Epthelyn

I'm pretty much in the opposite situation right now; I finally have a PC capable of running the game properly (upgraded from a laptop that benefited massively from 0.23.5's performance boost, but still had issues) so every on-planet project I've wanted to do for quite some time is now possible at a far more enjoyable pace. It's just a shame the Summer Sale arrived at exactly the same time as the parts to build the machine Even if 0.24 changes things considerably, it won't necessarily break everything. As far as I can tell none of the existing parts are being removed entirely so regardless of whether or not actual saves break, craft files will probably work fine. Obviously all progress on bases, infrastructure and suchlike is lost when that happens, but I often find the most time consuming and difficult part is designing rockets to do what I want them to do. With that in mind, design your SSTOs. If they break, that's a shame but at least you'll be better at making them Alternatively either mess around with random stuff for a bit of time each day or wait for 0.24. I have times when I can't be bothered to do anything big but can happily spend hours doing smaller things like flying planes, crashing things into the KSC buildings, or doing some of the forum challenges (some of which actually take a while to do, both in terms of construction and execution). Waiting entirely on the basis that there is a new version coming out soon isn't something I see any sense in (I don't understand the idea of spending the entire time between updates waiting for the next, but that's just me) but if you have other games to play you could just play them for a while. Nobody's forcing you to play KSP

Yeah...that was stupid. Still, a single trip to the Mun (a flyby, even) will grant you enough science points to unlock the LV-909 and that's more than enough to hop around biomes with a relatively small amount of fuel. A thermometer, barometer, goo capsule and science pod don't take as many parts to transport as you seem to think they do either, even with duplicates.

Send a couple of Kerbals with enough to survive indefinitely, and provide further infrastructure via probe-based transportation when necessary. They can 'do their thing' and have room for expansion as required. No point sending a massive population.

The Mun provides vastly more science than Kerbin does. ----- Your RAM is not holding back the game; if it was you'd be using 3GB with none to spare. Undoing large sections of rockets will take a while for the reason Taki said; there's a lot of it and the game needs to reload from a previous state. With regards to loading a rocket on the pad, the parts need to be rendered and physics initialized. The single core physics processing doesn't help there. [content removed - Reason: I don't even...]

I present to you my er... Umm... Monorail cable car thingy! It's not really a train, but it runs on a single rail and carries Kerbals so is technically a monorail, only it runs upside down because it's easier to stay on a track without sides that way That doesn't really stop it from falling off, but it helps and the worst inevitable failure that often happens is the wheels clip through the trusses. A minor inconvenience. So: No part clipping: +4* Carts: 1 * 2 = +2 Passengers: 4 * 1 = +4** Train can fall off the track = -4 Total: 6 *Assuming you mean part clipping using the debug menu. Parts are clipping into each other but that's just KSP's construction mechanics **It can hold 4, I only had time to board 1 and take the screenshots. If you consider the above worth docking points for, I get -1 I'll continue to work on it, make the track loop somehow (difficult when I'm relying on the round- and smoothness of the structural fuselages) and put up a video later.

It was, nobody replied With that in mind I found my thread and took the imgur album from it, shown below. Stock aside from Engineer:

The Mk1 Lander Can does that sometimes. I had the same thing happen several times over the course of a couple of days and then avoided using it for a while. However, recent launches with it have gone without a hitch. I have no idea why it happens, but I'm pretty sure that's the cause; in one case the only part left was the floating pod.

Wouldn't it be more of a challenge to have the heaviest Mun rocket on the Mun? It's very easy to augment pad mass simply by adding additional stages which have no relevance to the task at all; I could make a 20 kiloton rocket* and stage 19kT within the first few seconds, then take the remaining kT as a rocket to the Mun and back. I would have achieved what you asked for without really putting in any effort. *It's worth pointing out that 20kT, even with ARM 3.75m parts, is a seriously big rocket

This may not apply at all depending on the processor, but: Is KSP, for whatever weird reason, using the integrated graphics chip inside your CPU instead of the graphics card it should be using? That would probably cause some kind of issue depending on what that actually is.

