pincushionman

Just like how pushing the crosswalk light again will initiate the walk cycle faster! …this is quickly becoming a general discussion topic isn't it?

The "close" button is "Keep Experiment." Yes, very confusing. The science management system needs a better interface.

I would not have a problem with KW-style fairings… EXCEPT. We do not have the tools to properly collapse probes so they can fit into said fairings. Sure, solar panels, radiators, and antennas deploy, but nothing else. Wheels are a particular problem in this regard.

Should be a keypress for it, you're right. Do they still stay up when you mouseclick them in 1.1?

Someone mentioned rovers. Bad idea, very bad. You think wheels have problems now? Wait until you regularly get them into a large-displacement condition.

He should not be having energy problems unless he's [trying to] turning excessively while he's not under thrust, because the alternators on the engines will keep up. But you have to be thrusting through most of the atmosphere, so lower TWR and a loger burn helps immensely.

There is a fine line between "exploit" and "bug." Infinite EVA reserves and warp-to-stop-rotation are fine to keep in my opinion. Untraceable phantom thrust that continuously affects your trajectory and prevents you from timewarping does nobody any good unless you go so far out of your way to exploit it that you can't claim to be playing the same game. Physics-bug fixes = good.

Okay, after some earlier posts I thought you were having issues that weren't the standard "why does this flip out" ones. But after seeing the pictures, I would say you are very much having the same rocket-flipping-out problems that everybody, including all of us other posters here, have had. Your rocket is very short, and as others have said, your control wings are located at best very near the center of mass, so they have very little lever arm to work with and won't provide much moment even when they're working right. Your second stage needs to be longer and the fins need to be about as far back as you can put them. Also, are those Reliants? If so, you have no real control authority. As noted above, the fins are too close to the center of mass to do anything, and the reaction wheels are not nearly strong enough to correct even the slightest aerodynamically-induced flipout. The only other effective source of control is a gimballed engine, like a Swivel. Once you get high enough the fins won't be effective, so you need the gimbal for that regime anyway. In addition...you have brought way too much boom to this party. The fifth picture shows you going 415 m/s at roughly 5 km, the densest part of the atmosphere. Keep in mind Mach 1 is at around 340 m/s; those white effects you see indicate Mach effects and shock drag. Once you get Mach effects, drag becomes much more pronounced and that whole draggy-bits-in-front stuff becomes way more important. In the old drag model, high TWR was the name of the game to get out of the souposphere quickly, but in the new one anything above TWR of 1.5 is asking for trouble. If I'm not mistaken, this kind of TWR will get you into Mach territory in the 12-15 km range where the atmosphere is much thinner. Once you get above about 33 km you're pretty much in space and you can turn with impunity, but by that point you should be going very fast already with a large horizontal component to your velocity. What I would suggest is 1) remove two of those side boosters 2) lengthen the second stage by adding fuel to make up for the dV you take out by removing those boosters 3) move those fins way way back, possibly onto the boosters instead of the second stage 4) switch the second stage motor (if not all of them) to a Swivel. If it makes you feel any better, going way back to your original post: this was not a problem with not understanding how the controls work - you understood perfectly well. It's just that aerodynamics is grabbing your rocket and shaking it like a dog with a slobbery rope toy, and your rocket currently has no ability to overcome those forces. But like I said, we've all been through that, and you will too. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Pictures, man, pictures! You say it's not your rocket, but I don't think that's definitely the case. Craft control behavior can be pretty sensitive to some of the most minor things. For instance, you might think these two rockets are identical: ...but they're not. The left one behaves very nicely, yawing over smoothly during my commanded gravity turn. The right one? Not so much. As I apply yaw for my turn, at a certain speed it causes a distinct roll that throws off my mojo and makes it hard to hit my target orbital plane (usually equatorial). This doesn't happen with any of the other tail fins I've tried, but I'm not sure if it's a bug in that particular part or a quirk of having much area but little control surface. But it's a bear to deal with when my actual rocket needs exactly two Hammer boosters on the side to get to orbit (and can't go above the fins). Soooo...don't rule out a quirk of your rocket design. Pictures! Do you have more control than just the reaction wheel you mentioned? Do you have steerable fins? Do you have engine gimbal? Is there anything hanging off the side? Which way are you trying to turn? What speed are you going when you have that problem? Is your rocket big or small? Any of these details are important to diagnosing your issue.

Remember: one-third full of water is the magic ratio.

I don't see it working so well. The article mentions the success of intermodal freight containers (IFCs), which they hope to emulate. With a system that is not apparently compatible with existing IFC infrastructure. You don't just need airplane that can handle it - you also need trains and trucks that can be part of the same system. But most of all, you need to have a situation where an entire airplane's contents need to go from the same point A to the same point B, all at the same time. Which is not gonna happen. Certainly not for passengers. And any cargo that is both time-sensitive and bulky enough that it must fly as an entire airplane's only cargo is worth the handling costs of getting it off a normal airplane. Honestly, you're better of trying to design a plane that accepts existing IFC units down its length, and the fact that nobody's yet done that is pretty telling.

