qazsedcft

Exactly the same for me. I really wanted to play career mode until the end but it got so repetitive and boring that I just got back to building space stations and bases in sandbox mode. Science is just tedious (to be honest real world science is tedious, but this is a game). Each science mission should be directed and unique instead of having to do the same thing over and over. It could be done by giving a lot of different science instrument and more methods of gathering science - e.g. gathering dust samples a la Stardust, smashing probes into asteroids, performing long-term experiments in zero-G, solar corona observations, the possibilities are almost endless. There should be a mechanic to encourage you to use new parts and go to new places, perhaps with diminishing returns for missions that are too similar to previous ones. Also, I feel like science and contracts are two unrelated mechanics that just got glued together. I think it could be improved by integrating them better. For example, contracts that state "we want to go to Duna but first we need these parts to be developed", then when you're done with that, "OK, now let's go to Duna and here's a list of science objectives". You would have a real sense of having to accomplish a mission instead of the "let's go plant yet another flag" that we currently have.

I Just fired up KSP and here's what I see.

But note that you could run a kind of "reverse air-breathing engine" on Titan. It would work just like jet engines on Earth but instead of carrying fuel and mixing it with oxidyzer from the atmosphere you carry the oxidizer and burn it with fuel from the atmosphere.

@Savvy: OK, that's what I suspected. Makes sense now.

That's the penumbra, not the shadow itself (umbra). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbra,_penumbra_and_antumbra

Well, I'm not sure how realistic the light model in KSP is, but in real life that's incorrect because the shadow should be a cone not a cylinder. The cone (or triangle in your 2D drawing) should have the same proportions as the cone extending from the Sun to your planet, so it approaches a cilinder at infinity (or if the sun is modeled as an unrealistic point light).

What formula did you use? This doesn't seem right to me because as you get further the shadow of the planet becomes narrower and covers a smaller portion of the orbit.

Until the Kerbal skills are more than just placeholders I'm not going to bother.

Why do you want to calculate max altitude? Unless you just want to throw stuff up and see it fall down the max altitude isn't very useful at all. The following might be useful https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/. If you mean to calculate the max orbit that you can achieve you need to use the rocket equation to find out the delta-v of your rocket. The main problem with that is that it doesn't take atmospheric drag into effect and calculating drag is really complicated. Once you know the delta-v you can see what kind of orbit is achievable by calculating the specific orbital energy of the orbit. It depends on both the distance and the shape of the desired orbit. Usually, this is done in reverse, first find out which orbit you want, calculate the delta-v required and then build a rocket to achieve that. Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_orbital_energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_equation

If it's not possible then perhaps there's a mod to save the camera settings (and a few others)? If not maybe I'll write one...

I'd like to know this too.

Hey I'm a neophyte so I really like this mod (FAR was just too much for me), but I have trouble flying with MJ. When I fly manually I can get a gradual ascent and everything is fine, but when I turn on MJ it starts wobbling A LOT trying to head in the right direction. It got even worse with the RSS mod. Do you know how I can fix that?

Oh the irony! A sentence with no verb.

He was trying to switch from the Tracking Station, which doesn't work. I think this should be addressed by the devs because many people don't know about the [ and ] keys.