Search the Community

PART { // --- general parameters --- name = winglet module = Winglet author = HarvesteR // --- asset parameters --- mesh = model.mu scale = 0.1 // --- editor parameters --- cost = 500 category = Aero subcategory = 0 title = AV-T1 Winglet // manufacturer = Kerlington Model Rockets and Paper Products Inc. // description = // attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision attachRules = 0,1,0,1,1 // --- node definitions --- // definition format is Position X, Position Y, Position Z, Up X, Up Y, Up Z node_attach = 5.10736, -0.589634, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0 // --- standard part parameters --- mass = 0.05 dragModelType = override maximum_drag = 0.02 minimum_drag = 0.02 angularDrag = 5 crashTolerance = 12 maxTemp = 3400 explosionPotential = 0.1 mirrorRefAxis = 0, 0, -1 // --- winglet parameters --- // dragCoeff will override the maximum_drag value dragCoeff = 0.5 deflectionLiftCoeff = 0.3 RESOURCE { name = LiquidFuel amount = 360 maxAmount = 360 } RESOURCE { name = Oxidizer amount = 440 maxAmount = 440 } } This works, I did try this (although with a rocket motor)... IF you attach a fuelline from it to your ship. "module = " is actually a misnomer, that changes the TYPE the part is, and the only thing "fueltank" does is explode on collision (seriously, that is the ONLY reason to use "module = fueltank") All "module = X" will have "module = Part" because "Part" is the base class. *And only if you use a "Typeless" language like Javascript or ObjC will you be able to call 1 "type" multiple "Child Types" [if I am wrong with C# supporting this, I strongly disagree with the notion]... as I said, "module =" is a misnomer, it is the "type" of the part, so just like a String cannot be treated as an int, a "Winglet" cannot be treated as a "FuelTank"... but this is complicated programming talk. The point is, you do not NEED "module = fueltank" for it to work.

Must you guys constantly attack each other? It's just gotten downright silly again. If there's nothing to talk about at the moment, go do other things instead of spamming it up.

Update: As I made my orbit around the Mun, the intersect turned out to be only a few inches away from the orbiter. Talk about sniping. Boy, was that worth it. This time however, I will try to dock with it normally (image of me perfectly docked 2001 style)

thanks, means a lot, really, it's always nice to hear someone talk positively about something you made

There have been some heated debates over what units we should use to talk about the electrical energy in the game. The thing is that the way "ElectricCharge" functions in the game is not at all an accurate representation of how electricity works in the real world, and so any attempt to try to apply actual principles of electrical engineering to the system in the game is destined to end in pain. It's best to just think of it as a different flavor of fuel, because that's how the game treats it. Maybe someday Squad will implement a more realistic electricity model, but it doesn't seem like they're particularly interested in going in that direction, and personally, I don't think it's needed.

Since it was brought up, (and we won't get up how or why, time to drop all the talk from that thread), I got to wondering, how many of us are there. So wonderful women of Kerbal, check in. Oh and do you want female Kerbals? Some people do, some people don't, I do, we have them in Kerbalizer, lets see them in game.

Yeah, I had lot's of popular science books since I barely was able to read, because I was "the kid who ask too many questions" so my mother buy "science" books as way to get rid of my inflated curiosity ;p (And no, there was no comics in them). Also this was reason why Discovery Chanel (first program was about guys who had 3 days to explore and dig some archeology site, don't remember the name...) replace over 90% of my TV (with COLOR ) use when it was added to town cable Chanel list. EDIT_1: Pretty much I always imagine myself look like IRL (Maybe always shaved, what isn't always the rule). As a kid situation was similar, mostly because "no rush" philosophy (and pretty much I was mostly accepting myself in way I was) and people my age talk/fantasize about being older or be like that . With 3 major exceptions: I wanted write faster, I have Dysgraphia in childhood and writing was extremely time consuming and terribly frustrating process. I wanted to see anything without glasses. I wanted to get rid of AD and not need to wear wound dressings every day and feel itching of entire body 24/7.

