Kromey

Fantastic work being done here, and finally I have a flag design I want to see made, if someone would be so kind as to oblige me! A trio of right-facing crescents (i.e. the crescent is on the left side, with the "points" pointing right, but canted upward a bit): The first is the largest, and green. The second is smaller, and gray. The third is even smaller, and minty green. Each crescent should be seated higher than the previous, so that you feel like you're looking up higher as your eyes get to each. A red "swoosh" similar to the one on NASA's flag should seem to represent a ship leaving Kerbin toward Minmus and beyond (the crescents represent the Kerbin local system, in case that wasn't obvious). All on a blue or light blue background, with a few white stars scattered about. And with that awesome ripple effect, because that looks spectacular! Also, could I request the Photoshop/Gimp file with the separate layers as well, so that I can make any little tweaks I feel are needed without harassing any of you artistic folk? I'm just "that guy" who has to have things exactly right, but I don't want to take away your time just to satisfy my control freak-ness!

Ditto -- I've been putting the nigh-useless science gadgets everywhere already, so of course science gadgets that actually do something will continue to accompany my missions even if I've nothing left to do with the SCIENCE! they're continuing to collect!!

Always Manned rockets have an escape/abort system and reentry capabilities. Manned stations/bases always have return craft capable of bringing home all crew. At least one backup small solar panel (ever since an unmanned mission went dead because I forgot to extend the solar panels). Never Deliberate explosions (unmanned rockets may be exempt, but only where said explosion cannot harm a Kerbal). Asparagus staging (crossfeed into center tanks acceptable). Leave debris in orbit around any planet/moon (and try to avoid as much as possible leaving debris anywhere else). Terminate any manned flight except upon safe return to Kerbin's surface. Almost Never RTGs. (I just find solar panels+batteries more fun/challenging. Have yet to build a lander/beacon that can keep the lights on all night on the Mun without an RTG though.)

I, for one, am really excited for all the SCIENCE! that's coming!! I'm spending some time reorganizing my blog to make way for an entire career mode-esque series of posts and pages, with mission plans and after-action reports and even crew rosters with my kerbonauts accruing mission ribbons and everything! As far as what I'm going to do in KSP, I'm holding off making any specific plans until I know for sure what I'll be able to do, i.e. until 0.22 lands; about all I know for sure is that I'll be wiping everything and starting with a completely fresh game. In general, though, I'll start with some sub-orbital flights to learn from Kerbin's land, sea, and air; then I'll poke my nose up into space with a couple more higher sub-orbital flights, before I get into orbits, and then start making moves on the Mun and Minmus. And, since I haven't played at all since 0.21 landed (I know, I'm lame), this will be a great way to ease back into rocket explod-- er, I mean, rocket building. Basically emulating the same cautious direction Earth's real-life space programs have followed, each mission building on the knowledge and skills acquired in the previous. And this time, it will all be for SCIENCE!!

First time I "landed", there were pretty fireworks announcing my arrival, along with a puff of smoke and a disappearing act to make any magician jealous. Second, third, and fourth "landings" produced similar results. The first time I landed, I cheered (literally, I jumped out of my chair, pumped both fists into the air, and let out a "Whoop!" -- fortunately only my cats were in the house to hear me), then promptly got cocky and decided I could hop my lander over to that arch I could just see on the horizon. And lo did my first landing then become my fifth "landing"...

In Soviet Kerbin, rockets launch you! Er, no, wait... we have Jeb... therefore our rockets... therefore in Soviet Kerbin... Never mind, you were right in the first place!

Easiest to get to? Easy: Kerbin! (Sorry, someone had to go there, and I'm surprised it had to be me, what with 4 other replies already!!) My vote would be Duna if you plan to return, or Eve if you're just going one-way. The ascent from Eve requires so much delta-V that you could almost get all the way to Eeloo and back before you could land and return from Eve! Duna, on the other hand, is barely any additional delta-V to get to than Eve (if you build a ship capable of getting to Eve orbit, odds are it's also capable of getting to Duna orbit, unless you're an extreme penny-pincher and very conscious of having only exactly the delta-V budget you need); they're so close in that regard that I consider them both equal challenges to reach. That's why Duna is my first target beyond Minmus. That said, Eve's a whole helluva lot prettier -- but then again purple is my favorite color...

