IncompetentSpacer

How do you tell how much dv certain amount of monopropellant will produce in 41 ton spacecraft? Also do note that I do have rule of no-reload in this particular career (not when playing/experimenting in sandbox obviously or when bugs cause some issues) as I thought I indicated in first sentence in this post indirectly but perhaps should have done so more explicitly. Maybe this is what is causing confusion. If I dump fuel, see no effect, I can still orginize intercept from kerbin to save 3 kerbals. If I burn RCS for several minutes and see no desired effect then my options are reduced. Now if you reload whenever things go wrong - yep, than you can go back in time and try something else but as you can read above that is against my rules.

Sorry, I don't see what you comment has to do with or that it addresses in any way broader context of my post.

True, especially if you don't have rule against reloading (and dont have other parallel missions which are doing their own intercepts while this crafts is on the way to its maneuver node). The way I play burning RCS would be a guessing game - you are assuming that I knew that dumping propellant from one of the tanks would be enough and could make a plan based on that. My idea was to dump propellant from one tank and see on dV readout the effects of that and follow up with additional dumps if needed or think of something else if it had no effect. Now the remaining RCS fuel will be used to reduce Pe once I achieve the orbit around Kerbal. Or whatever.

Used it 10 seconds ago and thought of your comment. I had just not enough dv (bit under 100 ms) for insertion maneuver at kerbin and discovered it too late. There are several ways to solve this including abusing game mechanics but I did it using drain valve -dumped the mono-propellant onboard from one tank and it was more than enough. This is not a component I use a lot but I have it on each long journey mission. Another use was earlier in my SSTO using rapier engines (among other things) - I dumped oxidizer when returning to kerbin after kerbonaut rescue mission so that I could have most flying time inside the atmosphere. Did not need it at the end since I had "perfect" entry and could glide to the airfield but still a valid example...

There is no right and wrong in KSP -the only thing that matters is - does the rocket transport the payload where I want to? If yes - It is a great design imho. Wast majority of users on this forums will disagree but that is neither here or there. I don't aim for general TWR value but I want as much as possible TWR at atmo stages below 20 000 for heavy rockets but generally I am more concerned with DV budget. In career mode I aimed for cheapest possible launch which generally translates to lower TWR values - but I have now reached a stage where money is no longer issue (80 million in the bank) and I want cleanest and fastest orbit and this design behaves at its best with 1.5+ TWR up to 10 000 meters (when I tested it before adding last 60 tons on the top). It means I can start turning much earlier and get out of the lower atmosphere much faster than with lower TWR. Some other design would be excellent at 1.1 TWR but than I suspect it would have been more aerodynamic than what I slapped together. This design? I would have spent ages spending DV fighting gravity in lower atmosphere. I see now that you have in your post that your are playing JNSQ mod. Can't compare the designs then, especially if they kept stock components.

The below picture is nothing special compared to what people usually post in this forum - it is unusual for me.... First of all let me link to a chart of rocket sizes: Usually, I launch large spacecraft in several parts to orbit and then dock the relevant parts to each other there. I prefer small to medium sized rockets. But this time, I went lazy and for the heck of it made this monster - 158 meters tall (assembled as three different designs in VAB one time or another and now merged together). It was too tall for for VAB with top clipping the roof and bottom stage clipping the floor, but seems to be ok once on the launch pod. .... Despite it looking as I went overboard with boosters and engines, its TWR is crappy at 1.37

If you have pilot of sufficient skill or proper probe core that can do target tracking then docking is easy mode "set as target" on docking port command given to each space craft together with "control from here" option on respective docking ports if the docking port is offset allows you to dock easy mode. NAVBALL and speed diff gives you all the info you need... Unless in Jool and Eeloo - than fuel cell has it use if you have high energy demand (your way works too there to a point but parts count...)

Well, I haven't really looked for this kind of experience so I cant honestly say that there are or that there are not the mods like that. Probably there are. I know that depending on storyteller setting (setting of Rimworld which decides on how often and how big disasters will come your way) you can make for more calmer setting. I have used stock settings but you can really customize your experience. But if I am to compare Rimworld to other games on strictly base-building or management aspect of the game, it is an OK game but there are many games out there that do this much better with more options and intricacies.