Nah. Chobit kinda shares the general consensus that Star Trek is not the be all and end all of scifi. Sometimes, I don't even know why I talk to her....

I don't think skill is black ad white though--it has grades too. So in a way, I don't think there are any truly "unskilled" KSP players. The fact that you listed down some accomplishments actually mean you possess a certain degree of KSP skills. Let's not even talk about getting to LKO...heck installing the game alone takes a certain amount of skill, so I define an unskilled KSP player as someone who a) can't even install the game properly or managed to run it but can't get past the opening page

While I guess this is a topic on 3D printing, I don't think it would hurt to talk about 2D printing as well. I mean, if you have access to a 3D printer then great. Others can and will also get the services from a 3D printing company, and other will probably eventually buy models from Squad. But, one more direct accessible way to turn your favorite KSP spacecraft into a model is by 2D colored printing, something like this: Dawn spacecraft: All you need is a colored printer and thick gauge paper, and of course, patience, maybe skill, of assembling the parts. Considering that aside from the tiny components, most of the parts you will actually work with are cylindrical, then it's just a matter of rolling up paper tubes and stacking/gluing them together. Years ago, I made some for a school exhibit, including Hubble, Spitzer and the MER rovers: It's a bit shabby, but we were concentrating on getting the Martian terrain right more, rather than detailing the rover.

You're not going to do it without engineer. I encourage you to use mods that generate data only--you're still using your skill set, just with more data. Frankly, I'm pretty sure an Eve lander pushes the limits of what is actually feasible to build. If you want help, but don't want to cheat, give us your model craft, or a picture. All this talk about dv and TWR and tonnage is useless to you without engineer, so we'd need something tangible from you.

We'll talk about both! "Through the fire and the flames, we carry on!"

C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER Let's talk about my moosic, shall we?

Ok thanks! I'm good with the configs, but I tried and failed a 3D modeling. So I guess we could work well together. Just Email me anything you make, and we could talk with Skype if you have it.

Hey there! I'm about to update to 0.2 and thought it's time for a real playthrough after much testing and failing trying to figure this game out all by myself. I have a couple of questions that I haven't been able to figure out, I hope you guys don't mind me asking 1. Let's talk struts. Do they like, break off when I connect something that will be decoupled? Can they mess up anything? Or should I just use as many as possible to improve stability? (I've noticed my bigger rockets are far more stable that way, no accidents as of yet) Can they possibly break something while decoupling? 2. Those adapter thingies, which go from small-ish to large in one piece, do they improve stability? Should I always be using those to connect smaller pieces to larger pieces? Like a larger-ish fuel tank to an atomic engine, or is that not needed? 3. Docking: I've only tried it a few times and managed to finally assemble my so-far 2 part space station (don't judge me , it took forever), and I noticed that when I have like a small rocket with a decoupler and the "space-station part" with a docking port, and I connect it, I can't figure out how to decouple the rocket from the part while it's docked to the space station :/. Is there a way to do this or do I need to decouple before docking? 4. Is an interplanetary spaceplane possible/viable? I was so happy when I saw you can also construct planes but most of what I tried didn't even lift off, especially the heavier ones :/ I've wanted to make a plane like that ever since I started with this game but not sure it's even possible? Thanks! I probably have 1-2 more specific questions but I think I already forgot them while I was typing :/

If you talk to Bobcat, he was able to make a few solar panels for MIR movable by EVA with KAS, so maybe the same could be done with docking ports?

