Vaporized Steel

Why not fiddle with the general idea a bit and have funds/rep awarded for removing debris once it's there. Because being penalized for something you might not even want to do anyway is silly. But you can be awarded this way if you choose to accept these missions. I only recommend these missions get unlocked while already having the Claw as a part. Otherwise bringing debris down can be quite te hassle.

Yes that's what I'm referring to. While it is a building concept, it's a cheaty one. Just like you do I edit a single engine to tweak the performance needed rather then using glitches. Stacking engines just isn't the way it is supposed to work, it's silly. While I obviously won't lie awake because of it I do think these things should get patched in any next version or later on.

I'm a older KSP player, but even I get to learn about things from time to time that I have missed on so far. Probably a obvious and already reported issue, but one so silly I find it worthy to be mentioned, again! I was browsing KSP videos on youtube and found this Great job sir! But it annoys me why he would necessarily need to stack his engines just to proof his point. It's not the best ion plane design. Thinking about it, with such a long body you could easily position the engines above and under the center wing to maintain COM stability without stacking. But the reason I share that particular video is because it shows the ion stack issue in a overdone kind of way. That just looks absolutely ridiculous, having that one rear facing single unobstructed engine producing the same thrust as 2kn times the amount of engines he has stacked. That is not the kind of game exploit that I think should exist in KSP. For every exploit lover out there, if you want more thrust out of a 6.25m engine part then edit the part file. Having said that, can we update the ion engine so stacked ion engines will nullify the forward thrust? It seems the right thing to do. The same issue is probably already reported, more then once. But this is so silly, this deserves to be pointed out, although personally I just learned about this even being possible as I never even considered trying to stack them.

Well, Real solar system is a collection of 2 mods. 1: 10x Kerbol system 2: The real solar system mod itself. You'll only want to install the 10x Kerbol system. This makes Kerbin into the size and comparable value off Earth, the same for all the other planets. You'll have realistic dimensions in the Kerbol system without changing Kerbin into Earth, or Duna into Mars etc, etc... I hope it is what you wanted.

As for "Pivot" Well, this may not help you in the way you really want, because I'm going to suggest a addon for your pivoting request. That said, I do think it should be stock to add pivots on your docking nodes, by any SPH/VAB method that would allow it. Alternative docking parts in a furure ksp release might be in order. We have the KIP Engineering mod, it delivers androgynous docking ports with male/female docking port modules. It seems it only supports KSP 1.05 according to the OP. But I haven't tried it in 1.1.x yet so it may just work. Read the release page replies to know for sure. The docking ports have one way attachment orientation marked with a symbol on the docking nodes. Basically this grants you your attachment pivot in between 2 modules. There was also a docking port part that allowed you to dock, and while docking change your orientation without needing to undock. I kinda think to remember this docking part was also part of KIP Engineering, but I might be wrong there. And I also came across a mod once that had square shaped docking ports. Consequently this also allowed a pivot in between 2 docking ports. As is being said, magnetism disables itself after undocking up to a certain distance. Although I can see why you would want this, especially on very heavy vessels where early magnetic pull can put off the orientation, and hence make docking into a battle. To make things easier here, make sure your docking port is located directly in alignment with the center of mass of your active vessel (The vessel you want to dock, not the target you want to dock with) This way you can easily use your rcs seconds prior to docking to correct for any last second miss alignments. Make sure your very much translated and rotated in near perfect alignment between the docking target and the docking node you are controlling from. Docking port alignment indicator could help. Again, I to would want this stock. I'm for absolute freedom of choice when it comes to changing settings on whatever and whenever. I wouldn't be to surprised if the rotation of 2 docking nodes could be rotated by editing your persistent.sfs file. Ofcourse it would be a temporary solution, but atleast there are ways to solve your docking problem. But above methods, tips might get you where you want to in the meanwhile.