Rimworld is not your type of game, trust me. Perhaps Prison Architect, Workers and Resources Soviet Republic, Tropico (all different games from Factorio but of type "organize stuff and things") is more your type. There are many to choose from. Rimworld is rigged against you as you say, unless you play at the easiest options and disable increase in difficulty. And it is not a base building game primary, that is of secondary nature - it is primarily a disaster managing game. To me it is one of the most fascinating games of this decade (not the best I played but on the top) - then again I unlocked the perfect colonist combo - max 8 people, heavily augmented cannibalistic sociopaths. Same gang on their fourth replay, increasingly augmented in each throughplay but suffer now from age related diseases. Fortunately organ harvesting from pirate POWs keeps the the gang alive and fresh meat from dead enemy bodies allows them to survive the current nuclear winter. But I agree - it is not everyone's cup of tea.

I don't see how Witcher 3 and GTA gets mixed here :-) Cyberpunk in general and Cyberpunk 2077 particular (it has a tabletop game background, originating with something called Cyberpunk 2020) have no touching point with the two games you mentioned thematically . Gameplay wise it is also a quite different game from from the two based on what has been shown so far but I can see where you see some similarities with Witcher 3 (GTA has extremely simplistic combat model). I have bought it since I felt this game is something I could take a risk on. Same as I did on KSP and Rimworld back in time. Do I believe it is going to be masterpiece? Hell no.... I kind of ignored the hype until recently but have last two months "updated myself" on the what marketing has been out there and I feel that the game cant live up to expectations it is putting out there. You cant target both RPG and GTA crowd (to take them as an example) via marketing and expect that you will please both groups. Most people don't complete their games: https://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/8th8ed/data_game_completion_we_dont_finish_games/ That being said, even if the real life obligations did not intrude on your gaming time - there is an attention span limit/saturation point for every game out there. 35 hours is a golden average (totally unscientific datapoint, just how I feel). Witcher 3 had too much to do. I completed campaign and most of the secondary missions. By the time it was time to start on DLCs (which I got in a package deal) I had to take a break. Not because it was a bad game but because I got fed up by the setting (even a chocolate tastes bitter if you eat too much of it). This comes from a guy that completed 600 hours on KSP...

I think it has to do that they (and KSP) belong to their own genre of games and your average game journalist cant put those in nice fitting categories they are used to. Mars Horizon and BASPM are clearly their own category and KSP falls in another one. But to reviewers all of them have rockets in them. On related note, BASPM has been updated now and then - last time in august last year. But yes both Slithering and developer company have moved on to something else.

You have limited yourself to Kerbal Space Center as launching facility or do you have some flexibility there? Woomerang Launch Site is much closer to the North pole. Also if you unlock aviation (45 science, level 3 node? Or 2? dont remember). It is much easier to explore the domes around Kerbin (and cheaper, especially if you manage to return to Kerbal Space Center or one of the other facilities).

I have heard of Yak-38 (from VTOL documentary many,many years ago) but it was the first idea that was presented to me when I watched Scott Manley's video on building VTOL aircraft. However I really wanted a harrier type of solution so I went my own way with robotic parts but unfortunately it is not a good solution in KSP (you can make VTOL/SSTO with rotatable engines but if in an atmosphere the drawbacks seem to be many compared to separate engines solution - not so much in vacuum though) . Rocket engines, installed the way they are now in the design, were suggested to me when I asked for tips and tricks in a separate thread here on the forum .

After earlier attempts at VTOL/SSTO combo were getting nowhere (rotatable servos from Breaking Grounds DLC simply are too weak to hold several engines together and M25 servos which manage to do that are too heavy) I shaved over 10 tons of weight of reducing number of engines to 2 for horizontal travel and installing two airspike engines in a cargobay. This worked of course but it is a lazy solution which guzzles fuel. Sorry for bad pictures during landing, the screenshot was an afterthought. Since I released the brakes by accident when taking picture, the attempt below were failure because the aircraft rolled off the roof of the VAB when I went for the coffee. After 40532 more attempts I finally managed to land on the helipad on the roof of the VAB AND stay there!

Well I tested number 1 option and changed M-12 servo to larger and heavier m-25 servo. It did work, the speed of 1400+ ms was reached with only slight flexing but no breaking. However by this point the mass has increased to a point where VTOL is almost impossible due to extra weight. I actually think that contrary to real life rotating engines seem more costly and less efficient than having separate engines for hoovering (solution which is simplest but the one I wanted to avoid because it entails having extra weight which is dead weight outside VTOL operation) for my VTOL design. In pure SSTO mode the design in first post can be reduced to 42 tons - with M25 servo, extra engines to keep it hoovering, it is reaching 57,25 tons (in SSTO pure mode, the design needs only three rapiers I discovered). So for option 3, except me going for airspikes instead of Vector (4 tons vs 2X airspikes for 2 tons and 1,4 TWR for Kerbin at sea level which also give me better air dynamics since they can be fully hidden inside MK2 cargo hold), I can get away with design weighting 44 tons, although I loose lot on fuel efficiency by using rocket engines to hoover in atmosphere....

