innovine

I've done a rendevous and dock entirely in IVA and map views, stock ksp. I didn't look out the window all that much either, just from a few km out eyeball the range. That was in a perfectly circular equatorial orbit though. I think it might be possible with inclined orbits with a lot of head scratching but I'm not about to try it I'm not sure I could handle getting onto the orbit normal just via the navball, probably end up docking sideways or something. Then again, if you look out the window it might be possible.. I was glued to the navball for my docking.

I made it to Duna, AND BACK, on my very first manned attempt. I had only sent one little probe beforehand, to see if there was an atmosphere and if aerobraking or parachutes would be required. Then I just took a good guess and what I'd need (not a single dv calculation, just eyeballed the size of the rocket).

I think indoor testing of rocket motors tied to bungy cords sounds like a lot more fun.

Way to go with a spoiler, putting it in the subject line. You should be ashamed, and banned.

I don't like the Science points. It's boring, and feels arbitrary and forced, like someone is trying to come up with a Career mode but doesn't really know how to make it fun or how to get it to progress, so they dumped this scoring system on it. It's outstandingly average game design (meaning it's very disappointing, coming from Squad) and it, for me at least, adds absolutely nothing but limitations to an otherwise fun, quirky and deep game. In fact, it kills most of the fun, and frustrates me because instead of figuring out how to fly space missions I'm trying to figure out what Squad think I should do to earn points. The only reason it's difficult to earn points, is because they deliberately left out the instructions on how to score points. I am not playing a space mission in a realistic universe with physics as the obstacles to overcome. Instead, I'm being constantly reminded that I'm playing a game and I need to figure out an opaque game mechanic before I can progress to more of the same. This is not good game design, it's actually quite BAD.

I managed to land Bob on the wrong side of Kerbin, and got the bright idea to create a mission to go get him. I thought I'd do a quick suborbital flight to get there, but since my precision landings aren't, I thought it'd be a good idea to bring a solar powered rover along to cover the remaining distance. This led to a few rover tests at the pad, then a few straight up shots to test the parachutes. I put the rover on the top of the launch vehicle and finally took off, went up and got a suitable trajectory. I detached the rover (it had a command module on it with the Kerbal inside) and I did a spectacular reentry with the rover, parachuted down, and landed 30km from Bob. I was feeling very pleased, and happy that I'd remembered to have two seats on the rover. Then it dawned on me that I'd completely forgotten the return journey and would just have Two Kerbals on the wrong side of the planet. Bah.

So why is mine rolling uphill, if I just disable all the motors? And what is the break key? The key assignments are left, right, and throttle up and down. If there is no throttle, the input settings menu is incorrect. My rover also has solar panels, it clearly says so in my original post. Please read it before replying.

So I just landed my first rover on the Mun and I can't seem to control it's throttle at all. Rover is basically just 4 wheels stuck to a metal plate, some solar panels and a kerbal in a control seat. I was using WASD until I realized it was also pitching the rover, so following a tip on the wiki, I remapped the rover controls to numpad 8456. I can use 4 and 6 to turn left and right, but here's the thing, no amount of 8 and 5 change the throttle. It's like 8 and 5 have no effect at all. I think the throttle is stuck on at a low amount, as my rover just starts off rolling and picks up some speed and actually rolls up some hills. I have been unable to stop it from moving (I just end up rolling it and exploding). I can even disable the motor for all 4 wheels and it keeps on going... I am in some hilly terrain which makes it hard to see the horizontal, but I drove for a while in one direction and did a 180 and drove all the way back, so I don't think I'm rolling downhill! I don't have SAS or ASAS enabled. Please help!

It would be awesome to have an aimable antenna, and when you point it to kerbin (or a relay satellite) you start to hear radio chatter. Have the chatter fade away again as the antenna drifts off target

My first landing was a bit hard, and one leg of the lander broke off. The lander fell over onto its side and landed on the door, obstructing it. My second lander touched down softly, but due to a last minute redesign which hadnt been tested, the poor kerbal discovereo that the ladder blockeo the door and prevented it from opening. My first landing on duna went well, and my kerbal managed to get out the door. I was just thinking of some first words when he tripped on a bend in the ladder and faceplanted into the dirt Ksp is awesome!

I wouldn't mind having little canisters that would pop open and release little poodles or chihuahuas into the vacuum of space. They could wiggle and get bulgy eyes, before they pop. For, uh, science purposes.

You should be allowed to use animals in your crew roster, just like kerbals but with reduced mass. And salary. And possibly higher stupidity too.

It would be awesome to discover some new asteroid or comet or small moon, and get to name it!

The Apollo program lunar lander was never really tested.. it's flight capabilities were tested in LEO but it's landing capability wasn't really tested. I strongly dislike the idea of computer simulations. A wind tunnel would be good, as would some kind of bungie cord from the roof to 'simulate' low gravity, but I think it should be really primitive, rather than a high-fidelity sim. Just more fun isn't it I get a lot of playtime by lofting my re-entry, land and re-ascend vehicles up to 10km and parachute down, do rover activity and fly up and away again. Its cool to not really know for sure if it will work somewhere other than Kerbin, but still try to come up with a test program on Kerbin. Please don't remove that challenge by offering me a simulator. Plus, a good sim is more or less the same as just teleporting to your destination over and over and re-doing the landing until you get it right. If you are instead forced to launch, rendevous, refuel, navigate, arrive and begin a descent EVERY TIME, you sure as hell have a lot more riding on it, making the first time somewhere new very exciting indeed. I think sims would reduce that tension by far too much.

I suggest you link to the original discussion instead. It had a lot more debate and viewpoints, and a lot less bickering. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/43712-Kerbal-RCS-strength