vetrox

I really want to invest in a new telescope. Mines ok but i want more focal length. I observe planets far more than i do Deep space stuff. Plus more focal length would make taking pictures so much easier but i spend too much money on cars so I dont have any left for my poor telescope At least when i do get new scope all the eye pieces and filters I have invested in can just be used with the new one so I only have to pay for the scope itself. I think all my attachments probably cost more than the scope

Makes RSS alot easier to play without mods. On standard ksp yes they do feel nice and meaty but that has been a godsend. Now i Have a "1 lifter fits all" and i can concentrate on the actual mission plan/objective instead of spending hours designing a new lifter stage. Maybe we are all so used to the mainsail being the most powerfull engine but those who use alot of mods wont find them very different to what is available in mod packs. The only criticism I have is the isp of the new engines. Depending on my payload I end up having this super powerfull high isp engine for nice short injection burns to the outer planets. I think they should alter the isp ever so slightly

Does KER take the mass of the asteroid into account?

Whats wrong with using air intakes to mount engines radially?

I Discovered a flaw with my 'roid tug last night Anyone else spot the issue

Its quite easy to get the qualifications to get the bigger off the shelf motors. Its basically a case of proving you can make and launch a rocket safely with said motors. I dont have the links to hand but check out the UK rocketry asociation. I think you can find out about it all from there. If you can weld and have money to hire a machinist then you can make wahtever you want. The only thing you cant do in the uk with regards to model and amatuer rocketry is make your own fuel as its illegal to make explosives without the correct licensing. You could buy 1ton of kn03 and just put it in your garage to sit there and look pretty (ok maybe not, im just trying to make a point), the moment you combine it with sugar you turn into a criminal. You are permitted to make 100g I believe (dont quote me in court as im just some internet guy) as an "experiment" but thats about it.. Theres plenty of places to launch them in the uk. Just find your closest rocket club. Buying off the shelf motors isnt the end of the world though. If your still interested in building a rocket from scratch then you still get to design the motor mounts and the various bits and bobs of the rocket. The big advantage with off the shelf motors is they are produced to be reliable and give reliable performance that you can measure. This meas you will be able to calculate flight times and dv etc with reasonable precision. If you do want to make hybrid motors then you dont need a phd in engineering. You will need some basic engineering knowhow and a little extra cash to splash but if your really interested in the ins and outs theres plenty of info out there. All a hybrid motor is, in its simplist form, is 2 tanks connected by a valve. You dont need to make your own oxidiser tank for example. Just grab an old nitrouse oxide bottle and work that into your design, it may be heavy as **** but its all part of the fun of trial and error! Its like ksp but for realz

N body physics just sounds like a big waste of time for ksp. The whole point in ksp is that its almost a pick up and play. All you really need to get started is the tutorials that teach you how to get off the ground and what pe/ap are. add n-body physics and you have to start doing crazy calculations and tedious planning. Its all well and good making the game super realistic but this turns it into less of a game and more a pure simulator such as orbiter. KS, from a physics perspective, does its job well, it teaches you the basic principles of spaceflight and still allows you to enjoy yourself. Personally n body just sounds like an idea that sounds good but is probably boring, and tedious and boring as **** for an actual game. its like trying not to fast travel in skyrim. It sounds like an awesome super cool roleplay/realism idea but after the first few trips across skyrim on foot, u soon get bored and activate fast travel again. It would deffo need to be a toggleable option. Then all the elitists could shoot everyone who doesnt enable it down.

Ive watched the first few episodes and im impressed on how far you have got with stock engines. Its not my cup of tea playing rss with stock engines because I dont like the hideous looking craft it forces you to make but you have done so well. its also nice to watch a ksp series with plenty of commentary. Thumbs up. I will stick to my kw rocketry rockets though. Plus with the kw you get to build rockets taller than the vab which is always fun. Send a probe to jupiter next for me :-) and if u find a jupiter texture to replace jool, please let me know. Rss gives the best views :-)

Game is hard. I go through phases. Ksp definatley isnt my goto game but at 400 hours I think I have had my moneys worth. And when I take breaks from other games I have a habbit of spending a few hours on ksp send a rover here, mine some kethane there. I rarley find the need to mod the hell out of the game and I've yet to need to edit configs. The most mods I ever had at one time was 7. I do wish they had an inbuilt mod manager and a launcher (I use ateam) such as the one skyrim uses and u just subscribe to your desired mod and the launcher deals with updates and what not (this maybe incorporated into spaceport 2