For smaller, agile, aircraft I use option 2. For larger aircraft option 3, mostly because pitching up in anything less than a 90* roll will increase altitude slightly. To be honest I don't usually care about that altitude gain unless I'm attempting to land; in those cases I make sure I'm on course for the runway long enough before the landing to ensure that anything awry can be fixed with time to spare. The amount of banking depends entirely on the aircraft you're using and the control surfaces providing the yaw force.

I'll be waiting until I get a rocket-based transportation system on Duna before the Kerbals will be travelling that distance; the rovers only hold 3 and I'm not making 4 or 5 75km trips...2 is plenty.

If you're 40 degrees off on a transfer window then it's not so much a question of accuracy as "Why did you wait n whole days when the transfer window was at time x?"

You can EVA to the surface of Gilly and back with fuel to spare; plenty of it in fact. With regards to not killing them, I find it that it usually depends how fast they are moving downwards; horizontal velocity doesn't seem to be much of an issue to them because once they've survived the initial impact they're 'ragdoll'ed and effectively invincible and can just slow down by sliding for a while (on smaller bodies, especially Gilly and Bop, that sliding may go on for a very, very, very long time). Landing on their head at high speed doesn't appear to matter much to them either. You shouldn't need to worry about that though. Once you've slowed down on Gilly it's more a matter of patience than actual dV

It's more efficient to start off a transfer at a lower altitude because of the, previously mentioned, Oberth effect. The faster you're moving, the more energy the fuel has when you burn it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect Basically if you're going from Kerbin to Duna, it'll cost you considerably less dV to transfer from a 100km x 100km orbit around Kerbin than it would from, say, a 1000km x 1000km orbit.

The Kraken is here! Run away! I've had this happen a few times, but never really thought enough of it to tell anyone; KSP does some weird stuff sometimes so joint physics giving up on reality entirely isn't exactly uncommon. Still, it's strange that it survives so long without exploding at all

1 by 1 by 1. Not 3. Unless you want cubic feet, of course

You could relaunch the core, bring it up to the station, undock all the components from the core and back them off a bit, then position the new core where the other was. After that, redock each of the parts; if you're fast enough that should just be a case of pushing forward, or going in exactly the opposite direction from the movement they made to undock. It's not quite starting over (you'll still have all the launches pieces within very close range instead of re-launching them all from the surface), but I can see why that could be something you don't really want to have to do again. But hey, practice is practice Alternatively you can use claws in the way Fendleton described; flipping parts in the .cfg file isn't particularly intuitive.

KSP gives you a way to build rockets, and some people may want to find out how the rocket-building part of the game works as early as possible. I worked out the symmetry controls before launching my second rocket (first was almost certainly pod -> tank -> engine) because at the time I had decided that putting one fuel tank on top of another wouldn't make them act as one; took about a week to realise that mistake I needed some way to equally space the massive number of tanks around the rocket. Of course, pressing X and C came muuuuuch later. Sadly all my original rockets were lost forever when I changed to a new computer about a year ago

Move any ships you don't want to be loaded from KSP\Saves\[savename]\Ships\[VAB or SPH] to wherever you want. Anything not in that folder or the Ships folder in the base KSP directory won't be available in the VAB or SPH. To put them back, just replace them in the save folder you took them from

Perhaps because 40% is enough to push the game consistently into the Steam Top-Sellers (even during the Summer Sale, which is a considerable achievement) list whilst still providing a decent income for Squad to continue development.

Sandbox save: 0.23 I Career save: 0.23 II I don't use the first one for anything other than things that might break a save; 0.23 II is career complete for now so it's basically a sandbox save with added science features

If you're going to take it that literally then you might as well disregard xenon tanks as well. Then it's impossible without the debug menu. However, the OP only prevents a means of slowing down that isn't ion engines, i.e. all other engines and parachutes. Besides, why not have a crumple zone consisting entirely of ion engines?

Both those examples are in Options -> Controls The topic of this thread however, isn't. I had no idea this happened, probably through a combination of rarely running out of fuel and rarely actually including RCS on anything important EDIT: Unless, as above, it's part of MechJeb.

Right click on the lights in the VAB or SPH. Feature introduced in 0.23.5. You cannot change the lights once a craft has been launched.

Whoever put a stupid amount of probe cores in orbit and a ship clearly designed to cause a massive amount of orbital debris (many, many stack decouplers) (may be completely unrelated events) please don't do that. Do that to your own saves, not multiplayer servers :|