76. Posting a bug in the FAR thread without giving @ferram4 explicit reproduction steps. 76a. …or confirming on a FAR-only install. 76b. …or having installed via CKAN. 76c. …or without having read the last ten pages of the thread. 76d. …or without I should stop nowGIVE THE MAN WHAT HE ASKED FOR HE'S NOT PSYCHIC

Well, we're still getting an art pass soon, right? …@Porkjet?

16. Talking about other forum users without having the good manners to notify thim with the "@" tag.

It shouldn't be so much an "option" as its own tab in the "open" dialog box. | VAB | SPH | Stock VAB | Stock SPH | or somesuch.

This. I'd be buying more if there had been dailies. As is I'm only certainly getting Psychonauts, HL Episode 2, and some 20-game bundle of random, non-related stuff. Still deciding whether to pick up Enter the Gungeon or Tomb of the Necrodancer. Any opinions on those two?

Because there's a bug with symmetry not creating symmetrically-stiff structures. As your aero forces increase, this results in bending and twisting that favors one direction. You'll see this once (if) you get in the air, too; a hard pitch-up will couple with a noticeable roll. Some things to try: 1) Move your main gear from the wings to the fuselage, and ensure they're pointing straight down. Reducing the number of joints between the center of mass and the wheels will reduce the flexibility and thus the midmatch in flexibility. 2) Add struts between the wings and fuselage or install the Kerbal Joint Reinforcement mod. 3) Make sure only the center wheel has steering, and re-map wheel steering to a different control than rudder. At speed wheel steering is way too effective, and you're better off forcing (and correcting) turn using rudder only. 4) Invest in a good joystick with a twist grip. This can't fix the problem by itself, but airplanes have different sensitivities in each control axis, and you're in a regime where a tiny yaw input is a very big deal. And keep in mind wheel flexibility has been borked since 1.1, and I haven't heard anything convincing me that it's beed fixed (only that it's "better") in 1.1.3. I fear until 1.2 gets its better Unity 5 version and wheel middleware, we're stuck with wonky wheels.

What do you mean by "is way too much?" Is your measured e way off, or are you simply way past so-called escape? Keep in mind, in KSP "escape" isn't a paranolic orbit where e=1, it's an orbit such that Ap is outside the (arbitrary) sphere of influence of the parent body, and as such is often still elliptical. The game may not even have a special case for a parabolic escape orbit, since you have to go far out of your way to hit e=1 exactly. Rounding errors all but guarantee you're either in a really big ellipse or a really tight hyperbola. Both of which would be indistinguishable from a parabola over the short section rendered.

There's no reason they shouldn't be correctly symmetrical. Unless you're using VAB symmetry, which is rotational, not mirror. If that's the problem, there are two ways to fix it: 1: build your rover in the SPH instead; the default symmetry is what you want there. You can then open the completed rover in the VAB and buld the rocket down from there, if you have to. 2: Switch symmetry modes by pressing "R". Need to think ahead here, though - if you already have parts in rotational symmetry, any new parts placed on them will inherit their symmetry mode, so you still need to start with symmetry in mind. There is a mod to break symmetry, but I don't know if it's up to date. And it might be more trouble than it's worth if symmetry mode fixes it. EDIT: forgot to mention: the mirror symmetry plane in the SPH is for a rover driving out the door. In the VAB, the rover needs to drive parallel to the door.

Piano, trumpet, French horn, guitar. I currently own only a trumpet (which has not been played in fifteen years) and a guitar (which has been played recently, but it would be a stretch to say it was played well). We may be purchasing a used piano sooner rather than later for my sons to begin lessons, though. Because the $100 electric keyboard is not a piano.

This is not correct. What you need to do is EVA and "take data", just like you do to collect the other experiments. When you place the data back in the pod through the RMB menu or by entering the pod, it goes to some sort of "storage," freeing the "active" crew report space for a fresh report. That said, this mechanic is reeeally clunky. The whole science storage and transfer system could use a revamp under the hood to smooth out the rough edges.

If you're not in Eastern time zone, Best Buy is open for at least another hour. Of course, I assume the post was really less "I can't play KSP boo hoo" and more "I'm going to NASM nyah nyah." Where else are you going?

A john boat. Really. You may not appreciate how much energy, and thus size, we're talking about here.

You're "ealy in career." What CAN you do? If you can EVA in space, get out and push. Orient the pod retrograde at apoapsis, SAS to stop rotation, EVA, let go and float away a little, engage jetpack, push against the bottom of the pod a little bit, stop when you have about 1/3 tank left. It sounds much more difficult than it actually is. If you can't EVA, you can intercept with a drone craft (or a piloted craft, if you have no drone cores) that can do the same thing (push). Got to learn to intercept eventually. Or you can wait. Once you unlock in-space EVA, all Kerbals can immediately do it.

I laugh because I'm obviously not familiar with the format these follow, but this implies, to the layperson at least, that "human woman" is a distinct species.