I don't think this will happen. There's already lots of players -- myself included -- who take a "more serious" approach to KSP than e.g. those who build Kerbal-flinging catapults just 'cuz. We already play as if we're in Career Mode, save that we don't have budgetary (or other) constraints -- yet. For example, I always send probes first, use them to safely map out landing areas, practice things like low-gee cras-- er, landings, and take great pride in the fact that I've only ever had two fatal missions (while simultaneously feeling quite sad that I've killed 4 of those cute little green guys). Yet I love watching the convoluted contraptions others build, and enjoy watching a good mission failure as much as those guys building the catapults. This supposed "division" already exists, and yet the community isn't at all divided. At least not in the fractious manner you predict. The only truly fractious division we have -- and I expect we'll ever have -- is the MechJeb versus the anti-MechJeb crowds. On-topic: I'm looking forward to improved aerodynamics (although like someone else mentioned, I don't think it will be the death sentence for asparagus staging everyone else seems to think it will be -- fuel pumps are why NASA doesn't use them, not supposed aerodynamic inefficiencies), especially since I already put nosecones on all my rockets because they're supposed to be there, even if currently it does make them less effective. I'm also looking forward to life support (although in my mind any part with a crew complement should be able to support that many Kerbals for a day or two, meaning missions within Kerbal's SOI aren't really affected, but adding a bit of an extra challenge to interplanetary missions -- if it ends up being too much different from that, I may switch this one to the "dread" column...) and re-entry heat. The one feature I would truly dread, should it ever be added, is random malfunctions on a mission. Think Apollo 13- and Gravity-style failures, not the Kraken and other bugs. While on the one hand it could be a fun challenge to deal with something unexpected like that, KSP lacks the low-level detail to enable us to properly plan for and react to failures of that sort (other than detonating the self-destruct, of course). And I think adding that low-level detail would make KSP inaccessible to all but the most real-life rocket scientists, while the rest of us have to go back to Orbiter or something. (Sure, you could have "Part Y has failed", and respond with a spacewalk and repair similar to how Kerbals can already repair busted rover wheels -- but now you're just adding tedium for the sake of tedium!)

No reason you can't do that with Steam -- it's exactly what I do, using symlinks (ln -s on Linux, mklink on Windows) to keep my saves and parts folder synchronized between the three computers I play KSP on, while still letting Steam auto-update the game. It can be a pain when they significantly restructure things (looking at you, .20!), but that doesn't happen often and is the type of stuff I normally deal with on a daily basis anyway, so it doesn't bother me. You could always symlink the entire KSP directory, or even use Steam's Libraries feature to just put the entire KSP directory into your Dropbox folder if you want (I still have to scrap my old saves, mods, and parts that no longer work for .21 (wasn't using them anyway, so no sense waiting for them to be updated), so I may switch to this in the process as well).

I don't know of any reason why you couldn't build the double-can structure in the SPH. I usually build all my rovers in there because the symmetry in the VAB makes getting the wheels on without having them twisted relative to one another is pretty much impossible. If structural cohesion is your problem, maybe try something like in that last link, where your wheels are attached to/supporting a sturdy platform, that itself is home to your hab modules. Gives you more options for layout that way, plus a natural place to park the "mosquitoes" while the base is on the move.

Check out the MOLAB. It's not a base per se, but it's certainly big enough that it could be one, or could inspire a version that is. I think my favorite feature is the little "mosquito" mini-rovers it sports. To me, a "base" has to be quite stable, and while it might work in KSP wheels don't, in my mind, satisfy that. If-- No no, when I build a mobile base of my own, a key feature -- nay, a requirement to earn that moniker -- will be landing legs that can extend to take the weight off of the wheels, and then retract to allow the wheels to re-engage and move to another location. I'd also design it with the idea that the base would be more-or-less parked for extended periods, while exploration continues using smaller rovers and such; that's why I really like MOLAB's "mosquitoes", but really anything that can be carried by the base while it travels, but then deploy for independent short- and medium-range exploration while the base is in "base mode", is good for that. Really, anything big enough to be a "base" is going to almost certainly be slow, and be unable to handle rough terrain, but exploration shouldn't be limited to only the smooth routes the base can handle. As far as your design goes, I might scrap the perpendicular hab modules (I'm assuming that's what those are?) and instead make it a "double-wide", i.e. put two (or three) hab modules end-to-end, then a duplicate of that structure alongside it. Strut that sucker up, affix wheels to the outside surfaces, and voila! (Think of a pair of soda cans glued side-by-side to each other, with wheels attached so that the whole thing rolls along with the cans parallel to the surface and pointed in the direction of travel.) Or, try something like this...

