ron1n1

No no...you are both wrong.. The correct term is "unscheduled hyper-velocity rendezvous"

Hello People I have finally bitten the bullet and decided that the 1000 hour career save game I was playing on 1.2.2 is only consuming my soul. I am going to update kerbal to a later version with fewer bugs and better mod support. I am having a dilemma though. Posters like ShadowZone dont seem to like the newer versions due to the "technical debt" issues and the very latest version (1.7) has very little mod support at the minute. A lot of my favourite mods seem to have skipped 1.6 entirely. I am leaning towards either using 1.6 or 1.5 but I would love to hear your opinions. I MUST have Outer planets mods, KRASH And EPL and CPU performance/stability are important as I only have a humble i3 generation so if that was a factor in versions before, please let me know. I couldnt care less about vanilla features as mods usually trump them.

Hey guys I wish to modify how close that the engineer needs to be to repair to broken items in kerbalism. I have gone through the entire kerbalism folder and cannot find the line I need to modify so I am guessing that it is located somewhere inside the Squad folder. I have had trouble find it. Could someone who know tell me the file I would need to modify?

Ah...so it is...much appreciated Nathangun and HaullyGames...thank you

I enjoyed this mod alot @shotgunninja I tweaked kerbalism to use TAC life support. I play with a high rate of food consumption but I always wanted to grow my own food with your greenhouse. I have gone through all the config files in the Kerbalism folder including the greenhouse cfg, but I dont see any line that specifies "the amount of food grown by the greenhouse per harvest cycle". Is this value hard-coded in the kerbalism.dll file or is there a place where it can be found and modified?

Hi Dunebugmi There is a mod, Konstruction, that is even better. Assuming you are constructing giant space stations in orbit, this mod will allow you to remove the docking ports once they are connected. If you wanna reduce part counts this is even better than a "one size fits all"

He was playing 64-bit

As I am an old man by comparison to some of the other users, I am going to burn the youth here by acting like a grandpa and suggest that the reason the demographs are so evenly distributed is that the younger element of the audience is under-represented here because : 1) forum.Kerbalspaceprogram.com doesn't support WhatsApp/SnapChat-style posting 2) They are too busy playing Simple Rockets because they don't know how to work a Desktop/laptop 3) The latest Call of Duty came out

My mistake. Sorry

As a 29 year old boy, I can hear the creaks in my knees starting to reach the audible dB level. I have this idea that Kerbal is some grown-up game for people with a flair for Physics. I am also thinking about introducing my nephews to the delights of Jeb, Bob and Bill. Though I am not a prolific poster here, I am interested to know what is the age spread for the users here?

Kerbal is a game with a lot of parts that everyone uses much more than they do other. What is your least used part? Personally I never use the Probodobodyne QBE and the NCS Adapter. http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Probodobodyne_QBE My pet hate part is the FL-A10 Adapter and I don't know why. I just hate that part. I prefer to stack my 0.625m probe on top of 1.25m rockets than add that thing to my part count!

Perfect...exactly what I need...thanks!!

Hi Guys I am planning on my first Eve landing (With FAR and deadly re-entry). I think I have the design of the craft strapped down, but I haven't a good landing spot yet. I would rather not come down on an ocean (even though my design is surprisingly stable on water) due to my aim of collecting science. I am going to try and attach a rover/lab to the ship, if possible so I can trek to another Biome for max science. I am using the Biome map from the Biome mod (I still use 0.24.2) so any landing sites would need to be based on that. Any large flat sites that I could reasonably target even if I am 10km off target are recommended.

You are cycling down a V-shaped hill and you realize the most efficient time to start pedaling is at the bottom.

I used Hyperedit to send equipment (Kethane scanners) to my Jool refueling ship after the Jool Kethane scanner probe burned up during a miscalculated aerocapture.

Because of the risks to fellow kerbals health, how about every time you have a failed launch with nuclear material onboard or they fail to burn-up in the atmosphere (RTG, nuclear engines or mystery goo (assuming it is nuclear or somehow very dangerous if it gets out of the cannister), you get a massive fine and reputation drop from the Kerbal government and are prohibited from launching any nuclear-based technologies for 5 years or something. Or something along those lines. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/10/science/groups-protest-use-of-plutonium-on-galileo.html

Hi Kospy I love KAS. Since the 0.90 version, have you thought about adding something that only lets a suitably qualified engineer to attach/grab certain items on spacecraft. The Engineer profession is rather weak and KAS could really spice it up. I was looking at the config files for which items can be detachable and it doesn't look like that much of a stretch to add this. I thought a difficulty curve for objects might be cool A 1 star engineer can attach fuel lines together A 3 star can place pipes attachment on spacecraft A five star engineer could attach a MechJeb or extra engines/RCS thrusters. Sorry if you or someone else already thought of this but I only found a small section on Reddit for this http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/2pjaty/engineers_have_minimal_utility_next_to/

I did name a spaceplane "the Brick" It flew quite well actually!

Oh okay....I joked about landing a rock and then I saw this guy 5thhorseman

I had an idea for a challenge yesterday while getting enraged at the poor design I made for my heavy cargo space plane while trying to land. I also got thinking about the ending to the movie "Space Cowboys" where Clint Eastwood lands an un-landable shuttle using Tommy Lee Jones trick. In the Challenge, you have to land a particularly difficult stock-parts spaceplane. I need some input from you guys....just send some of your more difficult-to-land designs for the rest of us to try and land (or perhaps some spaceplane that was damaged in flight and now needs to make an emergency landing (losing an engine/half a wing or both)) Extra kudos if you upload a persistent file with the flight conditions where you crashed it most often. NOTE: No craft that are impossible to land....eg a rock or planes that lost all their wings..but then again, nothing too easy either (A craft laden with parachutes) Preferably stock only but B9/FAR craft are also welcome. Target landing site at KSC or in a mountain region, whatever. Can anyone recommend additional rules to keep it interesting and avoid compatibility issue? Winners (per craft) will be judged by maxing out the price of recovery or in cases of full recovery, who landed it faster. POST YOUR DESIGNS!!!!

Has anyone here tried using Trajectories with TweakScale? I installed Trajectories a few days ago and zoomed back to a few ships with scaled parts. All of the parts were scaled back to their original model size (which made everything look like the Diadact's armour in Halo 4, free-floating). When I went back to VAB, I noticed the Tweakscale option had completely disappeared. I isolated the problem when I removed the Trajectories mode. Has anyone else noticed this problem? Sorry if someone already brought it up, but I googled searched it here and didn't see a post on it.

My mistake

Hi This isn't a challange just more of a curious question. I recently took the Aeris 4A out of a test drive with FAR and ended up landing on Duna using only the stock craft. Has anyone else ever made it to another planet using a stock space plane? I ran out of fuel on the return flight but with better planning I could have made it.