Being bit empty for ideas for what to do in KSP but still keen on space related games , I tested two games that are both related to space programs (although not in a way KSP is) - the focus is the management of such programs - but both of them have chosen very different approach . This is my take on those two games so that other forum users may get idea on what to play next OR what to avoid. TLDR version: Both games are good in their own way imho but do your research to see whether this is something for you. These games are space program management games with Mars Horizon being more user friendly and easier to get into with a more lightweight approach to the matter, while Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is more management simulation oriented and bit harder to get in with far less hand holding. Mars Horizon Reading reviews on this game, it is often compared to KSP to explain what type of the game this is - which I found to be a bit lazy writing since it is like comparing horses to radish on account that they are both carbon based life forms... The game itself is a space program management game, where you pick your space agency (NASA, ESA, Soviet, Chinese, etc...) starting in 1957 and have as the ultimate goal to achieve crewed landing at Mars. To achieve that you must accomplish so-called milestones (first satellite, EVA, landing on moon, etc...) which will be unlocked mostly through mission research. You are competing with AI led space agencies for being first to achieve these milestones and rewards they give - being second, third, etc reduces the reward you get for doing this. On more practical terms this means that you are managing the space program directly - you are in charge of base building, research of rockets, missions and buildings, very simplified rocket design and finally also launch dates. All of these activities are financed through research points (unlocked through rewards for missions and milestones) and monthly money income which is increased through public support for your program (mainly) which again is increased through successfully completing missions and achieving milestones . Simply put - the better you are at your job, the easier it gets. Since if you are reading this, this being KSP forum and all, you will be perhaps interested in how the rocket design and piloting of such designs is implemented. Nothing at all as in KSP.... You are basically setting up pre-designed two parts rocket, consisting of a booster and upper stage which you have unlocked through research. The rockets you create cannot be used outside of the missions AND the piloting is being done through puzzle mini games (which can be skipped, but I did not because of the extra resources you get if you are very successful). What I think: The game is extremely easy to get in, with a very good UI and can be surprisingly challenging on higher difficulties - in a good way. Competition with rival agencies really spiced up this game - I launched in the middle of storm, suffered electric errors which increased difficulty in the subsequent puzzle game, all in order to beat NASA's mission to the moon. Easy is really Easy in this game, so I recommend to play in higher difficulties. But if you are playing chiefly KSP because you are enjoying building your own designs and are looking to scratch this scratch - this game is not for you. Gameplay (I am not affiliated with this guy, he was the first result in youtube) Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager If you know what Slitherin stands for or BARIS is a game you played in 90s, you don't need to read further. And probably you know already about BASPM. For the rest of you this game is in same venue as Mars Horizon except being limited to the race to the moon as end objective, where this is just intermediary goal for Mars Horizon . Both games share many concepts but differ in implementation. Just as in Mars Horizon you are in charge of base building (technically here you are just upgrading buildings), research (much more complicated than in Mars Horizon) and deciding on which program to focus on. The biggest difference is the complexity of manpower management - recruitment and training of astronauts (each having several skillets) , researchers (which have 5 areas of expertise) and mission controllers (again - several area of expertise). People don't get productive at their job the day you hire them and they are not 100% experts in their field. This means that all you employees will sooner or later need additional training/education to become better at their job and all of this takes time. If you want to be landing on moon in 1969, you better lay groundwork for it in 1954. And finances are much tighter here in the beginning compared to the Mars Horizon. BASPM is a much more complex game where you really need to plan years ahead. In this game I first checked out the moon landing mission and then worked my way back to the first Sputnik mission (played as soviet). Notepad (electronic or paper) is a recommended secondary tool. My experience with project planning IRL helped here - it made game definitely easier. Research is organized around programs and rockets and unlike Mars Horizon, the launch dates are organized abstractly. However you have directly hand in picking the team/crew that is organizing and expediting the launch of the rocket/misision. And unlike Mars Horizon there is no a puzzle game here but rather you are observing entire mission from sort of a mission control overview where you can see how the mission progresses through rendering of trajectory and videos/animations showing events. If things go bad (and often they did for me) you can call in extra teams to help or use your own crew to try to solve them. Both Mars Horizon and BASPM have really interesting ingame encyclopedia which are good reads. What I think: User hostile GUI, not greatest graphics out ther, hard to understood details of the game and generally very punishing game if you commit some early mistakes in your career may be discouraging for many. I restarted 4 times so I could correct early mistakes (I run also three saves with end of season time stamp, beginning of new season, current save). That said, the sense of accomplishment here is much greater than in Mars Horizon (and I am no fan of puzzles). If you are fan of Slitherine as publisher, you know what you are in for - both the bad and good. If you have no idea what I just wrote, do yourself a favor and watch a gameplay video before buying this game. Me? - I will now do a replay as director of NASA. Gameplay (again, not affiliated to the guy).

