pincushionman

<.< >.> This IS my old internet name. Since…well, it must have been spring of 1998, since that's when I got diabetes. Back in the heyday of AOL an AIM. I must have had a different one the couple of years prior since AIM was the thing back in high school. But I sure as heck can't remember it.

Another suggestion for making high-speed aircraft: Use FAR. The drag model in that mod is far more advanced that what is available in stock, and clipping and occlusion are far better represented. If you're running on a PC, that is.

There's other odd going on - the 20th Anniversary edition (which is still available from Best Buy, so I don't know what edition this is) bills Bacon, Paxton, Sinise, and Harris, as well as Hanks. And has a tagline. And the "a RON HOWARD film" thing. This is missing all of that. Isn't that stuff required to be present? Something's fishy beyond bad art.

I was about to mention the same thing - Apollo 10 vehicles were Charlie Brown and Snoopy. They didn't appear to make the patch, though. Apparently the crews managed to sneak one of the later vehicles as Casper (the Friendly Ghost) as well, even after they were explicitly told not to. And now we have people like Elon Musk homaging The Culture while he does his business, and his PR is very loud. It does give the impression that these aren't just people who are passionate about space, but people who are passionate about space. And that's something that gets lost behind the contracts and red tape of government agencies.

Given that the game doesn't simulate part failure, what use do you forsee for a RAT? An APU could be made from a fuel cell configed to run off IntakeAir instead of oxidizer, but isit useful for anythig besides running ISRU on Kerbin or Laythe?

You mean like a RAT? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_air_turbine

That's pretty much all rope physics is. It's the self-intersection with the ship and itself where the problem rears its ugly head. If you choose to ignore it and have it clip through everything, you wouldn't have a problem, and might as well just cast a straight segment between the connections. But if you're going to do that it would be horribly unconvincing, and what's the point?

You need to paste it into the SPH folder of your career save (although you can access SPH craft from either the SPH or VAB "open" menus). And have unlocked all the parts in it; you may want to put it into a sandbox save first just to make sure you get how it works while not under pressure. If you're trying to get a contract under X meters, any jet engine will do, but it's a good opportunity to learn how to fly your plane. And don't worry about not being very good at designing planes yet; planes are ten times as complicated as rockets. Welcome to the forums!

I was just noting that fuel hoses is a commonly asked feature too, and since it's the exact same problem from a physics POV, if you solve one you get the other for free. But it's a very messy problem, even more messier than the physics KSP already chugs along over - essenrially you need to develop an entire specialized, stable, physics case based around self-intersection and clipping. And those two things are Kraken bait in the current system, so that's a tall order indeed.

There comes a point where less power does not equal cheaper. Especially if you "underpower" it so much that you end up in a category where you are the only customer for the components you need to do that, and you lose the economy of scale.

You'd need to come up with appropriate terms fo each body in the system, which from a bookkeeping standpoint is not really worth the effort, and wouldn't be any more clear to the casual player than what we have now.

I'd be all for this, if (convincing) rope physics weren't such a gigantic pain in the butt. I've never seen good rope physics in a game, especially one that's such an edge case of it, being zero-g and all. This might be a good feature to consider down the road (and would be a boon to resource transfer), but they have a lot of other things to fix before approaching such a complex feature for little benefit.

TILT!

North and South have been known since before magnets were widely used as compasses, at least as a concept. And which one is "up" or "down" us arbitrary; in many medeaval European maps "up" was East (kinda), toward Jerusalem. So, at some point convention decided that "up" was such that the Earth rotated counterclockwise (note that the way clocks rotate…is ALSO arbitrary!). Earth inherited both its rotation and revolution (orbit) from the Solar system's progenitor gas/dust cloud. Since the rest of the solar system bodies also came from this cloud, they largely have the same angular monentum direction, too. …I was about to extend that example to the Solar System inheriting the Milky Way's angular momentum, but then I realized that inter-star interactions could potentially jack up that trend when it cones to galactic orbits. The weirdness comes about with exceptions to the trend. Moons with odd angular momenta can be explained well enough with ejection/capture mechanics, but Uranus…just…Uranus. Something really exceptional happened there. And this where the arbitrary distinction comes in - which way us North there? If you define North as "most consistent with the Solar System's/its own orbit's andular momentum", then its axial tilt is almost 90° AND it rotates clockwise (backward). BUT if you instead define North as "such that a body rotates counterclockwise when viewed from that direction," then its axial tilt is MORE than 90°, but it otherwise rotates the same as everyone else.

Not "directly to a docking port," any part that moves or is moved by IR parts glitches the docking ports attached to them. which is weird, since I swear I've seen an old video of a construction rover doing just that with ports on an arm. Maybe previous versions of IR attempted this but it was taken out due to bugs. You might want to check the IR thread, someone might know there. You also could try re-rooting so the arm port is the root, and therefore "the rest of the ship" is actually what moves by the IR parts, but that might not help much since it would kill the docking ports on "the other end of the arm" - the rest of the ship.

The hardest thing about learning to EVA is the rotation controls. There's some kind of weird click+drag scheme that's the default on PC, but it's always baffled me. You may not have a similar option on console, unless it's a hold-button-plus-stick kind of thing. What I have found to work, though, is if I re-orient the camera pointing the way I want the Kerbal to face, pressing the "jump" key (space on PC) prompts him/her to rotate to that orientation. You may want to see if that works for you, too. (I'l have to check on this tonight, though; there may have been some kind of auto-rotate-to-default-on-thrust option I disabled in the settings as well. Will report back)

Did everybody miss the part of the discussion where @Rocket In My Pocket said they already do this in fine control mode?

While this is true, it doesn't mean that a user should rule out quirks in his own design being a problem, or that tweaks to it couldn't minimize the effects of the bug. Buggy or not, the behavior wheels has explicitly changed, so it is reasonsble to assume that some designs will not work over the transition, while others port just fine. The posters above, who make plane with no issues, have offered to inspect the design of a buggy plane. Their findings could be "It works fine for me," which means it's all bug and an interaction between Unity and the particular system (worst case), "It breaks a little, but if you do this it goes away," or "this design is terrible, do this instead." Until we see, we don't know which. EDIT: And for all of you insisting you can fly drive whith no real problems, can you link to one of yours for him to try? That could be helpful too.

In-game settings menu has a GUI scale option.

*sniff sniff* I smell an opportunity to be a KILLER APP

Agree with the others here, and thanks for the picture. As @Snark said, if that center engine is a Reliant, you're pretty screwed for turning. I'd expect that to launch you high enough where the air is thin and fins are no longer effective, so a Swivel is called for. If it is a Swivel…you're still kinda screwed for turning, since as @kBob noted, you have four un-steerable Hammers going right off the pad. Your Swivel won't help until you stage it. You need steerable fins for the stage right off the pad. As he also said, it's harder to turn the faster you're going, especially if your ship is flexible (read: more smaller tanks). Four Hammers will get you going very fast, very quickly, and it may be too late for a good turn by the time you stage them off. I've never needed more than two Hammers on a ship of (roughly) that size, even when I'm flying badly (and I do, often). Three, tops.

Is this a limitation of KSP, or a limitation of Unity? I noticed that I have to leave the fight if I want to re-map controls in Sky Rogue, which is also a Unity game. I'll have to look tonight to see if Cities:Skylines suffers from this, too.

Is it because you have no controllable fins and no gimbal on your engines? And your ship is so large your wimpy reaction wheel can't do anything? I've said it before (and others already have), and I'll say it again: Pictures man, pictures! We can't diagnose a problem we can't see.

As noted in many other posts, this was absolutely necessary. The wheel implementations used under Unity 4 are no longer suppoerted under U5, and everything had to be re-written to accomodate them. They can not be reverted. 1.2 is slated to include another Unity minor update which should help with new wheel middleware. You can argue some about some of the strength and stiffness choices, though. The fishtailing/turn-on-takeoff-roll is actually the result of a symmetry stiffness bug.

Don't use the LY01 gear. At least until the wheel middleware gets updated.