Yeah, I do a lot of unmanned flights to learn things for myself, such as basic orbital insertions (and, later, safe returns), low-gravity no-atmo landings (i.e. Mun, Minmus), etc. Only after I feel I've mastered the basics do I start to risk manned crews to follow in their robotic footsteps.

SCIENCE!! I think it's kinda cheap to be able to just fire up the wiki and find out which planets have atmospheres and how much thrust/chutes are required to land safely, and thus plan landing missions without your KSC having to figure this out for themselves. (Not to knock anyone who does this -- myself included -- I just want that extra step of learning about them myself.) I want to send probes out with scientific instruments and measure gravity, atmosphere, etc., I want to map surfaces to plan landing sites, and I want to gather and return samples. I want purpose to my missions beyond "I did this!" I mean, that's great and all, I just want more of a reason, y'know? I'm greedy like that... (I also want resources for the same reason, but to be "fully" implemented I think science is a precursor to that -- gotta get the samples and the maps to figure out what resources are where, y'know?)

I've always been attached to my Kerbals, and always maintained one "real" save, and one "simulation" save; the latter was where KSC supercomputers were fed design specifications and ran test simulations to estimate rocket performance, the former where all the "real science" took place. Nothing in the "simulation" save mattered, and as a result I only ever lost 2 Kerbals "for realsies" (one was in a botched spaceplane landing (I'm so sorry, Jeb!!), the other a random act of explodeyness on the launchpad -- KSC supercomputers can't account for every single permutation in the real world!). I think the new crew list feature is sweet, and I can't wait to get my new space program (I like to start over with each major new release) off the ground!

C'mon guys, everyone knows that Mun's made of cheese, and Minmus is made of mint chocolate chip ice cream. Only, Jeb's already been there, and he dug up and ate every last chocolate chip. What else would explain the hills and mountains scattered about the surface? Dammit, Jeb... Edit: Seriously, Minmus has always reminded me of mint chocolate chip ice cream. It's probably why it's my favorite object I've yet visited. Well, that, and its green color is so much prettier than the drab grays of Mun!

Two tricks I've used to slow down and safely land big heavy ships unpowered: 1) Drogues. These things are great! 2) Staged chutes. By this I mean that if I have to use a lot of chutes, the shock of them opening is often more than enough to rip the ship apart! Rather than "fix" it by slapping on more duct tape, I've on several occasions split my chutes into multiple stages, so that the first tap of the space bar is e.g. two drogues, the next is two more drogues, the third is 4 regular chutes, and the fourth is another 4 chutes. Doing this reduces the shock that your ship undergoes with each deployment -- just make sure you're opening them in a balanced formation, otherwise you'll start tumbling and probably rip right apart anyway!!

I'm most looking forward to resources and mining! ...Doh! I kid, I kid -- I love everyone at Squad (except you -- you know who you are!), and I'd much rather features get delayed than that something half-baked gets rushed out the door. Everything you guys do is awesome, and I know that will be awesome, too, but only when you guys think it's ready! Seriously, though, I think the seats are going to be a lot of fun, but at the risk of sounding like a suck-up I'm going to have to echo HarvesteR and say that the editor changes sound the most exciting to me! Also the performance boosts, maybe I'll be able to fly some of my larger ships on my laptop now!

Ah, okay, this makes sense. Still a lot of work, but at least it's not a full network per planet. Also explains why the brief tutorial on the wiki suggests a docking port to "expand" the satellite -- I'd assumed it was to expand it with additional features that may come in later updates, but now I guess it means expanding the number of dishes on the satellite. Thanks!