Hi everyone! My name is Caleb. I'm 28 years old, I live in Texas. Being so relatively close to Mexico City I'm always thinking about how easy it would be to visit KSPs birthplace. Maybe one day Before KSP I had no idea how "rocket science" worked. I had a pretty above-average understanding of ballistics, but never really had any interest in space travel. But KSP has really hooked me on how awesome it can be! I'm a pretty humble and patient person. Many people say I'd make a great lawyer because I can (and often do) argue multiple sides of any situation effectively and convincingly if given the time to. Lots of people here seem impatient and ungrateful for something that as far as I can tell, they probably shouldn't expect anyway. I know that many things can be implied and sometimes we put our trust in a source, and allow expectations to be created... but KSP is the Devs project. Not ours, despite however passionately we may feel about the subject of financial support of its development. I'm grateful to be a part of the process in any way shape or form. Too few people seem to feel the same way. Its always the angry people who talk the loudest. I do my best to life my life to the contrary, despite how bitter and world-weary many of my views can be. lol Try and take it easy on the Devs guys. They're providing (whether we like how or not) easily one of the coolest things many of us have seen come out of indie gaming in quite a while. So thats me! Caleb. GateCrasherVI. Rocket 'sploder 'xtrodinaire. Excited to be here! Hopefully helping to represent those of us excited to be a part of KSP Keep up the great work SQUAD!

...but not so not advanced in kerbal rocket science. I'm playing since 0.19.0... But anyway, lets not talk but start....start with something BIG I proudly present: The first tower on the mun, the "Mun Tower" about 25m in high and the biggest thing I landed somewhere. done in 0.20 stock (no mods) happy crashing everyone =)

Sadly I have to disagree with you. I soak up everything I can about past, present & future space missions, and I love to talk about it with anyone who even so much as feigns interest. In my experience, people imagine the realities of space travel are more like a Hollywood movie than reality. One example that springs to mind is a university classmate of mine. We were both studying mechanical engineering, yet he asked me "what planet the [space shuttle crew] was on" when we saw a story about them on the news. He got mad when I laughed at him, telling me he had no interest in space flight so how should he know. He's since graduated and works as a professional engineer, so he's obviously a smart guy with a strong technical background... If it is possible for someone like that to have such misconceptions, then how bad is it among the majority of people who have no interest in space flight?

Ok then, what shall we talk about now? Edit: Toblerones!!!

Let's talk about something other than alcohol. What would man kind do if we found sentient alien life?

WOW! Dev-version looks really great so far! Right now I´m fiddling around with scan-resolution and orbit altitudes to get a better understanding for future mapping missions. Really like it! Very promising results on my first tries. There is only one thing remaining for future improvements (besides the stuff you talk about in your blog off course ): an option to scale the interface while scanning would be absolutely super kerbalogantic awesome!! I mean, when I scan a planet, i´m only interested in the map that is magically appearing on my screen, not the 3d world surrounding it . So it would be great to have e.g. buttons that make the actual map-window standard, 2x and 4x it´s normal size. This way we could enjoy the maps even more Thanks, great work! And maybe you could keep scalable interface in the back of your head for rainy days;)

Ah jeez, didn't know this. I'll see if the old Mechjeb dll works. I can't see why it shouldn't. If it does I'll talk to R4M0N about potentially packing it or ripping the module. Ripping the module would benefit the mod anyway, as it could potentialy be tweaked (ie get rid of the GUI, since it isn't needed for this purpose)

I do hear what you're saying and understand your concerns. However, I think that whilst the changes are a shock, we should at least stick with them and see how they fair in the long run. EndlessWaves, that sounds good and I'll talk with DYJ on getting them updated.

It's not hostile, so much as pointed. Any person coming to these forums, who has had a passing interest in KSP, might be put off by seeing such threads, when in actual fact that are many satified users. Flightmaster IS running a modified environment. All bets are off. If Flightmaster a) Completely, cleanly, uninstalls the game (by actually deleting any remnants of any part of the game after uninstalling) Installs a fresh copy of the latest version c) Ensures his machines drivers are up to date d) does NOT install any modifications WHATSOEVER ...and continues to exhibit problems, then by all means we can talk. Until then, he is the hostile one, making claims for which he has no proof. All he has proof of his that his copy of the game isn't working, not that there is something inherently wrong with .20.