theend3r

Launching large payloads is easier than launching small ones for me. When I try to launch small craft, FAR goes crazy: http://imgur.com/a/rGJy5

Procedural seems the only way to go. I myself use B9 Procedural Wings and not only do they look great but they also work great with procedural amount of fuel inside them and various options for leading/trailing edges. I probably wouldn't try to build a spaceplane without them again.

Yeah, maneuver nodes are sometimes impossible to create since it won't let you click on it. Them being rendered through planets is ok but what could be improved is adding an atmospheric prediction like this mod does (tracking station upgrade 4?). Also this should be in suggestions I guess.

That's why I included TAC in the screens, the asparagus is good. I also tried it without asparagus - the result is the same.

I'm flying straight up. Or I'm trying to at least.

I found the culprit. After changing the engines FAR no longer wants me to fly engines-first. It seems that the problem is with how far computes drag, i.e. node = drag, no node = less drag and aerospikes have no nodes. If that is indeed so then shame on FAR, changing engines that shouldn't influence the airflow at all shouldn't change how the craft flies.

I've flown pretty much exclusively with spaceplanes lately so this really surprised me. I've made a completely 100% symmetrical not-totally-unaerodynamic mini asparagus but it keeps tumbling out of the sky before it even gets rid of the first pair of tanks. What's wrong with my design?

Definitely an Eve return mission... with a science lab. I was planning to do it with an asteroid but I reconsidered, I'm not crazy enough for that. Might try it with the new aero though.

It sill confers a large advantage no matter what you do. After you detach from the empty asteroid you're at full fuel in space while you keep the dv gained during the mounted burn. It's like hyperediting yourself to a position of an asteroid whose path you yourself set.

I also find the game less entertaining than before but that is understandble since I've played it for 100's of hours. Moreover in my opinion things were far more challenging before with more wobbly joints and smaller parts, so you had to design more intricate ships for things like Eve lander lifters or large Eeloo rover base tugs.

There is no fallout, especially if you recover it as you should.

Ah, I didn't see that the OP is so old, sorry. But yes, it was quite a while ago, my memory is horrible so I don't really know when exactly. Weren't you one of the original drive's developers too?

Nice but not the first by any means. I've landed on Moho and back at KSP using awesome designs were made. Didn't try this for a long time now since I thought one of the patches tried to remove this feature. You could even do small corrections - turn it on and off in quick succession without it breaking. a long time ago and it was 100 % reliable. I remember we even had two kraken drive workshop threads where many

As other have said, straighten the wheels. Also, taking off should be easy since landing will be 100x harder.

Why? It would be true if it were in vacuum but there is hardly a vacuum when you are spewing tons of fuel behind you.

With about 1000 parts the game becomes hardly playable but I'm runing this on a laptop. Aerodynamic FX slows down the game even with just a handful of parts though.

Hahaha. Good joke. I wouldn't even if I were immortal because then I'd probably get stuck somewhere in space for 50 years.

EVA kerbals orientate according to your camera. Try the chase camera.

Yeah, a shame it wasn't pursued further. Now that we have asteroids, we could at least have unique asteroids, obviously the magic boulder but also some others that wouldn't be on the map until some conditions were fulfilled or at all. A more diverse surfaces with volcanoes, rivers, caves... etc. would help a lot too. I have no inclination to play KSP anymore as I've built mostly everything my PC allowed me to and since the planet surfaces are the same everywhere (with a few exceptions - a few holes and a canyon) there is no exploration to do either.

Read the forums to know how 1.0 is while waiting for all the mods to update. I.e. the same thing I've always done for the past few updates.

That doesn't help in the slightest. It just makes reaching full control surface angle take a bit longer. I'd need to limit the maximum to a set percentage depending on speed - exactly like the DCA mentioned above but with reverse scaling.

As FAR as I know DCA does the opposite of what I need, i.e. lowers the sensitivity with increasing velocity which is absolutely useless (to me at least). Is there a trick to reverse the scaling?

Is there a mod that allows me to scale controls with respect to velocity? With FAR, most of my more agile planes correctly explode due to aerodynamic stresses if I turn at low speeds due to high control authority. On the other hand this level of control authority is required to perform maneuvers at higher speeds. I'd need to dynamically lower the control input as speed decreases. Thanks

If I wasn't so lazy I'd set up Linux just for KSP since the 64 bit version supposedly runs nicely under it. Windows + opengl somehow works for me but even one small mod more and it's unplayable due to crashes.

Planets improvements: more of them, more interesting surfaces, real atmospheres (variable temperature, pressure...etc. that influence flight and experiments), dangerous environments (volcanoes, rivers, rings/asteroid belts). Some additional effects would also improve immersion a lot like the CollisionFX mod. Dust particles, weather, disassembly effects... a lot of things could be improved.