Hello! Love the idea of this mod, going to be one of those that I install soon once I've mastered the basics a bit more (still feel like I'm just fumbling around blindly, even though I have had some successful missions). However, I'm a bit wary about the effort that would be required for this to work. Specifically, my concern stems from the communication methods. The antennae are omni-directional but short range; that's fine, all well and good, stick and antenna on and as long as there's line of sight I've got a link (within range, of course). But the satellite dishes... these have to be pointed directly at each other to transmit signals between them. Which means that if I set up a network around Kerbin and use it to relay signals to a network around Mun, all the satellite dishes at Kerbin are pointed at Mun -- so to then set up a network on Minmus that doesn't "go dark" when it's on the opposite side of Kerbin as Mun, do I have to deploy a whole 'nother relay network around Kerbin that will point at Minmus? And then later a third to point at Duna, a fourth to point at Eve, etc.? That seems like a monumental amount of effort, way too much for me to still enjoy playing the game and extending outward beyond the Kerbin system, and for how much people seem to be enjoying this mod there really has to be something I'm missing -- doesn't there? Can someone just please explain in simple terms how the network around Kerbin is set up when there's a need to control unmanned probes going out all over the Kerbol system? I don't need a full tutorial, just the high-level overview of the network(s) required to support long-range unmanned probes zipping out in all different directions.

I believe (but can't recall for certain) that right-clicking a node you haven't reached yet gives you that red 'X' (I know there's some way to get that, anyway, and I think that's it). You can also click-and-drag it off of your orbital path and it'll disappear. This has actually frustrated more often than helped me, as it usually happens when I'm playing with large variations in when to make a maneuver, rather than trying to delete it!

Completed! I could have done it in a more Kerbal-esque manner, and I may still re-do it in such a fashion. But after seeing Botoro's BirdDog in action on Laythe, I just had to build my own -- and this happened to be the perfect proving ground for it! I Got Wheels -- 10 points This Ain't No Seaplane -- 10 points Up There -- 10 points Getting Higher -- 20 points Supersonic -- 50 points Landing Like A Pro -- 100 points Jeb's A Dick (aka The Journey) -- 20 points (Jeb parked the BirdDog there and made Tim huff it to him.) Hardcore Pilot -- 100 points Made It Back In One Piece -- 100 points Total: 420 points Not a great total, I could do a lot better, but an excellent proving of the BirdDog MkII. More screenshots are available in the album if you want to see more of the mission, and/or my editorial comments.

Well, shoot! Was doing good, Tim was as good as rescued, when suddenly a rover wheel spontaneously detached, causing the cockpit Tim was in to pop off while the rest of the vehicle went sliding off into the drink! Darn you, Jeb! Was probably actually a recoverable failure if I hadn't panicked and forgotten time warp was still on, I probably could have stopped it, swapped Jeb out and left him behind while Tim flew the newly-lightened remains back home. Oh well, it was a good effort, I just need to not get cocky and remember to control my speed! Anyway, what's this about a "Timer" vehicle now? Do I need to grab the persistence file again for something new?

Thanks for the tips! I actually just had my most successful plane build yet, not a plane/rover BirdDog but just a standard jet. I found controlling the thing rather a pain (mostly in trying to turn), but even with my issues there it was remarkably stable in flight, and no matter how badly I screwed up it refused to flip or spin or anything on me! Then I hit the ground too hard trying to land, and the cockpit popped off. Then everything exploded. And I was sad. Because I'd actually touched down within a KM of Tim (trying to do the Rescue Tim Challenge over in Challenges right now). I think I'll do a lot better if I can figure out how to get an avionics package on the danged thing. That little part just doesn't seem to fit anywhere! It looks like you put a pair on the vertical stabilizers? Probably have to turn on part clipping to do that I'd imagine? I'm actually tempted to just mod it into my cockpits and be done with it! Ah, nice! One of my earlier prototypes (again, just a regular plane -- trying to just dip my toes in rather than diving straight into the deep end here!) did the tight loops right off the runway, surprisingly climbing higher and higher as it did so. I keep trying to nose down to get out of the loops, which finally succeeded catastrophically as I dove nose-first into the dirt! Rolling at the top of the loop sounds a lot safer though.

Ditto, except work. I miss the days when it was school, though, I had a lot fewer bills and a lot less stress (although at the time I wouldn't have believed it) back then. *Sigh*...

Very, very nice! Quick question: What's giving the red glow down there near your NERVAs? Gives the whole thing a somewhat ominous look -- I love it!