HarvesteR
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2008
- Messages
- 387
- Reaction score
- 37
- Points
- 28
That's the thing, stacking fuel tanks doesn't make them into a big one... they're still separate compartments...
So it's a decision the Kerbal engineers would have made
But yeah, top-down does seem better.
Cheers
EDIT:
top-down it is then! :thumbup:
I'm also recoding the engines now, trying to clean up that mess... I went through the trouble of creating a huge class interface for all modules that extend the generic part class... and it seems I went out of my way to not use it later
Now it looks better, and I've realized something... it seems the SRBs aren't losing mass as they burn... I'm about to add that now, and I was wondering if anyone knows how much mass usually is fuel in a solid booster?
Cheers
So it's a decision the Kerbal engineers would have made
But yeah, top-down does seem better.
Cheers
EDIT:
top-down it is then! :thumbup:
I'm also recoding the engines now, trying to clean up that mess... I went through the trouble of creating a huge class interface for all modules that extend the generic part class... and it seems I went out of my way to not use it later
Now it looks better, and I've realized something... it seems the SRBs aren't losing mass as they burn... I'm about to add that now, and I was wondering if anyone knows how much mass usually is fuel in a solid booster?
Cheers
Last edited:
