Epthelyn

There's no "easy" facility as such, but you can move active ships from one save to another by editing the save file (persistent.sfs). Open persistent.sfs and find the "FLIGHTSTATE" line, beneath which there will be the version number and the UT (time) of the current save. After that information look for "VESSEL". Between the bracket following that and the corresponding closing bracket (indentation aligns, so it's easy enough to see where the block ends) is the information about an active vessel, including flight data and the part data and its corresponding action groups and modules. Copy that entire block from VESSEL { until the closing bracket into any other KSP save and your ship will (or should, mishaps permitting) be exactly where it was in the other save. Just be aware that a saved ship from the persistent file is...er...quite long. The Orbiter from the Orbiting 101 tutorial scenario, for example, is just over 4500 lines.

Adjust the minimum pressure required to deploy the parachute. The default 0.04 means that parachutes will deploy fairly high up in the atmosphere (~17km if the wiki is correct: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parachute#Deployment) where the terminal velocity is still far beyond the safe limit. Increase the pressure and the chute will deploy lower in the atmosphere giving drag more time to slow it down before deployment. I can't say what a safe value actually is because I don't tend to drop entirely unmanned vehicles onto the surface except when they're to be destroyed (everything I safely return is probe-controlled) - perhaps someone can provide that information EDIT: This is also partially solved by using drogue chutes to slow things down before the main parachutes.

That depends entirely on what is causing the loading time. "Resetting" the rocket requires the game to reposition everything from the persistence file (because all planets and orbital/sub-orbital vehicles will have moved) and put a multi-part physics-loaded object back where it came from. Your simple reset isn't quite as simple as you imagine it to be.

This thing? Not sure that's exactly what you want, but it fits the "circular graph" description, sort of.

Yes, but it's probably a reasonable guess to say that the majority of KSP players are now on Steam: - We had the option to transfer to Steam from the KSP Store, which quite a lot of people made use of - The Steam store advertises the game considerably more than Squad ever did, even if a number of those potential Steam buyers then choose to buy the game from Squad's store instead. Even without Steam actively advertising (although 'actively' is the wrong word in an automated system): - The game frequently appears in the top seller list - The game is very near the top of the list of games rated on Steam by user reviews - anyone looking at that list will see KSP in the top 10 or so (That list: http://goo.gl/wX1sd3 currently 9th). In the end it's safe to say the number of sales is "quite a lot"

Depends on the rover. With smaller vehicles I tend to just ignore the asymmetry and compensate with extra reaction wheels if necessary; it usually isn't because by "smaller" I might "tiny, and light". I usually send larger rovers in sets of 2+ to maintain some symmetry; that is, radially attaching them to the side of a larger lander, landing that craft and then detaching the rovers and letting them slide off somehow. That often involves a curved ramp leading from the position the rover will drop onto down the the ground to ensure that it remains the right way up instead of landing on its back end and falling over the wrong way. Adds a bit of weight, but means I'll always have a spare rover* *provided I don't need 2+ rovers to begin with

After having to fly Bill to the Mun to rescue Jeb on my first career save of the latest version, I can safely say the answer is "Badly". In fact Bill was also trapped there and I gave up the save entirely due to lack of funds. I'm too used to having a system kicking into prevent spinning and phantom yawing on demand, and without it maneuvers that I can perform whilst taking SAS for granted because nightmarish. I would really like to give SAS-less missions a go though. Added challenge = more fun. Ineptitude barrier, away with thee!

$23/266 hours = $0.086/hr That's meaningless though really. I have games I paid more for and have barely played, yet KSP sits in 2nd place on my list of most played Steam games I'm far from bored with it and will continue to play it for hundreds more hours - in fact as soon as I have time I will makes sure to knock TF2 off the top (only 19 hours ahead) and declare KSP the best game of all time Note: Team Fortress 2 isn't the best game of all time, and is far from it. It just...eats time...

Disabling quicksave is beyond idiotic. Disabling quickload and re-enabling that when a glitch occurs isn't. That's how I play; any mistakes I make are punished, but I'm not going to lose out because the game didn't like one of my rockets. ----- Had 3 "Kraken Attacks" a couple of days ago when launching probes to all the planets; sent 16 up into LKO, then set 13 off into interplanetary space and quit the game. When I reloaded the next day all 13 of those probes displayed "On escape trajectory out of the Sun" and 2 of them instantly imploded the game and forced a restart (NaN m/s, KSC screen froze up) and another disintegrated for no reason and accelerated out of the system at several million G. Surprisingly, none of the other probes were affected and the save wasn't corrupted.

I've yet to make a successful Mk3 aircraft. If you're using jet engines you need to have a lot of them...and then add some more. It's equivalent to trying to launch a 3.75m rocket with 1.25m engines; it's possible, but more trouble that it's worth. Hopefully we'll get some (at least) 2.5m jet engines at some point. That'll solve this problem. As for the bug, I wasn't aware that such a bug existed. Can't help you there

If I haven't already got a permanent satellite in orbit around the target body for temperature science, I'll adjust the orbit to something suitable (if necessary) and leave it there. If I have already got a permanent satellite I'll usually just leave the contract satellite in orbit; I like having a lot of orbits around planets. If there are too many of them I'll just deorbit them, but I haven't reached that point yet; the maximum I have around a single planet other than Kerbin is Duna, with 5.