Did as you suggested and.... Edit - I removed the engines and saw that unbalanced landing gear was making the plane jump up and down. Fixed that and it solve the problem when aircraft was landed. In air - no good.

Honestly, I never thought about it, since I consider problem with high speed level flight to be the biggest issue but in my case it rotated the aircraft to the north. Autostruts dont cut it... I have created separate thread about the problem so we may move discussion at to not pollute this thread with my problems

I get the message that it cannot lock the servers while they are moving . Tried to lock them several ways but no good. Not really. I have tested the same setup dozens of times on Kerbin and two times on Laythe. Of course my modus operandus is for this vehicle to go to LKO or in case of Laythe to do drop from parking orbit into the atmosphere. I am not trying to do atmospheric breaking with this thing or tested it on EVE so maybe that is why i never straggled with heat issues.

Not very complicated - in theory. Below I am hoovering - since CoL, thrust and CoM are perfectly aligned (fuel consumption moves the center of mass only few mm) it can hoover with no input from me, although it drifts bit backwards during the launch. Lets say I want to drift forward i will pitch the aircraft bit forward but never more than 5 degrees. Same princaple backward or to side movement. But what happens is that I have horizontal drift induced by doing this and when I below tried to compensate for it I end up loosing 100 meter of height as shown example below, where I ended up bit to the right of the runway. Also the engines have delay before reaching a certain output (up or down) which means that you have to plan things ahead if it involves reducing or increasing height). This is not an easy aircraft to fly in VTOL mode in reality since it has zero margin for error. This aircraft has a inline docking port pointing below (although I haven aligned it with thrust vector - it was left for future iterations of this design) so by changing to it as a point of control you end up with same POV (and NAVBALL controls) as you are used to when flying rockets. Technologically it seems to be a dead end since servos seem to be wobbly, both increasing the problem of control and limiting this design to 250 ms speed.

Do anyone have tips and trick for building a VTOL that is also SSTO capable for at least LKO? I have tried below an idea which relays on Rotation Servo M-12 and KAL-1000 (Breaking Ground DLC) to rotate engines. With 6 rapiers (two more than the design below needs to reach space in a normal setup) I can (carefully!!!) lift off vertically. The problem I have is that once I turn engines horizontally and start flying once I reach 200 ms (and even before that) the engines start flailing around and disintegrate the aircraft in ensuing vibrations. I have experimented with rigid attachment and autostruct settings but did not solve the problems just change how they manifest themselves. The culprit is the servo component that seems to flex with increase in speed (see the bottom picture for an example). Any ideas or alternative solutions on how to design an VTOL? Or solve the rigidity issues with servo components? Image below shows engines pointing inwards more and more as speed increases.

Since I stranded two kerbals due to loosing frontal landing wheel on their aircraft when landing on a island on Laythe, something I have written about earlier (kraken attack in WARP forces reconfiguration of the rocket on the fly), I have decided to build VTOL "SSTO" combo which I will send for rescue. Not a true SSTO because it will hitch a ride to Jool system with ordinary rocket but will land and reach orbit in Also inspired by @Corona688 and his post above me, I was thinking about using rotator and KAL-1000 to change configuration of the engines on the fly. I have managed VTOL... I have managed SSTO in Kerbal orbit... But not the two together... Regardless, it was interesting and learning experience - KAL-1000 was bit disappointing though but did what I needed to do.

YES!!!!!!

This - Bon Voyage Mod opened up entire gaming loop for me with rovers in KSP. Before that I couldnt be bothered with rovers except as tool to give kerbals means to explore beyond the landing site and for those contracts which demand report from surface (i play career).

Comet being visible in the sky of Kerbin (and still kick myself for not taking a screenshot). I came back to playing KSP after looong break and comets where not a thing back when I stopped. For moment I was thought it was debris from my previous experiment still falling down but realised it "stayed" in same place than burning debris would have done.