Well just to end pc cost versus console cost etc

So a quote from myself from an earlier thread Although the above is just a random suggestion but overall what I would love to see from future updates to the career is something like the above. Any experiment could be accepted really but the experiments should add the necesity for more EVA and rover use (which tbh you can quite happily play without). A reason to actually explore planets and get out of your ship rather than just right click and get science. A really nice bonus that could be achieved from these more in depth experiments would be learning some of the physical properties of the bodies in the kerbol system. Being able to lean about the different surface compositions and chemicals that make up the atmosphere. Although this data could be completley made up. It would certainly add some more nerdy discussion in the forums such as "why is x planet so hot if its atmosphere is made up of y". Im sure the more qualified members of the community would be able to give some input to this type of stuff. So to summarise. More in depth experiments (doesnt have to be silly in depth) leads to more EVA/rover purpose and a reason to explore the planets. Feel free to agree or disagree or even make your own suggestions. They dont need to be anything crazy in depth but something to add to the "lore" of the kerbol system and make gameplay more immersive and sciency.

Neither option really excites me. However If i had to choose one it would be multiplayer. I'm quite content with the kerbol system. The planet factory mod and Real solar system are plenty to keep me occupied should i get bored of standard ksp.

This is what I mean. You dont by any means need a gaming pc to play ksp but it just baffles me (im not trying to insult anyone here. Its just me because I'm used to always haveing a moderatley capable pc) that people try to play games on run of the mill laptops. I can understand that you want to play ksp because its awesome but my backwards brain cant comprehend people trying to play games on office spec laptops.To br fair the only thing keeping most laptops back is the lack of a GPU. "gaming"laptops are just regular laptops with a GPU stuffed in. With desktops its slightly different because even with one of the crummy pc's here at work, I could just pop down to maplins and buy a cheap £30-£50 graphics card and plug it in. Its a shame laptops dont have this option I have a friend who used to try and play dota with me but all he had was a basic laptop and had a choice of running dota or running skype but not both. A half decent pc costs about the same as a console (excluding the display) With regards to the original post. This is the sort of effect that would deffinatley have the option to enable or disable so if it was implemented I wouldnt worry about your pc struggling. However its not something that should have dev time allocated to it yet. Maybe one day in the distant future Squad will release and optional high res texture pack that comes with all sorts of eye candy goodies so those with the more powerfull rigs can take advantage of it without alienating those on lower spec machines. Kind of like how Skyrim has a sexy high res texture pack.

+1 this has bugged me for a while.

Dammit, and there i was the last 5 years with my 4 gigs of ram thinking everything was fine and dandy IMO the only thing that matters if all you want to do is play ksp is a CPU with the highest clock you can get your hands on. KSP Thrives on raw clock speed RE graphics cards. If you dont want to run all the top tier games at full whack then you can get away with a nvidia 660/760 or maybe less. KSP would probably run on a 440 quite happily (or the AMD equivelent of any of these) HDD is totally irrelivent in the grand scheme of things. I would rather have a 5TB RAID setup as I'm not fussed about loading times but that is totally personal preference Sure I may have to replace them at some point...maybe but by the time that happens I will probably need an upgrade anyway.

Heh, I kinda like that. Its not essential but I quite like it. However, I do spend an awefull lot of time staring at the nav ball when my engines are running. Maybe in V1.01 I've noticed alot of people on this forum seem to be trying to play ksp on basic laptops and to be fair KSP isnt exactly GPU intensive. One could argue that "gamers" will always have a capable rig. Whilst graphics certainly dont make a game, they do add a consideral amount of immersion. Wouldnt you love it if ksp looked like Space engine (if your pc could handle it)

Wow, someone on the internet i agree with!?!? Theres so many biomes, each with experiments. A good option is to reduce either, the number of biomes or the amount of science per biome whilst simaltaniously reducing the amount of times you can do an experiment in a biome (personally I think twice would be enough) I also had a thought. We could do with some more interactive experiments. Just as an example (made up on the spot whilst i sit here at work at 7:00am after getting in at 4am last night after alot of booze) packing onto the side of your ship 3 seismic detectors which you have to setup in a triangle of a certain size with each point being 1km apart and then detonating some sort of explosive in the middle for the sensors to detect and then getting an actual reading so we can learn actual physical properties about a planets surface. This would add a whole new layer to things. Think about it, more EVA interaction, a use for rovers, a purpose to exploring the surface, the decision to take a rover with you or just huff it on foot. Again, I refer to Take on:Mars as whn you finish a contract on that you get a little insight to some of mars's properties.

