HeliosPh0enix

I attached enough Kickbacks together to fill the entire VAB (no decouplers) and was confused when I didn't make orbit after flying straight up. I then opted for a 3.75 m rocket with a space shuttle cockpit and went fast enough to reach escape velocity. After that, I started a career and then watched a bunch of Scott Manley tutorial videos.

Okay so it turns out it's more than 50. It's 91. Here are most of the big ones: [x] Science, AirplanePlus, AntennaHelper, B9PartSwitch, BetterBurnTime, BetterTimeWarp, ConfigurableContainers, CorrectCOL, DistantObjectEnhancement, EasyVesselSwitch, EditorExtensions, EVE, Extrasolar, Firespitter, GroundConstruction, InterstellarFuelSwitch, KAS, KER, Kerbalism, KJR, KIS, Kopernicus, kOS, KWRocketry, MissingHistory, Mk2Expansion, all of the NearFuture packs, OPM, PlanetaryBaseInc, PlanetShine, RCSBuildAid, RealChute, RealPlume, scatterer, StageRecovery, SVE, TooManyOrbits, Trajectories, TweakScale, and KSPInterstallar. That's not everything. I realize that I also put together all those mods 2 weeks after 1.6.0 came out and many of them are from previous versions said to still be compatible, so I should probably spend the time to update all of them. It's possible that one or two of them conflict with each other as well.

I tend to go with a series name followed by Mk#. I like to give my aircraft bird names, with the type of bird corresponding to the size/function of the aircraft. So a Hummingbird Mk1 would be a very small plane for early game science/contracts, and a Hummingbird Mk4 would be the same basic fuselage but upgraded with components from later in the tech tree. Then a medium/large sized cargo plane might be the Pelican Mk1, and a medium spaceplane would be a Hawk Mk1. I also tend to add designations for different variants, so a Hummingbird with a passenger cabin would be Hummingbird Mk1P, or with a Science Jr and other instruments would be Hummingbird Mk1S. As far as satellites and spacecraft go, I choose a cool sounding name from pretty much anything, whether it be just a cool word or something from a game or book I'm enjoying. My communications satellites are in the Liaison series, with different Mk designations for more upgraded antenna. My Duna craft would be under maybe the Ares designation, and for Moho I like to do an Egyptian mythology theme (based off of Osiris from Destiny and his connection to Mercury). There are a few more intricacies that I would like to have as set "rules" but they usually are just created for one specific craft function.

Unfortunately, I haven't progressed beyond Skilled yet. Whenever I get to the point in a career where I start going interplanetary, I stop playing KSP for a little bit. By the time I get back, I want to upgrade to whatever the new version is (with some of my mods being outdated) and then have to start a new save. Right now I want to play KSP, but with something like 50 mods installed and a very slow load speed on my computer, it takes 30-45 minutes to even open KSP (assuming it doesn't crash). By the time the game is open, I either don't have much time to play or have gotten busy playing something else on my Xbox in the meantime.

Along a similar vein, I don't like sending my Kerbals out on missions and just sticking with that mission (i.e. time warping through the whole transfer). It feels really unrealistic to stop all space launches for 2 years just to follow a craft all the way to Duna. Instead, I launch it and set a Kerbal Alarm Clock alarm for a day before I enter the SOI (or a course correction) before going back to doing more launches and missions. I feel like I'm not alone in trying to simulate a busy space program rather than doing one mission at a time, but it can also give me a sense of impatience when I really want to fly one mission but have to wait until I get to the new place "naturally." Does anyone else feel this way? I just added Kerbalism to my most recent install (upgrading from TAC-LS) and I love the added challenge of building ships to have living space for Kerbals rather than having them cramped in a tiny capsule for 4 years.

Maybe try the P-39 Airacobra or P-63 Kingcobra. Interesting WWII fighters with a tricycle landing gear design and a unique nose shape.

I changed my life support mod from TAC to Kerbalism, which invalidates some parts of the save. I also added OPM, and if I remember correctly that changes the save too.

