aven17

A rocket you launch that explodes is not an asset. At best, it's nothing. At worst, it's a liability. If you want to place value on those previous launches, value your completed contracts and tech tree level. That will provide a quantifiable way to compare value. As for VAB, I could load 500 command modules in 17 different variations and call that 17 assets, I can even launch each one. It still should not be considered an asset. They are basically designs. You can value your designs if you must, but consider that the cost of an engineered home plan is typically less than 0.5% of the total home cost.

What is the basic premise of your science based KSP videos, what is your motivation for doing them, and what background to you have that makes you a good fit for those videos?

"Worth" is relative. You can fairly easily price the cost of the physical objects that exist in your system, but the worth of those objects varies. A rover on the Mun with no fuel is only as valuable as the science and transmitting equipment still functioning on it, and that diminishes over time. A fully functional rover sitting on Kerbin is worth less than that same rover sitting on Duna. On a less subjective note, I don't think rockets built and saved in the VAB should be considered as having value. You haven't paid for them yet, nor do they physically exist, until they are placed on the launch pad.

Just think of random game glitches that eat your otherwise perfect ship as hardware failures, similar to Apollo 13 or the Challenger. The game could use more random events anyway.

* The first rule of KSP .24 is that you do not talk about KSP .24 * The second rule of KSP .24 is that you do not talk about KSP .24 * Baby steps. Baby steps onto the launchpad, baby steps igniting the engines, baby steps into the sky… AHHHHHHHHHHHH! * There's no crying in KSP. * Ain't no Mechjeb in 1969, I'm head to toe legit. * Do or do not, there is no try. * You gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.

Yeah, now that I look at it, it wasn't the same trajectory as the satellite. Even though it was the appropriate time period, the object I saw was travelling more northeast. Just a run of the mill meteor I guess. It burned bright blue, with a small explosion towards the end. I may still claim it as satellite debris though in retellings of the story. Life needs little embellishments.

Anyone else have any sightings? I assume it was a piece because it coincided with the satellite's relative position and burned for a while, about a quarter of the sky.

I think this a common occurrence in many alpha games. You are given these snapshots of a game in progress that you can play with, but in the end it isn't the complete experience and you are left saying, "now what?". The burnout points you hit are the holes still needing to be filled. Fortunately, the KSP modding community has done a tremendous job patching some of these holes.

Well, starting a little closer to home first to get the bugs worked out might help, like right near the launch site. Wheels combined with lowerable landing struts are probably one of the easier ways to make a modular and mobile base, however they can be finicky trying to line up. I would suggest creating a subassembly of a reusable basic structure to guarantee your wheels, landing struts and docking ports all start at equal heights and then build around that.

Check out some of Danny 2462's videos on youtube. He has at least one video dedicated to cannons like this, requiring you pair each engine with its opposite so your relative position in space doesn't change when you fire it.

There can also be alignment issues if you accidentally pick up a portion of the ship and it spins to a different alignment than it was originally at. The strut hubs are all there, but they are trying to connect to different pieces.

Powered landings. Either I burn too much fuel preventing a return, start my deceleration too late and impact, bounce and flip over, hit too hard and break things, misjudge the terrain, land on and subsequently roll down the side of Mount Everest, and pretty much anything else that can go wrong on a landing. I am the Mr. Bean of landing.

Fuel is console. The largest playable area in an open-world pc game is 1,035 km² (400 miles²), held by the island of Panau in Just Cause 2 (Avalanche, 2010).

Even games without traditional zone lines are still loaded in localized chunks, basically allowing any game to have an infinite world given enough time to create it by hand. Disqualifying procedurally generated games is simply removing games that bypass this limitation. Beyond that, few game worlds today are created and shaped entirely by hand, with many developers using a procedural system even if it isn't built directly into the game. However, it is a silly question to begin with. It's all relative. The only constant is time, in particular the time it takes to navigate the game universe. Whether it's walking, driving, flying or teleporting the size of the world is only truly measured by how quickly you can move across it, and every game world is made smaller by anything that decreases the time factor. If you limit yourself to 1x time and walking then yes the area of Kerbin alone dwarfs that available in most other games. However, at 100,000x time every point of interest in the Kerbal system is accessible in under an hour. Just as games have features to reduce time-sinks, they also have features that artificially inflate time. A town may take a player 30 seconds to sprint through. Add a horde of zombies, lootable buildings and debris and suddenly that 30 seconds is 15 minutes. Remove teleports/gates/fast travel from a game, and what should have been a near instantaneous trip suddenly takes an hour. There is more to the bigness of a game than the area the game world occupies.

Regardless of which wheels you settle on, you can improve handling using downward RCS or engines to keep your rover firmly attached to the ground.