In theory and real life practice "The" launchwindow" to the outer planets is any launchwindow to mars or venus. Both in gameplay and real life practice though, some of these times may take a while. There is a "but" though. Which is that with the better timewarp mod it doesn't matter when you launch, because you can timewarp very fast to your next gravity assist target, Even if it takes 4 orbits around the sun. If you want to get to saturn, uranus and/or neptune with a straight gravity assist from mars > jupiter > saturn and so forth you may want to change your RSS game time to august 1977 which is when the voyager crafts were launched. This puts all the outer planets in a favourable condition to be reached with minimal delta V. If you want a probe around all the outer planets then launch several rockets around this time in order to reach them. If it's a Juno replication, then you'll want to use either or all gravity assists from venus, earth and mars. I do not have the exact math! Thus, I do not have the step by step procedures or whatnot to guarantee your fail safe aproach of success. But the idea behind it is that you can use the gravity assist from venus to change your orbital time period around the sun. Changing your orbital time period around the sun is your main focus on your first venus gravity assist. That means your main focus is not getting the fastest slingshot, and added speed from your first assists by raising your apogee as much as possible. The trick is that your first assists has a orbital time period which equals the amount of time for your next target to meet your own as you cross it's orbit line. The simplest example is that if your first gravity assists is Venus, then you want to gravity assist by exceeding your apogee around the sun by 1.5 times the orbital time period that Venus has orbiting the sun. This means you'll meet venus again in 2 orbits, and you can raise your apogee around the sun even further. A third mars and/or Earth gravity assist might get you to where you want. Remember, venus could be your second try, this can also be Earth. It can even be Mars in some cases. As Geshosskopf pointed out, it depends on the location of the planets during your game time. In some cases it means you may want to lower your periapsis around the sun with a mars gravity assist to match your orbital time period around the sun to meet up with venus or earth again. It could take 3, 4, 5 or more gravity assists in total to even get your apogee around the sun up to that of jupiters. By that time, it's speculative whether saturn is in the proper location to be reached at all. These are all things you have to consider in advance. So if you don't want a straight hohman transfer aproach to jupiter with the intention to reach saturn or beyond, you'll have to know in advance to use several gravity assists to reach jupiter, and by then know whether saturn and or uranus will be in the correct position when you get to jupiter. The necessity of a Nasa computer as stated is not that much of a joke. Although, I'm sure somebody could create a mod/application to calculate complex gravity assist simulations. I don't know about mods, apps or online websites that illustrate complex rss gravity assist simulations, and I'm very sure they do not exist as I have never heard of them. The best thing you can do is take my advice and those of others and quiksave before every maneuver and quikload if necessary.

I have seen this thread come by a few times, and have postponed to reply. Because my reply might not be very positive, yet since it's been bumped time and time again I will just be honest with the TS. But this is turning a mouse into a elephant. This is trying to push the time and effort of the developers for something insignificant. If you ask this to be removed, why not remove all extra easter eggs, and why not the island runway while we're at it. It's not like KSP is populated with objects you know. One big miss of mine is that KSP lags objects in it. While we're at it, I would like stock trees just for game completion without needing scatterer. Would trees in a future KSP release be a problem? Tell me know, this way we'll know in advance. You wouldn't want trees? Ok, fine! Or...you would!, or any other objects added! If yes, how does one single monolith make a elephant? For all you know it has bob, bills, jebs and valentinas signatures. The real life Kennedy space center has the astronaut memorial. My guess is that this kerbal version next to the KSC is a version of it. By any means, you may suggest squad to make the kerbal one look more like the Kennedy one. We have monuments on earth! Apparently we have monuments on Kerbin. What place would be more suitable for a high tech spaceport... You want one in the dessert?... ? .... NO!? Then you don't want one nowhere it seems. I'm not even going to put in "no' for an answer into your poll, because I'm 1000% sure (that extra null is not a typo) that it will never be over 50% aye!. Your issue with this monument is purely opinion based, and granted it is your right. That said, it's as silly as asking for a discount at a supermarket because the product packaging is slightly damaged while there were undamaged packages on the same shelf. That while other customers might not even have complained and taken it home. Presenting this as a issue, not to mention making a poll for it seems attention seeking to me. And I'm absolutely convinced that you didn't lay awake one extra minute any day at all while battling this very, very, very great calamity of yours. All I know is that the return of easter eggs in general was a general request of many. In my opinion it will notify users and especially new users that there are objects in the game besides the buildings of the KSC and the island runway to look for. This is just harping around about useless and unimportant stuff. Sorry for expressing myself the way I did, but I find this extremely and utterly pointless.

