pincushionman

Commercial and general aviation jet engines usually have thrust reversers. Do high-performance military aircraft like fighters have them? They're pretty heavy, and I believe the cert requirements for commercial aircraft that have them is they must be able to stop on brake power alone. The "real" answer is longer runway (whether that's a good gameplay choice is another matter…), The primary shuttle landing strip is 4.5 km long. Ours is only 3, I think?

Hotfix 1.0.3 hasn't come yet because of their vacation, but the temp gauge memory fix will likely be nothing more than "turn gauges off by default." That doesn't fix the problem, it just hides it. However, the next big effort will be the Unity 5 switch, which may make some of the current bugs go away by default (because they're Unity bugs, not KSP bugs) or because they need to re-write their custom code to be compatible with the new system. They also said they're re-writing some of their UI stuff specifically because it's admittedly poor quality.

Another reason to start your gravity turn early!

Makes sense for a math project. Six o' one, half dozen o' the other - curves will be harder to fit, but you'll have far fewer to do. Here's a suggestion for the curves: Identify the start, end, and a few points along. Put those coordinates into Excel and make a "scatter" plot from them. Add a trendline. Play with the different options until you get something you're satisfied with. Then have it display the equation for the curve. Don't be afraid to edit your points here, because your coordinates are guesses, and some of the regression options are very sensitive to small changes. I don't think you can get a good ellipse or a circle with this method. And near-vertical curves will be extra-problematic. But if you're careful, it may look good.

I was going to suggest that ellipses might be useful too, but all his ellipses are likely to be oriented at funny angles, which makes it more complicated. I also find curve-fitting to be a major PITA, especially if we have easy tools to brute-force a piecewise-linear solution with enough precision you can't tell the difference by eye.

Are you just using a sequence of y=mx+n line segments? That's the simplest approach, but it will be very time-consuming for the curves. This is still valid. Define your point cloud first, then identify the line segments that connect which points. The y=mx+n equation for a line that connects (a, to (c,d) is y = ((d-b)/(c-a))*(x-a) + d Well, not quite; I simplified too far. y = ((d--(c-a))x + (b - ((d-b)/(c-a))a) Simplify as necessary. I would use Excel to input your points for each segment and determine your m and n. The CONCATENATE() function or the "&" string-add operator could then be used to give complete equations for cut-and-paste.

The "is discovered/invented" question is difficult because "mathematics" is not exactly A Thing - it is a catch-all concept of both phenomena we intend to describe and the methods we use to describe them. One set of which we discover, and the other set we invent or develop. The volume of an object is a phenomenon, and very much exists, no matter how we intend to describe it. But there are several different methods that have been developed ("invented") do describe it. Comparison, algebra, integration, differential equations, all of these things are valid approaches (methods), and are more or less appropriate depending on the context. And sometimes, mathematics itself ceases to be a useful tool for describing a phenomenon. I'll give you the following story problem as an example: I'll let you ponder the answer, but it is most definitely NOT two (2). The simple math approach has failed us. You could add complexity to your solution by considering biology, acoustics, and statistics, all of which can be pressed back into mathematics with enough effort, but by doing so it makes clear that mathematics itself is the wrong approach to describe the phenomenon.

I'm pretty sure the "sun has orbited the Earth four times" comment was probably the reviewer trying to be clever more than anything else; the sun going around the earth every day is the stardard geocentric view, while doing it annually isn't a part of any serious worldview. …that, or he wanted to say something about orbits (the game is all about them, after all), and accidentally switched the words. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I agree, either way it was a little awkward.

Remember that in combustion (burning of hydrocarbons; what we do now), the products are both carbon dioxide AND water vapor. So the water vapor output may not be as different as you think, especially compared to natural evaporation worldwide. As for "water in the ground," that all depends on how you get your hydrogen. Industrial hydrogen production is from methane, not from electrolyzed groundwater.

"Control surfaces" in the game can be set to be real control surfaces, flaps, or spoilers independently. And Fowler flaps extend backward from the wing; simple flaps on a hinge certainly exist.

Farram, you're trying to determine what parts of the voxel mesh are wings, correct? Is there a field on the voxel data that could represent "this voxel was generated from the geometry of a part xxxxxxx"? If do, could certain parts be flagged as "wing" parts (such as, well, wing parts) and that flag would be transferred to the voxel metadata? The problem then would be identifying which parts deserve the "wing part" flag. Maybe metadata could be added to known parts using module manager (or by mod creators for their own parts), and an educated guess could be made based on certain .cfg file values if such a yes/no flag isn't present?

I would hope there's nothing technical that would render a save unplayable at this pont, but as others have mentioned part balancing might break crafts and is still wuite possible. Also, tech tree changes potentially throw your career game for a loop. But hopefully the whole "each save can have its own tech tree" thing (did I read thst right?) would mitigate that.

Since it appears the service bays are impacting the test negatively, I would repeat the nosecones test, but with a locked-off fuel tank to vary the mass rather than a variable number of parts to worry about.

Are flaps not already present in 1.X?

Remember, the build tree system doesn't support "loop" connections outside of struts and fuel lines, which limits this functionality somewhat.

That's probably a good compromise to limit part count.

Who created the design/picture? If the contractor did, you may have something there. If NASA itself did, it's puuublic domaaain…

Are these on Steam? There are a whole bunch of Star Wars games on sale this week for the "May the 4th be with you" sale. If they're there, that'd be a pretty good indication that they work.

I've had much more success on long flights by using trim instead of SAS.

I'm working on a mod that changes the way jet engines are implemented and built, and it's becoming apparent that I won't be able to do it by creative .cfg tweaking alone - I'm going to need to develop new modules to implement the behavior. On the Visual Studio homepage, the obvious links are for VS Community 2015 RC. Is this version appropriate to use here, or do I need to dig for an older release like 2013 (I see that referenced in a lot of threads)? Thanks much!

Is that the Wheesley engine? Isn't that just plain no good above 11-12k, regardless of IntakeAir?

Wheel power can be assigned to an axis. Could in 0.90, at least.

Engine > tank > service bay w/parachutes > probe core > heat shield? Come in nose-first? Or will that be too tail-heavy?

The resources are defined in \GameData\Squad\Resources\resourcesGeneric.cfg. I think. Try defining your resources there, then editing the part .cfg's to store or require that resource. If you want a part to have functionality that already exists in other parts, copy the relevant module data into your part. If you want new or different functionality, that's where the .dll's come in.

Assuming I get the concept to work, you could use EnginePower to run any "output." I mentioned jet nozzles and propellers, but there's no reason that wheels couldn't take that as their input resource rather than ElectricCharge. Or electrical generators. Or winches. Or resource drills… Experiments are ongoing to get the basic concept working first, though. It's not as simpleas defining a resource and using it in the parts configs. I'm going to need to make new modules to handle the conversions.