This seems like the best solution. Just cut the science gain to whatever you think you should be getting and play with that

Recently: - Heading the wrong way to reach orbit on a Mun mission. My "training" rocket for engineers and scientists to hit level 3 ASAP has 4 pods around a central stack with a probe core. I forgot to switch to the probe core and didn't notice my mistake for quite some time. - Boosters destroyed the upper atmosphere/transfer stage of my interplanetary science probe, leaving it with not enough fuel to do anything useful. - Launched a single stage rocket to do a quick aerial survey. Parachutes were in the first stage and opened on the launchpad. No Kerbals harmed, but still annoying. - Plane landing on the tier 1 runway flipped on a bump on touchdown. Miraculously this happened with one of only a few planes I've ever built that have an abort system and the Kerbal lived to see another experimental flight and got some surface samples. - Set the SAS mode to antinormal on launch by accident. Only a small rocket so it was over quickly

Yeah, it's almost empty most of the time. That's assuming that you mean the the ksp.nabaal.net server made back in 2012 (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/21641-Community-TeamSpeak3-Server-In-space-WE-can-hear-you-scream!). Would be nice to raise awareness of that, even if it just gets a few more people trickling in every so often.

None really, but that's almost certainly because I've heard them at least a hundred times each. I usually end up playing other music over the game anyway; iTunes has a weird (yet convenient) habit of playing parts of the Transformers film score* when I'm launching rockets. Much more interesting to launch to that than to have silence for a few minutes followed by the inevitable "Frost Waltz" at 69km *Pretty much the entirety music collection is film and video game music.

In the VAB/SPH, click the left arrow in the far top left of the screen to "Enable advanced mode", and then open the green right-facing rocket icon in the toolbar that appears (6th icon down). Pick up the part of the rocket you wish to make into a subassembly, and move it into the "Subassembly Drop Zone" box. Badly edited Paint image:

It shows you when you've completed a contract in Career mode. As far as I know it has no purpose in Sandbox or Science unless there are other messages which use it (which I may have missed ).

It also increases the amount of air used by the engine by the same factor, so it shouldn't make a difference. That's just a lot of intakes feeding a single engine, so it's hardly surprising that it reached a high enough speed to do that considering how high up in the atmosphere the flameout threshold would be.

Everything that can be done with staging (activating engines, firing decouplers etc.) can be done manually (right clicking) or using action groups at any time. They just allow an ordered activation of multiple parts, so it makes sense that you should be able to order them mid-flight - it's not as if you're reattaching boosters you've dropped, and it's not as if an in-flight computer in real life couldn't do exactly the same thing.

I left Jeb in orbit because I didn't give him a parachute to return from the first Mun mission. Apparently he was too close to the Mun's orbit and crashed into it. Bill and Bob are still alive, though, both in a station around Duna currently.

So since new players can potentially pick up a contract without previously looking into what it might involve, it should be removed entirely? No. That "confusion and frustration" is called learning. There is more than enough leniency in easy to make a fair few mistakes, and if career mode is a problem for a new player they can easily switch (back) over to sandbox and get better at the game before attempting to play with a limited set of parts and limited funds. I have yet to encounter a problem - I'm playing on hard. The launchpad upgrade is the cheapest of all the T2 upgrades, and once you have that it's possible to land on Mun and Minmus (although without patched conics, Minmus is a pain because of the inclination. Mun is "Burn at Munrise until 11.4Mm"). Combined with the "Explore <body>" contracts, you can get a reasonable amount of all 3 currencies even without EVA, which can be upgraded into with the funds from the Mun. That, plus a few "Science data from around <body>" contracts (with solar panels, to leave transmitting probes in orbit forever) will give enough to upgrade either the VAB or the tracking station (I took the tracking, because despite playing before maneuver nodes, I was never any good at interplanetary transfers, and a land-and-return Mun rocket is a one-way Duna or Eve rocket with a decent enough launch window and/or aerobraking. After that, it's business as usual. It's harder than it was, but "Hard" was never hard anyway. I managed all of the above without making a single mistake, but that's because I'm reasonably good at the game - I wouldn't expect someone new to the game to be able to build a 30 part Mun rocket capable of landing and returning, but at the same time I wouldn't expect that same player to start on hard in the first place. The higher difficulties are actually a challenge now. In other words, what grind? I've practically 'completed' hard without grinding, so it's clearly possible to do so. It took longer than in 0.24, and involved a little bit of working around limited part problems and tighter funds that it did before, but it happened. If the difficulty is too hard for you or you're finding it grindy, go to moderate or custom. *grumbles about how this is the first update in a while to make things more difficult and people are complaining about it being too hard when previously the game was "too easy"*

That. Aerobraking is impossible anyway, since aerodynamics aren't considered for anything that you're not currently within 2.5km of. Anything that appears to have entered a stable Kerbin orbit will have done so because it was captured by the Mun or Minmus (although unlikely, because it's so small). That object will have an orbit which crosses the orbit of either moon at some point, and so eventually it will either be 'assisted' back into interplanetary space by a moon or crash into the same moon. In other words, you'll have a 3rd moon for a while, but it won't last forever. Unless time warp messed with physics at the right time, that is.

Yeah, this just prevents Steam from updating games until you actually want to play them, so it won't help in this case. The only (the easiest, anyway - there may be others) way to do this would be to copy the Kerbal Space Program folder from Steamapps/Common. It's DRM free so you can run KSP.exe independently of Steam in any location, albeit without the steam overlay, time tracking etc.

It's a craft on an escape trajectory or a craft that has recently escaped from Kerbin's SoI. Why would pictures be necessary? Anyway, contrary to what deepspacecreeper would have you believe, you do NOT need "highly advanced skills" to return to Kerbin safely: If you've escaped the sphere of influence already because you warped through it after releasing your mistake or otherwise, the easiest way to return from an escape if you've only very recently departed is to burn straight towards the planet and keep an eye out for encounters further along the solar orbit; depending on how fast you were escaping, this may be anything from a couple of days to a few weeks away.

You (or whoever made that) spelt "Jebediah" wrong.