Which is why I replied in a funny, and questionably inaccurate way, because this thread kind off deserves a non answer. Kinda disappointed I get rectified with the bloody obvious by 2 members. Kerbals are fictional in any way you look at them, so you can basically say what you want about them whatever it is. When you go actually technical then every part, sattelite, object, creature (only kerbals) are unrealistic, and also all the other things.....name it and it's unrealistic. So to have a serious debate about unrealistic parts versus real life human rocketry, euhum, I think the thread is asking users to try and name them, but it's no real conversation anyway, so I won't even seriously go there That others are attempting to seriously go there, is lolol by itself.

@The Optimist Oops, Now why did you have to tell that Now my story is completely implausible... assuming it wasnt already

Meanwhile on Kerbin, there is a 5 million mile tunnelsystem with several dozen large underground cities home to 700 million Kerbals. Their lack of sunlight may be the cause for their green skin. The only reason they have anything build above ground level is because rockets do not go well through a crusty surface. Boats and planes is something they only do for fun and experimenting. When Kerbals do not find bacterial microbes on the surface of a extraterrestrial body they do not claim life is impossible at the target body in question. This is because Kerbals expect other advanced life to live underground where they most expect it. Because of their underground origin Kerbals have excellent drilling techniques, and are farther then humans in drilling, extracting, processing, synthesizing compounds. This is why they have a ISRU converter that is lightweight and mobile ready for space transport. All this while still stuck with regular rocket technology. Obviously the lack of life on Kerbin is due to the fact of it's size and lack of a sufficient iron core. Radiatian above Kerbins MSL is to much for most life to survive for to long, and now you know why Kerbals have their suits on while walking on Kerbin. The green stuff the planet is painted with simply isn't grass, but a dominant mineral rich soil that is green. How Kerbin ever got populated is a mystery, since the planet is likely not that life friendly as we may believe, but ancient writings may suspect that Kerbals came from another planet, and their skin was once off white color.

Hey, yeah I read about the technology once. We can only assume that kerbals are further in some types of technologies compared to humans since they have so far manufactured this. One mystery solved

Well, besides the fact that they aren't available as a "part" in the VAB/SPH the "part" im referring to is in all other ways considerd to be a "part" It is seen as a part and/or vessel in the cfg files, KSP handles it as a part, it has impact tolerance, it interacts with physics. So if you include the "Kerbal" part as a part then yes, I find Kerbals the most unrealistic part in the game. They're supposed to be living creatures, yet can survive extreme G tolerances, smash into the ground under certain angles without dying, that said without damaging the artificial atmosphere of there EVA suits, or even break them completely. Have 600 Hundred meters per second of DELTA VEEE in a spacesuit container way to compact. And part of that propellant cannot be part of the rest of the spacesuit which seems to completely fit over the full height, width, length dimensions of their bodies, yet somewhere in the suit there is room for infinite oxygen supply. What is there compact monopropellant made off? It doesn't seem to be nitrous oxide (except perhaps in Jebediahs case since hes always laughing his ass off) Whatever this monopropellant substitute is, why do their rockets not have it Not only has it enormous amount of Delta V, the EVA thrust have ridiculous thrust, because of this, Kerbals can takeoff from small moons and planets into orbit without needing a vessel. Ironically though, whenever they need something that their suits can't handle, they oftenly need something 10 times as heavy at the least. The reason for this is probably because the EVA propellant is one of the most exclusive compounds in the cosmos and is exclusively used for EVA thrusters. The upwards (shift key) and downwards (ctrl key) for EVA suit maneuvering shows the EVA exhaust fumes not correlating to the allignment of what I visually refer to be the Center of mass of the Kerbals body + suit. Nor is the exhaust fumes angled to correct for that misalignment. The Kerbals also have infinite Electric charge, if not, tell me when those headlights go out, because they haven't failed yet.

Much more important is that you have a decent intel i5 or i7 from the latest generation all the way down to old ivybridge. Older intels are still good but not recommended. Do you not use visual mods? (ofourse you are, guess, guess) If you do. A high end graphics card over a medium graphics and your extra performance will be negligible but noticeable. A very high end card over a high end card... Well, make sure you buy yourself a microscope and some benchmarking tools to be able to tell any performance difference. You would be very sensible and over critical if you were to see any satisfying increase. Please do buy the card. I just hope you play any other games where this power will be used.

