Tank Buddy

The magic of KSP is that it can be whatever you want it to be.

I run quite a few mods, but I have only ever had isolated incidents involving crashes.

There is a mod that makes many more time-warp options available. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/69363-0-25-Time-Control-9-23-14-v13-2

I agree with the consensus that Scott Manley is the biggest KSP YouTuber. He is the largest content producer that focuses on KSP, whereas Robbaz and Nerd Cubed don't primarily play KSP. He probably is the most dedicated considering how much time he spends playing it.

Unmanned spacecraft end up being much lighter, meaning you can either make a smaller craft to get the same thing done (vs a manned one) or put a lot more junk on it for the same total dry mass.

It is a separate action group that you can set up. It is bound to backspace and the button in the UI. It can be used to jettison a capsule and activate a LES.

I visited KSC last spring. The VAB is waaaay bigger than it looks in any picture. Here's something from the wiki: A truly impressive construction.

There is no such thing as cheating in a non-competitive single player game.

Huh, I never knew Eeloo was bigger than Dres...

Because KSP, especially the jet engines, are far from reality. Pretty much anything you do in KSP is upwards of 10 times more difficult IRL. I recommend taking a look at this comparison and this SSTO design currently in the works.

As with many of my other opinions, whatever makes you happy makes me happy. I personally found that doing everything myself is the best way for me to learn, but if you don't have the time or just aren't interested in flying, go ahead and use autopilot.

Probably everything. I love it so much I couldn't ever pinpoint one aspect.

I probably would have bought it, but the Kerbals do add a nice touch that rounds off an amazing game/

The graphics in KSP fit its style very well. In addition to that: Considering that KSP is a spaceflight "simulator" and it focuses mostly on physics calculations, I would say the graphics are by no means bad. Compared to Orbiter and some other simulations, it is at the top of the line. I have never doubted the graphics, I personally think they're pretty good, but I feel like the resolution of the part textures could be a little better. The graphics hardly ever interfere with game play anyways so I can't complain.

Considering the terrain these rovers are operating on, I just wanted to let the OP know that rover speed is far from F1 or NASCAR. As I said, I don't really like comparing or modeling KSP after real life, but super fast and maneuverable rovers don't really exist or make sense. Not that I'm against fast rovers or anything.

It may have already been answered, but this is how rocket engines (all engines for that matter) are controlled: The throttle controls fuel flow, which in turn controls thrust. So more throttle = more thrust. The thing is that because of the expansion of hot gasses in a conventional engine bell, the thrust generated per unit fuel (Isp) varies at differing atmospheric pressures, or lack thereof. So, IRL, given a constant fuel flow (controlled by throttle) an engine will have a higher thrust in a vacuum than in atmosphere. SQUAD is now changing to this method, rather than throttle directly controlling thrust and fuel flow differing in atmosphere.

I don't like to compare KSP to real life, but rovers don't go fast at all. Curiosity tops off at an impressive 0.04 m/s. So when you complain (I don't mean to be aggressive) about a rover having a top speed of 20 m/s (45 mph) it is far surpassing reality. (That is pretty fast for a small electric motor). Also, you should map the rover controls to the arrow keys. It should be that way buy default, but I guess SQUAD didn't think of that. That way torque and steering are separate.

This DV Map specifies that low orbit is "10Km above atmosphere or clear of obstacles". You should include a few hundred m/s buffer between what the Map says and what your ship has to leave room for error and maneuvers.

You can build as much as you want. The limiter for me is either part count or I simply don't have anything useful (or good looking) to add. As for your lifter problem ADD MOAR BOOSTERS! Use the larger diameter parts or explore new staging methods. There are several heavy lifter threads in the Spacecraft Exchange Last but not least, even though you said you play without mods, I would recommend Kerbal Engineer. You are only holding yourself back by not using it. I used to do Delta V calculations by hand. Kerbal Engineer just allows you to build spacecraft without guesswork.

There are a plethora of tutorials all over the internet. I also would not reccomend having MechJeb fly for you; it is better if you experiment and figure things out yourself. Try some YouTube tutorials or the in-game tutorials. This info graphic may help.

The higher Isp rocket motors have a higher maximum possible Delta V (there is a graph for it somewhere here \/). Really it comes down to: How much Delta V you need What you want your burn times to be like (TWR) If it easier to just go with lighter engines (LV-Ns are heavy)

I think I heard that Squad was going to give the DLC to players who purchased early on (probably before 1.0) for free. As long as that's the case I don't mind. I guess that DLCs should be things that fundamental change the way the game is played, i.e. FAR, so that way it is easy to pick and choose, but again I'm pretty indifferent.

Welcome to the Forums! I don't mean to discourage you, but I would recommend reading the Challenge Submission Guidelines

After watching some YouTube videos, I bought the game. Then I watched some more and started learning. Now I am an expert.

I can't give you any exact coordinates, but I did find some nice spots at the bottom of some craters. I sent rovers with upward facing probe cores first. Flat spots are pretty hard to come by. I would imagine there are some flat"er" places outside of the craters or in the very large ones.