pincushionman

Just to be clear - the game simulates using patched conics all the time. When you "unlock it" you don't magically change the physics in the game; you just allow the predicted trajectories to account for it.

I think the heating occlusion is a shock-cone-shaped space, instead of the stack-shaped drag occlusion. But I think there are limits to how far out-of-the-box you can go before it breaks.

If you already have Office, you have a license for Outlook, which is always a more functional choice than whatever "lite" e-mail program (Outlook Express / Live Mail / Mail / ?? I honestly don't know what they've all been called; they've been different every release) shipped with Windows. If not, there are plenty of third-party clients that will do everything you want. I've only used Thunderbird, but there are many others. What you REALLY want is to make sure your e-mail provider allows you to connect via IMAP rather than POP3, and have a client that can do the same. That way, you can have your messages on your computer, but ALSO on the server if you have to get at webmail…AND on your other computer…AND your smartphone. Unless you like having to juggle accounts for each of your devices.

i suspect what's happening is the RCS blocks' thrust is being scaled by the magnitude of their distance to the CoM (a single factor), rather than scaling in each direction relative to the distance to the relevant axis. That is, it must be a single "ThrustScale" value, whereas ideally there would be six separate factors for pitch, roll, yaw, and the three translations. This makes me think of Scott Manley's "Tiony Probe" videos where he abused the hell out of the thrust-scaling mechanic by putting a single linear port at the probe's CoM and got some ungodly-high TWR because the game engine was trying to compensate for the nonexistent moment arm.

Because "turbine" has become a generic term referring to a jet engine, or more usually, a variant of a jet engine that extracts a large portion of the energy leaving the combustion chamber to produce work rather than thrust. Most jet engines nowadays don't produce thrust from the core exhaust; almost all of it is extracted to drive a fan (in a turbofan) or a shaft (in a turboshaft, turning a propeller, helicopter rotor, wheels, etc.). Most or all of the thrust is actually produced by these ancillary devices. So one could make the argument that the engine core is a turbine that produces work...even though that work usually drives a device that produces a jet for thrust. The turbine itself is only a small part of the engine. You're right, the compressor is usually the biggest, heaviest part. Well, heaviest, at least. Modern fans can be pretty damn huge. It's least confusing to just call these things "jet engines" in the context of KSP, because that's what they are (the thrust is a jet of air). However, remember that this style of engine should be called something different in different applications - you'd never call an Abrams tank engine a jet, since it produces next to no thrust, and everything goes into mechanical work. That would always be called a gas turbine instead.

3 (called dihedral) will not work unless you have more than one wing section along the length ("beam") of the wing. This is because in KSP the aerodynamic forces are applied at the wing root, not its center. So the moment arm is very short. With multiple wing sections the outer ones have their forces applied partway down the wing, so it kinda works.

The issue with spicing up the other scenes is that nearly all your time is spent either in the build scene or the flight scene. The place we need more Kerbals milling about is in the flight scene. At KSC and other places around the planet too.

I think it's another step in the right direction like the CoM change, but I still think the real answer is a dedicated "engine core" part which produces "power" of some kind, and the nozzles use that power to produce thrust. This both avoids the "engine doesn't displace the fuel" issue and it eliminates art assets that, let's face it, are meant to never be seen (dedicated cores would look like any other exterior part). It would offer all kinds of advantages in flexibility - the core would define the power requirements and efficiency, or could be something totally different like a piston engine or electric motor. The "nozzles" could then be tailored for different effects - high thrust, more efficient thrust, dedicated afrerburner, thrust reverser…or something different like a propeller, offset jet exhaust e.g Harrier), electrical generator, or wheels. And yes, it would be wholesale change to the engine system. Not a suggestion to be taken lightly.

I'm not sure how I feel about the ghost engines. It does make the offset CoM business make more sense, but it's a bunch of effort for graphics that will literrally never be seen. However… Yes. So much yes. Thank you Nathankell. I hope I understood this correctly and I can remove such things from thr staging list entirely during build.

Part testing will also be overhauled in the next versions, so don't get too worked up about the minutae right now.

Explains why it's upside down now, dunnit?

I really hope this means SAFE SPLASHDOWNS.

Alshain, you say that since the stock fairings suck, therefore they're not the answer. Then you say that the problem is the stock fairings need to be fixed. Are you agreeing that, assuming the several issues with the stock fairing implementation ARE in fact addressed, the fairing system would be the proper means to address this problem? That's the way I'm seeing it - there's no reason to carry two separate systems to accomplish this particular effect when one can be extended to do it all. It just needs to be fixed.

1. Place satellite in target orbit. 2. Wait 10 seconds. 3. Go to Tracking Station. 4. Click Terminate. BAM! Control has been taken away. TL;DR: Feature is already implemented.

I'm a big fan of: C257H389N65O77S6 Cookies for anybody who can identify that. Because I like cookies. That's a hint. Plus, my screenname will make a lot of sense.

How massive is your SSTO? If you're hurting for DV, can you jetteson it and still fly with better TWR and DV than you had before? And can you suck out the tanks before you do that?

That's because it IS philosophy!

Do you intend for a significant portion of the game to take place in the "real world," so to speak (i.e., you need to walk your character to the hardware store for a bag of bolts they may or may not have enough of, or you need to bail out one of your engineers after an altercation at the bar), or is it simply background art for some kind of scene selection?

I can't claim to be a Trekkie, but I did see Generations (where the scene in question was from), and it should be obvious to everyone who watched it the saucer section was less landed and more ditched. At the end of the film, the crew was being recovered by a fleet of other ships, not flying it off again, and in its "next" appearance (First Contact), it was a new ship, not a salvaged saucer section mated to a new stardrive. I also had the Technical Manual (not "canon" per se, but it was written by Michael Okuda), and while I don't remember whether the saucer section was said to be atmosphere-capable in terms of flying (body lift maybe?) there were clearly no provisions for landing. First, there were no gear, and second, the main engines were all on the aft edge - unless the maneuvering thrusters described elsewhere were absolutely insane (which, given the other technology magic described in the series, is not out of the question), if the ship is on the ground, it's pretty much hosed.

In reality, such a nosecone should create slightly higher drag than its symmetrical counterpart - on its own. I think. But I haven't done aerodynamics in ten years, so take that guess with a grain of salt. It should also create a side load from asymmetric body lift. What it would really be used for would be to control the pressure field around itself more finely, because of how the pressure fields of different components interact with each other. Which is something stock aerodynamics doesn't account for. It may be effective in FAR, though.

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here. …sorry, couldn't help myself.

I'm with kigraham1013 on this one. It looks great, but I'd rather the flexibility of separate components.

Really? On my shiny new laptop win8.1 took forever to boot, but win10 is darn near instant. Is your win7 box much older than the other one, and morr importantly, does it have a buildup of run-on-startup cruft applications from over the years?

This is because both the controls and the navball are ship-centric, not camera-centric. There is no way to make the controls follow the camera. Except for EVA kerbals. Those bastards follow the camera by default. I find I always need to make a feature on my ships to designate the "up" direction at a glance. Especially with docking.

The OP didn't mention SAS, Koby - but since you did, I will as well: Don't. I have yet to have any success with SAS and airplanes. Make aerodynamics work for you for stability tasks (dihedral, pendulum effect, well-sized tailplanes, etc.) and USE TRIM. The issue you're getting sounds like either lack of stiffness or poorly-sized tailplanes/elevators. Or both. As we say everytime in this subforum: Pics would help. Also, joystick >> keys when it comes to planes. I've seen planes flown well on keys, but why torture yourself?