I made a stock first stage engine mount plate by using cubic octagonal struts in 8 way symmetry on the bottom tank with 1 swivel in the center and 8 lv t30 engines attached to the struts. You forgot to 8way symmetry a fuel duct between the tanks and the lv t30, and only one lv t30 and the center swivel fires. Result: rocket falls over.

Well, if your on Earth you have to find the kerbin sol system first It is undiscovered as of yet by humans. And youll need interstellar warpdrive. Ok sorry for being funny, lets help you for real. To get from Kerbin to eve or jool is the same for most other planets by using a hohmann transfer. This link explains how to.get to Duna. http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com The only difference.with eve and Jool is that you need a different amount of delta v. The link explains everything. From building your vessel to piloting it.

Some people absolutely hate horror, even worse some are afraid off it. You'll have to argue very very hard with me to convince me how "actual" fear can be introduced into a cartoony game with sweet innocent green goblin faces, but I can't vouch for others mentality. Let's just assume such a horror aspect could actually shoo off certain types of people. It probably does as a rule of thumb since everybody is different. Personally I'm not that much of a horror fan. So I have 2 reasons not to want it. While I think it's not part of KSP 1.x.x anymore, we have had our horror in the past. So if you want to see one, this one simply reminds me of silent hill right away. For the faint at heart, the kraken on Bop could be terrifying aswell. Personally I think your a pussy if you do, but pussies pay money, and they'll stop paying if they're scared, so no horror in KSP. Statistically the player base has grown since the kraken glitches were removed from the game. We can only assume the deletion of bugs and specifically the krakens demise has contributed to the growth of players. Don't tell me it's because of this, that, such and so, I know. Whatever truth is in there is minor, but existing imho Also we do not want to have a PEGI rating on a game like this. As for you, I hope somebody mods some evil Kerbals and space vampires into the game specifically for people like you. Honestly, thinking about it, I feel almost stupid for explaining it to you in detail. You ask this in suggestions and development? Sure you must have realized that if this were to ever go through it would be a modder to add horrific textures to the game, and it will not ever be stock. But if you just wanted attention, your welcome and enjoy the picture.

Lets assume I were to edit the cfg file to have absolute pinpoint orientation with a sattelite to the ground. How many game weeks, months..... years would it keep that orientation without havint to go edit again. Or does this mod auto correct a vessels rpm and orientation in the background? Also on inactive vessels. If yes and yes then w0w. Superb, your the best.

Ok, honestly this is so much near "impossible" piloting wise that even if you pull it off it wil be a proof of concept. Nothing you'll even want to reproduce more then once. It will not be efficient by mass, I expect the module that takes off from the surface will go straight up, and leave a mobile mining setup nearby. Otherwise it will never function as an ssto. You will also need a minimum of 6.5-7k delta v on the module outside the atmosphere. To slow down for docking and to get into circular orbit. Assuming your very very efficient and can get both modules at the same time and place. Youll want extra engine mass on the thingie to get to orbital velocity in record time (meaning a great amount of TWR). Because if the ascent stage falls back into the atmosphere its bye bye. Youll also want a fuel tank with mining setup on gilly to refuel the orbiting ssto stage around eve. Edit: thinking about it. Why even use the term ssto. Its more of a full recovery type of operation.

