engines are so heavy compared real rockets. If you build a 2.5m rocket its either Mainsail or Skipper, combining 4xlv30 or 4xlv45 is not getting anywhere near the TWR of a Skipper/MS and the ISP is roughly the same... And if you play career... a 909 costs LESS than a small separator! There are combinations where the separator makes the whole thing expensive and the engine does not O-o. It wouldnt be that damn hard to code something like adjustable engines. You chose more ISP in space, therefor you lose thrust (for example). Or you want just 1° of gimbal on the Lv30, sure no prob, but that will make it 10% heavier or longer etc... everyone could fine tune the engines needed. Scaleable tanks... wait THERE IS A MOD FOR THAT. F*** OFF with that mandatory mod installing if you want to play anger-free because the stock game comes with nothing but a handful of parts and a licensed gfx engine. Something like MJ should be included in the stock game but.. NO...

I usually put the mechjeb module on the side of the mk1 cockpit that has no door and this can "pull" my rocket into the direction of the MJ when ascending... everything has drag now! So you need those service bays

Does part clipping in any way affect the drag ? Im a bit confused with the new drag model and the way FAR calculates it. I want to stay stock but i am missing some pieces: - The angle of attack matters, but is air really calculated as a stream ? - what about part clipping ? - someone mentioned that its all about parts, so 4 FLT100 are worse than 1 FLT400 ?

I cant believe how many people are/were playing with the SOUP and are now complaining about the long overdue correction of the drag system. Whenever i read "will revert back to .90" im just thinking... i would still have similar stuff there with FAR so why go back ? Oh wait, they never installed FAR, they just played a rocket game with a crazy air resistance based on the rocket mass... omg

Rapier with 1 ram intake should give you at least 1400 m/s at a bit over 20.000m. Ofc it depends on the rest of the plane how much you can achieve.

Every tick the objects move. Just write down the starting positions and move them there without physics. It is really not a hard thing to do. But loading times in KSP have never been state of the art. I can load gfx heavy games faster than i can start up KSP. They just haven't optimized it.

The optimization that i want is more intelligent loading. If i start a rocket and forget something 3 sec after the start and i hit quickload... it takes up to 10 seconds to load the start again. It could just reset the rocket... it's not like i don't write software all day... wait

I just tried it, in career mode. Stage 3 : Parachute + mk1 capsule + separator Stage 2: 8 FLT100 tanks + LVT45 + separator Stage 1: 1 BACC thumper Rocket is a bit too long for unimproved lauchpad it seems, either you cheat by offsetting the lowest separator a bit upward into the engine, works like a charm. Or you upgrade the launchpad. Turn on SAS, max throttle, hit SPACE. Drop booster when empty, change to map. When AP at about 75 km, stop thrusting (hit x). At about 65km turn your rocket to 0° right. Thrust up again. Make sure the AP doesnt run away, if it does, stop thrusting again and wait until at AP and continue with thrust. Once PE is at 75, stop... you are in orbit! You should have at least 10 units of fuel left, so turn the rocket around (retrograde) and thrust until fuel runs out. Stage... and watch the capsule drop back into the atmosphere, open parachute at about 2 km... recover vessel So... RLY ?!

I really dont understand how someone can NOT get into orbit. If you just fly straight up until you have an AP of 100km and at the AP you turn 90° and thrust... you will achieve orbit with somewhere between 4k and 5k dV. You could do this in .90 and still can do it. If you dont turn inside the atmosphere, its still as simple as that?!

... to me the game is far from realistic. Those guys who cry because of the new drag model are the same guys who want weapons and stuff in this game. They just dont want a science rocket game but another arcade game... this time with rockets

not anymore... but that makes it more interesting

My personal rule of thumb for average-jeb is: aim for 4000 dV vac and you will get into orbit. Some rockets can achieve low 3k values but you really need a special rocket for it and if you build a different one, everything will be different

I assume you are talking about career mode, but in sandbox the only reason for a kerbal is that he can get out of the craft and plant flags or operate things. And the coolness factor of having a living being on another planet