Welcome to RSS. I am unable to watch vids at the moment (stupid new phone contract and its uselessness) but can i just ask if you are using stock parts or have you used the realism overhaul? It looks like you started out with mostly stock parts but theres a few modded parts I can make out from the youtube thumbnails. Stock parts are not even close to the sort of stuff RSS needs On my RSS gameplay (BTW the views you get with RSS are way better than stock sized ksp) I use KW rocketry and its still a challenge. I only use the one mod pack though as its balanced to itself, rather than grabbing engines and tanks from every which way. With RSS you really do need those 3.75m parts. I will take a look at these vids as soon as I.T get to work and give mer the damn wifi password If you like IVA piloting (like me) then take a look at rasterpropmoniter (link pending).

Rasterpropmoniter has alot of what your looking for (i believe) but its an IVA mod

Theres alot of things in the OP that I dont really agree with and I'm not even going to bother getting involved in the probes vs manned which comes first argument. One problem I have noticed is probably with the actual players themselves than with the career. The need to harvest every biome for all its science instead of sending ships out of kerbin SOI is more harmfull IMO than the lack of "stuff to do". I've only played career mode a couple of times but I didnt feel the need to squeeze every point of science out of every biome before moving onto the next. I was under the impression that once you had landed on a body and done some science and left, that it wasnt worth coming back so after I unlocked skippers i went straight to duna (which was one of the more fun missions I have done in ksp. If anything, you should be forced to only be able to do the same experiment once or twice to force players to explore the system. Admittedly all it boils down too is building a craft with sufficient dv to go to x and back but players are farming up the entire tech tree within kerbin SOI and then wonder what to do because they have completed the career. You should be forced to goto other planets before completing the whole tech tree. Again this may be fixed with the advent of moneys I do think that there need to be other "gameplay" elements (such as the sort of contracts you get in Take on: Mars) as lets face it, space travel (if we remove the IRL problems we face such as parts failure and expendable human life) is pretty mundane. You fly somewhere, land, right click "do science" and go home. When was the last time a player spent more than 10 minutes in career mode exploring the surface of a body? The long term laythe colony thread/story has given me and alot of others some insperation but I hope that eventually that sort of exploration should be required to advance in career (e.g you need to map out a section of continent after which you can name said continent and see its various properties, should resources be implemented) This is something that I never really thought about and is probably the reason career mode gameplay is somewhat stagnant for the more experienced players. Its just so easy to put everything on one ship and quite litteraly add moar boosters. I expect when currency is introduced this will change drastically I hope. If you get a chance to play with the rss mod, that is a good insight into how challenging it should eb to get to orbit. Every ton matters (and in career mode there really needs to be that feeling of "do i take another ton of fuel...or another science experiment") when your running a real sized system. Its still just a case of getting a reliable lifter design sorted but theres just something satisfying about making it into orbit every time. On normal sized kerbin the task of getting into orbit is so mundane and DV comes in abundance. I realise this is a comprimise for difficulty and performance puroposes.

Thats one fine looking command module you have in the items tab...

I disagree that the hawken mechs feel like hulking robots. They are too nimble. Mechwarrior is the only way (i never got a chance to play that xbox game with the massive controller and the vertical tanks...I love that name) legs that move independantly of the body? madness.

Omg ...when someone asks me about ksp i'm just going to throw this gif at them. KSP is definatley up there with my all time favourite games. Its something that you can always come back to especially with the vast modding community that is out there. I also like the fact that its a thinking mans game (ok you can have fun without thinking in ksp) It makes a nice change and I think people who play it are surprised at how inacurate other space games are. # So my list of all time great games that my childeren must play now includes ksp even if its just to teach them basic physics. This game is the epitome of "learning can be fun"

I expect risk is reduced as much as possible. Regarding this particular incident though, whos to say the staff involved didnt see it as a high risk. They know now that it was really bad but it didnt start out with them thinking "****, big time water leak he is deffo gonna die...lets carry o anyway.The inward opening hatch on apollo 1 wasnt seen as a risk...nor the pure oxygen yet here we are

Any form of space travel brings a big risk. We are just lucky nasa is able to carry on after the various tragedies that have happened. Loss of life is going to happen during space exploration. As long as we do as much as we can thats fine but people will die in our persuit of space exploration. We will be very lucky if no one dies during a mars trip and the training leading up to it. What this article should really have you thinking about is 'will nasa learn from this and make sure it doesnt happen again' As long as we learn from these mistakes (and any loss of life) then its nothing to be up in arms about. Just because nasa ****ed up doesnt give you the right to start slating their competence.