@swjr-swis Buahaha

You know, I was thinking about stock procedural parts myself for quite some time, but I can see some problems with it. When you think about it, if you make everything procedural, you can make super duper sized fuel tanks with super duper sized nozzles. This would remove the engineering difficulty, technicality and challenge from the game, in a considerable way. I never gave that much thought until recently since I do not really submit challenges, but thinking about it, procedural parts would destroy the challenge submissions. Hence why challenges often state to only use stock parts as certain mods would give to much freedom at the cost of engineering skill. Introducing this will ignore many submitted challenges in the challenges that are posted. Because it is often the engineering challenge with the given amount of parts, shapes, sizes of tank X and part Z that make building something a actual achievement. I do agree about texturing though. What I would like to see is the standard parts, exactly as they are now, with a ¨tweakscale' function that allows you to make 1.25meter parts into 2.50meter parts, and arguably with smaller increment dimensions in between 1.25, 2,50 and 3,75meter parts. This still allows challenge rules to state to only use the stock part size of a FL-T800 for maintaining a universal construction challenge. Making it fully procedural will allow a user to cheat size a FL-T800 tank for instance with 5% more fuel capacity to score higher in a challenge. Make it fully procedural and you can make any engine into the most powerfull engine. If you want it that way, then why even have multiple engines in the game? Why have a mammoth engine if you can procedurally increase the specifications of a LV-T30 to the same thrust without gimbal. Having fewer large parts would fit in nicely cleaning up the vast amount of parts in the part select menu. But make sure that part resizing is done by preset increments. So that you may make a 1.25meter part into a 1.75meter part, but not into a 1,35meter part. Because then it would be impossible to see how a user has resized any of his components when he/she shares a picture. And as stated (being rhetorical here) that would impose problem in the challenges subforum, and we wouldn't want that I think. In the end, I don't really understand all the "stock¨ requests. What's the problem with installing a mod. What is the need to want all those things in stock, when KSP is clearly a barebone sandbox game supplying necessary functions that allows full acces to anything available in the game. You want to go somewhere faster, with less parts, with nicer spacecraft armour and lasers. Then download the mod that gives it to you. Imho anything requested for stock KSP, should be things that expand what's already in it, or to make the game easier and more fun. Procedural parts would give extra complexity to construction options, making it harder for new players to get there head around. This^ just my opinion, yours may vary.

haha great, works, and I like it to. Thanks

For orbiter You really want to have installed MFDs for your spacecraft to get into the functionality of piloting and maneuvering. Orbiter out of the box is very very barebone. Only the Delta glider has proper piloting navigation build in by supplying stock MFDs. For interplanetary you want to install IMFDs usually specific to each spacecraft you use. You are required to mod Orbiter if you want to go beyond what is offered in stock Orbiter, which isn't to much tbh, opinions may vary. And modding Orbiter to my experience is a little bit more difficult then dragging prepackaged folders in your KSP gamedata folder. This is probably because content in Orbiter has a main package, dependencies, then piloting assisting MFDs, and other extras you might want. Then it begs to question whether you have installed and configured everything correctly for your download to even work. But if you can get into learning orbiter, learning MFDs and IMFDs, you can have plenty of fun in this game. Either way it has also a unlimited fuel function you can use, So you will always be able to get everywhere. Mind the fact though that MFDś replace KSPs maneuver node functions, and every piloting is done in IVA not in external view. EDIT: Oh, and a clear straight answer to your OP. The answer is NO! It's likely to be the other way around, you learn KSP to get ready for Orbiter, (opinion may vary) Remember that piloting wise you go into simulator setting and your basically playing RSS, not kerbin scale solar system with sattelites that have minimal inclination around the ecliptic. Only difference, you don't get to build any vessels, which is why KSP reigns over orbiter.

Why have I never found this then, I wonder... Kinda stupid if I missed that, I look into it and see how I can configurate it. If I can't manage it I'll get back and ask how to do this.

I do not want to spoil anybodies fun, that said I probably shouldn't reply with a opinion I'm afraid is in a minority here (atleast to those eager to reply), nor am I to judge others to make fun of others expense. If they're willing to do that, fine, I can't help them. What I can tell you is that if this was a American or European rocket, the topic title would be one of despair, and the replies that of condolences. Only because the rocket is russian and the so called accident looks like a tumbling KSP rocket is it all of a sudden funny. Putting this online as a joke I find rather pathetic. The money, the dedication by the same space enthusiasts are lost in few blinks of an eye, not funny! But suit yourself, I hope one lands somewhere you don't want it to.

What bothers me with ksp is the lack of double or triple parachute canopy systems. Either in actual simulation or if that cannot be simulated, then let it be animated. Don't know what I mean? Well, take the apollo CSM parachutes for example. Since my chances are low in suggesting this for general ksp, maybe someone would mod this. It doesn't seem to be part of realchutes, and I can't find a mod that has this. But I might have failed to find it so far. I want this for regular kerbin scale gameplay. But one for rss would be nice aswell.