BebopRebop

I think localisation is a "good faith" gesture, if nothing else. Sure people could just learn English. I could just learn Spanish, or French, or German as well. And it's not that I haven't tried, or that I couldn't stumble my way through a game written in any of those languages, but it makes it a lot easier for me if it's written in my native language, which is English. So I feel like having it in other languages, whether it's good for business or not, is good for people that speak those languages natively.

Wait! Where's Devote Tuesdays?

I've started using the subassembies and naming the different stages. Then your launch vehicle sort of gets a name based on how you mix and match stages. I like adverbs for boosters, adjectives for lower stages and nouns for upper stages. Then the rocket name becomes adverb-adjective-noun. Maybe not super realistic, but it makes for fun names. Generally I'd give each satellite or probe a new name when it does something not identical to the one before it. Like comsat 1, 2, 3, etc. Can do the same with crewed vehicles, except I think real space agencies name them by missions. Landers or rovers could get unique names since each one will probably be a little different. Maybe even probes could get unique names if you're not sending up multiple copies of basically the same thing.

I said the same thing about cigarettes. But at least there's a patch for that.

Last week I was pruning tomato plants (which inevitably turns your fingers green) and exclaimed, "I'm turning into a kerbal!" My coworkers didn't get the joke.

I sometimes refer to going outside as an EVA.

Kerbal spacecraft have to have segregated bathrooms because Jeb always leaves the seat up.

I've just started playing around with 1.1 (modded) and haven't had the magnitude of issues I've read. But I also have an RSS/RO 1.0.5 that I'm playing frequently and probably won't update it because I don't have simple access to Internet (very rural). The only "irritating" issues I've had with 1.1 is that sometimes the ESC key doesn't work and I have to ALT-F4 and if I buzz another craft at high speed it explodes. But other than that KSP 1.1 has been a joy.

Are you using a joystick? Flying in KSP feels really wonky because apparently joysticks have an issue with input lag, which I could see causing oscillations and difficulty turning. The advanced fly-by-wire mod worked to fix this for me, but tends to crash KSP when I try to tweak its settings.

@StahnAileron I guess in a very loose way it'll be like The Martian, but mostly I'm just using the route (this is basically an interplanetary road trip). The hardware will be whatever works out best and won't necessarily be the same. I wasn't planning on using the ISRU because I think it isn't affected by real fuels and still just produces liquidfuel and oxidizer. I'm hoping I can transport and land a fully fueled MAV at the Schiaparelli Crater. I'm also considering using a spaceplane style descent vehicle, if possible, in order to hopefully have more control and get closer to the rover. Mostly I just like the idea of it, but it might be getting a little too ambitious.

I'm still using 1.0.5 for RO, so I should hopefully be unaffected by the 1.1 wheels. Unless this is a different wheel problem with RSS. Thanks! I realize it's a long route, but I'm planning on working on it little by little over a long period and possibly using AutoRove for the boring parts if I can get it for 1.0.5. Thanks for the tips, I'll definitely check in to using hyperedit for surface testing, unless there's a way to do it with the KCT simulator. Signal delay won't be an issue since I'm not using RT (it doesn't want to work right), but precision landings are my main concern, mostly for the supply drops. My rover is based on one I used for Duna, which had a lab. The main reason for putting it on the rover is that I was under the impression it gave a science boost to have the lab on the surface of a planet. I also considered putting it at the bottom of the ascent module and leaving it behind when I launched. It would depend on how much time the crew could stay there before a launch window opened, I suppose.

I've been playing the realism overhaul mod lately and have been enjoying it immensely. I'm about to go for a moon landing, but have been looking forward more to a manned Mars mission. I went looking for a map of Mars (to find inspiration for landing sites) and found Mars Trek. Then I saw that they have the route taken in The Martian (or at least their interpretation of it). The terrain looks interesting enough, so I've decided that would be my Mars mission. So now I'm looking for any tips on the best way to do this in the least number of launches. Naturally it has to be done with a rover, preferably with a lab attached. I'm thinking of having an ascent vehicle land beforehand and having supply drops along the way for life support. To get there, I'm thinking either have the crew land in the rover or have the rover land earlier and the crew follow in a dedicated descent module (for safety). Is there any simpler way to get all this stuff there or are multiple launches the easiest? Should I scrap the supply drops and just stuff it all in the rover? Am I forgetting anything?

My recent naming convention for spacecraft is that expendable rockets get a "boring" vegetable and a series number for each time I modify and save it. So like "Broccoli 3" or something. Spaceplanes get poisonous plant names plus a number for how many Kerbals that design has killed in the process of making it... so like "Atropa 7." Satellites, rovers, landers, ect. and anything I'm probably not going to look at or use more than once get boring generic names.