Epthelyn

The KSP demo isn't a special version; it is 0.18.3 with features removed (most of the parts), and 0.18.3 was a version all paid KSP players had access to at the time. I doubt Squad have touched it since then, unless something game-breaking turned up. I've seen a lot of people on this forum say that they have purchased the game after playing the demo; I fall into that category, but after playing the 0.13.3 version. It's far from useless.

You could just start with 200 or so Science and skip that part entirely.

You have no idea how wrong you are... ----- If you show the list of every game on Steam by user rating* (i.e. positive - negative review score), KSP is on the second page in 45th place**. Clearly it's fairly popular *The easiest way to do that is to show all games for Mac OS X, delete the Mac OS X tag and then sort by review score, as far as I can tell. ** 98% of the 13000 reviews are positive

First plane of 0.25: I'm now asking myself why I stopped using SP+ a while ago.

Yes: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/ksp-forum You'll have to ask Volcanix for an invite, I think.

If it's anything like the issue Kofeyh had with that a few hours ago, it's caused by the rocket hitting the pad when physics kicks in. Solution: Launch clamps.

Downloaded the update from Steam in ~30 seconds. Yes, seconds, but that's what you get when you combine Steam's seemingly infinite download speeds with a 10MB/s internet connection. I have now witnessed the amazing new explosion effects...and stranded Bill on the Mun in career mode in doing so Only 'problem' so far was every single setting reverting to normal, but that was noted at least 6 pages ago. Had to restart the game to apply the texture settings, but now everything is back to the way it was, and Engineer is functioning perfectly without an update. Sleep is no longer important.

It doesn't look as if anything is off center, or at least from this angle it doesn't; as KerikBalm suggested an alternative angle would be useful. Are any parts clipping? That's the only reason I can think of right now that would explain why an apparently stable rocket would spin out; the CoT can be anywhere* as long as it's thrusting through the CoM, in line with the CoM etc. *There are reasons why that's not entirely true, but in your case it doesn't really matter

By the looks of it, the OP didn't manage to get the docking ports exactly centered when building the rocket - "the fact that the collars don't snap to position meant I ended up with an off center payload and an unflyable wobbly rocket". Pictures would be useful; I've never encountered a problem with docking ports not centering when building a rocket.

Either: - The modded parts have no tech tree config OR - You haven't unlocked the parts within the tech tree; even if you have unlocked a particular node, any parts added after doing so will need to be manually unlocked (click on them in their respective node). Which mod is it?

The interface is probably a specific size and when you increase the resolution it just appears smaller. Viewed at 1920x1080 it seems to have scaled like that, anyway.

What do you mean by "plummeting into Kerbin"? Are you performing the burn and in doing so pushing your trajectory back into the atmosphere?

I'll have to repeat my flight and get into Duna orbit later today. Pretty sure I could achieve that even without aerobraking (once the booster is dropped it has 5324 dV, ~1500 of which has to be used to circularize). That's if I have the patience to sit through another ion 'burn', anyway

It's not the most difficult challenge ever posted here, but why should it be? It's nice to have something slightly easier show up every so often. You could extend the rules or give bonuses for not using things like ion engines though; currently the challenge is pretty much "SRB to Orbit -> Ion to Duna -> Parachute to land" as cheaply as possible. A spaceplane would be a viable alternative, but the low cost for them usually comes from being able to re-use them rather than being a single-mission vehicle. Basically it could be improved, but it's alright as-is. Anyway, my entry - 13058 funds: 1 SRB, 4 1x6 solar panels, 1 xenon tank, 1 ion engine, probe core and a parachute (connected to the top with a cubic octagonal strut*). *It's cheaper to use the Stayputnik core and a cubic strut (316) than it is to use a flat-topped core (466+) EDIT: Craft file: http://pastebin.com/7uiTYXM2 Yes, I spelt oxidiser wrong (as oxider) when saving it

A 2000 ton object on Minmus only weighs 100 tons, which isn't too bad. Better still, 2000t on Gilly is only 10t, but you'd need to bring an asteroid to Eve first Lifting that much on Kerbin would be extremely difficult though; it's hard enough to lift a couple of thousand tons when you have full control of a VAB-built payload.

Will support as soon as the LEGO site stops being inconvenient and allows me to create an ID (keeps timing out for some reason, and my internet connection is fine). Oh, and this tag annoys me more than it should: Jebediah*

Angry canyon on the angry potato, making people angry because attempting to land near it and missing means you land somewhere on the remaining 99.99% of featureless and boring terrain. On the other hand, it might be quite a friendly canyon because of the number of visitors it gets relative to everywhere else on the planet

Option B. Nothing in KSP has an axial tilt. As for identifying an equatorial landing spot, if you focus on a planet or moon in map view the map will default to an equatorial view. Land in the middle of the screen

288 Kerbals is more than I've ever had active in a single save (and perhaps a single KSP install), and that's what you have on each ring O.O ----- Anyway, Fairly interesting looking orbits and planned maneuvers around Duna/Ike:

Why is a part with no mass and no drag useless when it's practically the only thing you can use in the stock parts list to land planes?

Up to you. I find biome-hopping around Mun/Minmus to be boring; there's very little challenge (except perhaps landing a fully equipped science lander on Minmus' "Slopes" biome) and it's far more satisfying to have complete the tech tree by sending Kerbals and probes across the system in search of science, even if it costs far more* and takes a lot longer in real time. *To get everything anyway, but that doesn't mean it's hard to fund it. I have a ion-based probe that can go anywhere for just under 31000 funds (including launcher and transfer stage, and it can almost certainly be done more cheaply), sit in low orbit and transmit temperature readings every time a contract asks for science data. Every time that happens I make far more funds than the probe cost in the first place. That's on top of the fact that every interplanetary contract gives a substantial amount of money.

Multiple girders can be attached end-to-end without a problem (i.e. no rotation) so the node icon's tilt doesn't appear to affect the node itself. If you're very early into career mode (as in, 1st or 2nd flight) boosters will cause a rocket to rotate even with SAS because without struts they won't stay in place (and will usually bend inwards slightly).

All Kerbals survived. That makes it a perfect success!

This should go here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/77-Support-%28modded-installs%29 How many parts does the rocket have? What mods are you using?

Theoretically, air resistance at a given altitude increases (1) and decreases (2) and that's about it in KSP; change Kerbin's atmospheric pressure to Duna's and you'd have a terminal velocity on the surface of Kerbin equal to that of Duna (or something like that). Kerbals are apparently unaffected by the weight of an atmosphere. Practically, that happens and you break physics and/or summon The Kraken, but that's probably because of the ridiculously high values you used P is Petameters, equal to 10^15 meters.