I feel like this question could go on the Gameplay Questions page, but I figured that was more for things in game rather than save file editing. I had a career started in 1.4.1 that I never got around to updating everything for, and now I am playing a game in 1.6, so I made a new install and installed the updated versions of all the mods. I didn't want to lose my progress, so I moved over the craft files from the previous save, cheated them into the orbits they were in in the previous save, and cheated myself the science and funds needed to get back to the point I was at progression-wise. This has worked out pretty well, but the one issue is that all of the science experiments I had previously done and recovered full science from are now available to perform in the new save, and I don't want to cheat through the rest of the tech tree by getting easy science points from areas I already visited. So here is my question: is it possible to edit the save file to make experiments count as completed? I would use this to basically mark all of the experiments I did in the previous save as complete (I have [x] Science! installed to give me a comprehensive list). If it is possible, where in the save file would I find it, and what values would I change? I completely understand if this is not possible, or if it will break my game to do it. I have minimal experience with save file editing, as I have only used it to change the name and status of a Kerbal before. Thank you for your help!

If you want a (relatively) balanced approach to sci-fi tech, try KSP Interstellar. A lot of the later engines are very powerful, but require expensive/hard to get resources or lots of infrastructure to use. You basically either have to set up a massive beamed power network for low thrust but insanely high ISP stuff or carry a nuclear reactor on your ships to power massive engines. It's all pretty interesting, plus the addition of antimatter and exotic matter keeps things interesting late game.

I'm looking to start a new modded career game. I would like to play with the new features included in 1.6, but am okay with playing in 1.5.1 if that is not optimal. My question is, which version of KSP would be best for a playthrough with lots of mods (based on how updated the mod collection is at the moment). For reference, I want to play with OPM, KSP Interstellar, KW Rocketry, USI Life Support, KIS/KAS, and other smaller mods. Should I try to get everything working in 1.6, settle for 1.5.1, or wait a little while until more mods are updated to be compatible with 1.6? Thanks for your help!

Are you looking more for random one-off ideas like @Bottle Rocketeer 500 gave you, or more for "themes" for your space program? If it's the latter, maybe try to go for a 100% reusable space program with SpaceX style landings, or try to establish a ground base or space station around every celestial body in the game. Hope this helps!

That's kind of how I see it. Many mods are there to fill holes in the game or fix some its issues (see Take Command). Naturally, to improve the game, Squad has to fill these holes in the stock game, which just so happen to have mods filling them at the moment. If Squad avoided adding anything to stock that mods did not already have, the game would never grow.

If you are looking for scientific realism and are willing to forego a modern/near future feel, then I would check James S.A. Corey's The Expanse series and Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space series. The Expanse is set some 300-500 years in the future, with humanity spread out across the solar system, and deals with a lot of the political and interpersonal relationships that come out of a society like that, while also maintaining great action and adhering to the laws of Newtonian physics. Revelation Space is set a little farther in the future, with humanity spread into local star systems that are connected via "lighthuggers," massive ships that use ultra-efficient engines to accelerate up to 99% the speed of light and physically travel between star systems, a nice refresher from the common hyperspace/wormhole trope. Some of the science touched on in the series is more theoretical, but it all feels very real and plausible, with more discussion of the effects of time dilation on a far-flung human society. If you couldn't tell, I like how both series stay true to science while also exploring the socio-political implications of the seemingly alien cultures the worlds have created. Edit: Reading your responses to the other comments, it seems to me that you would really enjoy the Revelation Space series because of its unorthodox treatment of interstellar travel. I hope all this helps!

I'm trying to get a better understanding of special relativity and had a few questions I was hoping some helpful forum users could answer. First off, suppose I am moving at 0.5c relative to the earth. If I shine a light directly ahead of me, one would think it would appear to move at 0.5c relative to me because that would make its total velocity relative to earth equal to c. However, according to what I have learned, that does not seem to be true. To me, the light will still appear to be moving at c, which would make its velocity relative to the earth 1.5c, which is impossible. How does the speed of light relate to these difference frames of reference? Secondly, it is my understanding that mass (or apparent mass) increases as matter gets closer to the speed of light. There seems to be a contradiction when this is in a different reference frame, however. Say a spaceship is traveling at .99c relative to earth. Now say a smaller ship comes out of its cargo bay and starts to accelerate. In its frame of reference, the smaller ship will appear to be accelerated from a standstill, so should not have to worry about increasing mass until it gets closer to its own relative speed of light. However, from earth's frame of reference, it is already moving at extreme relativistic speeds so should find it nearly impossible to accelerate and encounter an asymptote with diminishing returns as it approaches the speed of light. Which of these situations would actually happen, or is it some weird mix of the two? My brain has been wired for Newtonian mechanics (too much KSP, yada yada) and I am just trying to build a better intuition and grasp on the concepts of special relativity and how it relates to light. Thank you for your help, and please don't be (too) condescending about my lack of knowledge on the subject!

Did you at least have a quick save, or was everything permanently destroyed?