wolfedg

Now here we have a computer simulation of the asteroid approaching Kerb(cough) Earth. Mind you this is just a simulation but we have designed the spaccreaft with a claw like device to attach to the asteroid like this. Then the Kerb(cough) Atronauts will fire the main engine to slow the ... hopefully preventing the extinction event.

Ok, .....what did i miss? P.S. What on earth is Green Iron Crown??

Having discovered the game when it came out on steam, (0.18) i think it was, they could've called the game complete at that time and I (and I'm guessing most players) would've been none the wiser and still loved the game. No don't get me wrong though this game has only gotten better with all the new parts and stuff.

Perhaps if you are doing a lot of time acceleration they are expiring.

I have noticed similar problems. All my old planes have to have either a control surface, wing or engine tilted to enable them to take off and also to fly level with SAS on without constant adjustment, and they seem like they don't turn nearly as smoothly.

I love the stock space music in KSP, but wish they would replace the Title/VAB/SPH music with something a little slower more toned down. Nothing worse than starting the game up with the volume a bit high

Sadly I would have been one of the early adopters but it stayed off my radar entirely until it showed up on steam. I had played orbiter waaaay back but it was too hard for me so I left it behind.

Still he's making a valid point. The part description is misleading especially to new players.

Hyper realism is far from the direction of the game so far and its target demographic, so I don't see a need to change the direction of the game and alienate a large portion of the playerbase. For the realism crowd there is already Orbiter and of coures the option to develop an entirely new game. Personally, i like the direction of the game so far and don't want them to change it. Edit:however on the same token I don't want to see it get dumbed down anymore either.

I seem to recall hearing that the hole was conical. If so coudnt you just reorient your landing legs for a lander to wedge itself in near the bottom.

That would require you to be extremely familiar with kerbin geography.

While there isnt really a resource system in game, there are references to both food and oxygen in game. There are compartments in the ships that refence snacks, food, not food etc. and jet engines only function in oxygen based atmospheres.

As this is a single player game, only you the player can decide if it is an exploit.

Have a great Christmas break, see you next year Thanks for all the hard work, you have earned the break.

Yes both of these are annoying.

I noticed this as well, If you look at the kerbal edu site there is a picture of a jet with recent parts so I think it must be an error or a placeholder(though i would have picked another video)

I would officially like to raise a glass And say "To the Mun!" Outstanding work Squad! Looking forward to next year EDIT : Mun not Moon

Do you mean like these? http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Mk3_to_2.5m_Adapter_Slanted http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/C7_Brand_Adapter_Slanted_-_2.5m_to_1.25m

There is a thread for that- http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/103299-Where-is-my-barn

My post was in response to the op, not the rabbit trail discussion about how the programs should have started out. PS: Im for a sputnik/explorer start of the space programs, but perhaps they could make it so you have to choose beetween manned/unmanned to start out with and then work into the other

I remember those days back in .18. It probably took 30 or so trys to get into orbit, but in so doing i developed the gravity turn method i use on most missions to this day. That would be the 15 degree per 10km method. I start going straight up till 10 km and then pitch over 15 degrees every 10 km until im flying level at 40km. I only deviate from this method if i dont have enough thrust at high altitude and need to keep my angle up to prevent my periapsis from sinking, which doesnt happen very often anymore. Just on experimental crafts and spaceplanes(which generally have their own custom ascent profile per ship) Edit: correction on the angle i think its more like 22.5 degrees per 10. Now that i think about it. In other words 1/4 of the way to leveling out each turn. Sorry im hooribad at math.

Well the gemini pod from the FASA pack is always an option. Add to that it has a nice IVA

1950s Sputnik(57)/Explorer(58) Era PS to OP:EDIT REMOVED Due to Fix

Quoted for truth. The content was obviously a preview not the final product. It is even possible that the dev team was further along on the development of t1 than t2, and as a result of the unexpected change in direction released an even more unfinished product with t2 than we might have had in t1 as some of the feedback on these forums might indicate.

Oh wow, now i feel dumb, I just guess and build. I have a pretty good idea in my head of what a mission will take wheter it be orbital, munar or interplanetary. As far as all that math its way over my head. Someone recently made a post about how the math is supposedly easy and then they started talking about logarithms and it was like woosh to me.