Johnno

Please consider carefully where you place new threads, this one was in the wrong subforum. Rule 2.4 is in effect, repeated offences may lead to infractions. Thread moved.

Please consider carefully where you place new threads, this one was in the wrong subforum. Rule 2.4 is in effect, repeated offences may lead to infractions. Thread moved.

Please consider carefully where you place new threads, this one was in the wrong subforum. Rule 2.4 is in effect, repeated offences may lead to infractions. Thread moved.

Try a search, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/search.php - Search Titles Only - Oberth

Had fun tinkering today so here's my entry, the Kerbal JX3. Craft file Similar in delta-v to the original Kerbal X, getting into Mün orbit is no problem, returning into stable Kerbin orbit can be done with a bit of aerobraking. The TWR during launch is slightly higher than optimal, but even if you set throttle to 100% you'll get to orbit. Gravity turn at 10km, tilt to 45° and then swap to mapmode to wait for apoapsis to reach 70+ km. If you're careful you can reach stable orbit without using any fuel from the orbiter, but even if you do a sloppy launch and gravity turn it won't take much extra fuel. On the orbiter I went for aesthetics instead of pure functionality, but there's a bit of everything in the orbiter and launcher. Onion staging on the launcher with sepratrons on the boosters, can drop them even in the middle of gravity turn without any mishaps. Plenty of RCS fuel and a docking port if one wants to adventure into docking manouvers. There's also a RTG tucked away among the gubbins on the orbiter so the solar panels are mostly for show. Action group 1: Toggle solar panels Action group 2: Toggle docking port shield and docking light

There's no such thing in the stock version of the game.

Uh yeah, switch to surface mode. Alternatively check that you're controlling from the correct 'location'.

Kerbal X is capable of landing on and returning from Minmus, that along with lunar orbit capability could perhaps be the goal? Landing legs do indeed suggest landing capability and the only place you're capable of doing so and still having return capability is Minmus. Since Minmus is also easier to land on than Mün that could be a worthwhile direct ascent goal for the craft, to me it at least seems like the only reasonable explanation for the stock Kerbal X.

Just a reminder, please stay on topic.

As the challenge rules specify powered landing I think lithobraking shouldn't be allowed at all, it's not really in the spirit of the challenge.

A third advantage is stackability. You're going to end up with an overly complex craft if you want to stack tricoupled engines. If you however forego stacking alltogether and use a core launcher with asparagus staged (or onion, or any other veggie type) boosters you might as well drop the tricoupler entirely and go for 6 or even 8 LV-T30 surrounding a central LV-T45 for its gimbaling goodness. Like this: Higher thrust and better ISP than a mainsail, but more mass and parts.

Teach them how to play then set up weekly challenges; First, second and third prize is not having to do any chores the following week. Problem solved.

Here's a quickie entry I made, craft design similar to Blue's. Landed mass: 16.73 tons Engine: Rockomax 48-7S (engine score 8) Location: Mün (multiplier 3) Final score: (16.73 x 3) / 8 = 6.27 ~ 6.3 Edit: After looking over the list of engines and pondering designs I'm inclined to suggest that engines simply be scored by thrust. With drop tanks that don't count for scoring in any way fuel efficiency isn't necessary. Also even though radial engines are listed as "with greater difficulty" it's not all that difficult to just use one, placed below the craft in a way that ensures a centered thrust aimed straight down, like this: With that design and the current scoring it would be possible to land slightly over 70 tons (two full orange tanks) on Mün with a single Mk55 radial engine, getting a final score around 20. Even if you're forced to use several radial engines the way they're scored now (at least the Mk55) would simply mean you add more mass onto the craft and get it down for a higher score. Two Mk55 engines could land roughly 146 tons on Mün, scoring 21.9 or so. I also agree with what's been mentioned about locations with atmospheres (and aerodynamic parts at that). Edit#2: Mathwise, a single mainsail landing ~900 tons on Mün, score 54.

More planets are already planned and as such this topic is on the What Not To Suggest list. When (*if) new planets/locations are added we'll all be excited no doubt, discussing the hypotethical range of excitement in advance is a moot point. If you wish to discuss names/ideas you can check out this thread or simply use the Advanced Search for similar topics, however please do not revive old threads. That said, thread locked. * = Disclaimer added only to prevent claims of promises.

Please don't revive threads this old, if you're experiencing an issue just make a new thread. Locked.

It appears however that you've used parachutes to land which automatically disqualifies you from entering this challenge. The fact that you have a TWR better than 1 just means you potentially could do a powered landing, unless you actually do so you're not eligible for this challenge. Please read the challenge rules carefully before entering.

Click and drag on the kerbal with your left mouse button. Multiple draggings may be necessary to get the desired effect.

Move your delta-time per frame to the far right, 0.03. It'll make your game move in slow motion, rather than lagging.

Delta-v determines your velocity change, TWR just determines how fast you get to that velocity. So craft 1 will go further, it'll just spend a longer time burning its fuel.

Yeah you can't transfer them, you'll have to wait for 0.23.

Monkeh that image reminds me of this one: Geology 101 Field Trip Image created by David Harland

This has indeed been asked, commented and ranted about to the point that it's a futile topic to bring up. Feel free to dig through the search function (select thread titles only and input Career, for example), beyond that there's no real reason to keep this topic open. Also it's not exactly a gameplay question, you're either making a suggestion or asking a rhethorical question (general discussions). Best reasoning I've read is that the game is called Kerbal Space Program, the little green dudes that want to reach space so bad they're willing to strap themselves to SRBs and just go. It's not called Probecore Space Program. Not starting with Kerbals would limit the game's feel significantly. Also, it IS a computer game, not a realworld simulation, thus it doesn't have to make sense in the normal regard on every little point. With all that said, please use the search function to find more to read about this topic, it really has been talked to death though so locking this thread.

Since you're asking about mods I'll move this to add-on discussions. However, adding mods into career mode actually isn't too hard. I'm not aware of any mod currently that automatically inserts itself into careermode, you have to manually pick the parts you want and add a few lines to their config file. If you add the following into your config then the mod parts would be available at start, you'll have to click them in R&D to unlock them but that'll be all that's needed. If you want to insert parts into other sections of the tech tree it's a bit more work, I haven't looked into it in detail but I think it'll include looking into your sciencedefs config to see what the different tech sections are called, entering their "techrequired" name and cost.

You're right about the necroposting. Locked.

Use revert flight instead of quickload if you're not sure where you saved. Make a habit of quicksaving after each little thing; orbit, escape burn, course correction, SoI change, orbit insertion, etc etc. You're making mistakes, which is normal but it's entirely on your hands. Not to sound harsh, but the reality is that the saving function works, you just need to figure it out and then rely on your own memory. Yes it could be different, but the only issue you're reporting is your own mistake. As such this should be in suggestions, and by now it's been suggested far too many times. If it's killing your enjoyment of the game, don't use it. Moving to suggestions.