Search the Community

Sometimes making things is hard. Having the creativity to come up with something like a base that looks practical but is really functional can be difficult, but. If everyone shared there designs here, it would be the perfect place to get inspiration for just that, feel free to post your bases here! (bases of any size are welcome, stock or modded) Image stolen from google. (https://www.google.com/search?q=ksp+epic+base&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB976GB976&sxsrf=AJOqlzVsT1L1PJ5evKdNX6rhPpg4eXK19w:1679427456752&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisivHn4u39AhXtTEEAHfknBrUQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=2560&bih=1297&dpr=1#imgrc=RENVE0Tloo72OM)

Introduction This mod allows you to build any vessel directly in orbit or on a surface of any planet from a DIY (Do It Yourself) Kit that contains all the high-tech components, needed equipment and blueprints, using only raw materials produced on-site, energy and kerbal workforce. The major benefit of the Ground Construction is that it allows you to build big, heavy, asymmetrical contraptions that aren’t meant to fly at all. Buildings, or even blocks of buildings; heavy rovers; huge rockets held by launch clamps — all this could be built with Ground Construction anywhere on any planet. In addition to construction from DIY Kits you can construct the kits themselves, allowing you to build a fully independent colony or space base. Also, if you're building a space station, you can build new segments docked to the station directly, without docking ports. Features Build anything: any ship, spaceplane, or really any construction you come up with in Editor. Even with launch clamps! Build anywhere, on the surface or in orbit: the assembled ship will appear right where you've placed/docked the Kit. Expand your space stations by building new segments docked directly to it. No docking ports required. Build DIY Kits themselves: make you colony independent, produce your own kits from scratch using blueprints and raw materials. Background operation: fly other missions while construction takes place on a far-away planet. Days, even weeks may be required to build something complex, but you don’t have to babysit your workers. Wireless transfers: fill the assembled ship with resources and crew before you launch it using dedicated UI. Centralized UI for progress tracking and fast switching to construction sites. See for yourself Magnetic Forklift Incremental Station Construction with GC Global Construction Ground Construction 2 - Independence Day! Introduction to Ground Construction v1 (legacy) Requirements ModuleManager CommunityResourcePack AT_Utils (already included) This includes the core components of ConfigurableContainers And its game content, located in GameData/ConfigurableContainers/Parts subfolder. Note, that it can be safely removed. Downloads Spacedock is the main download site for releases GitHub have sources (MIT), assets (CCBY-4.0) and also releases CKAN is supported How it works First, you need a simple mining operation already running near the spot where you want to build something. So you need: a Drill, an ISRU, some storage tanks for Ore, Material Kits and any other stuff that you want/need to supply the newly built ship with; a Workshop and, last but not least, kerbal engineers that will build things. Second, you need to assemble the DIY Kit with required materials (good luck with finding enough Blutonium for RTG on Minmus), tools and components. This is, fortunately, the simplest thing: in Editor you have a special part, namely the DIY Kit Container, which allows you to “load” any previously created and saved ship inside of it. The container is automatically resized to fit its contents, which are much more compact and weight much less than the original ship. Third, you need to attach this container to a carrier or store it in a hold of a cargo ship and fly it across the Void to the construction site. Then, all that’s left is to summon the control UI of the Workshop, deploy the DIY Kit, add it to the construction queue and order the kerbals to work (day and night, no holidays, no weekends!). Forth, when your base is mature enough, you can start your own Kit production. Getting technical How a ship is converted into a DIY Kit In Editor, you add the DIY Kit Container part to the carrier you’re building. In its part menu select “Select Vessel” to open the standard vessel selection dialog. Once selected, the ship is loaded into the Kit as follows: For each part of a ship, its complexity is calculated as a function of dry mass, cost and number of modules the part carries. The complexity determines the fraction of part’s dry mass that could be manufactured from Metals. Most resources are stripped away. The exceptions are: Solid Fuel, Ablator, all non-tweakable resources (cannot be transferred) and resources with zero density (EC, for one). Everything that’s left is packed into the Kit. Thus, a set of Part Kits is produced, which (along with the blueprint of the ship) constitutes the contents of a DIY Kit. A DIY Kit usually weights much less than a ship that is constructed from it, but, except for the resources, costs almost the same. How a DIY Kit is converted back into the (new) ship First of all, you need to land the kit somewhere on a flat surface, and, preferably, detach it from the carrier. For that DIY Kit Containers are equipped with their own simple decoupling mechanism, which is located on the top side, marked with yellow arrows. Then you need to Deploy the Kit. This could be done by a kerbal in an EVA suit or remotely from a nearby Workshop. A deploying kit detaches any part that is still attached to it, then gradually “grows” (imagine that kerbals assemble working scaffolds inside the box) until it have the size of the ship that will be constructed; then it is attached to the surface, so it cannot be moved any more. It doesn’t matter how the Kit was oriented. As far as it lies on one of its sides, the deployment dimensions and the orientation of the launched vessel will be automatically chosen to correspond to the surface. A deployed Kit can be processed by a nearby workshop with kerbals, but there are some limitations: The workshop should be at most 300m away. The kerbals that will be working on the Kit should be inside the Workshop, not in other parts of the same vessel. These kerbals should be engineers. Scientists or pilots don’t count. The skill level and number of workers do count: a 5-star engineer works literally as much as five 1-star ones. And five 5-star engineers perform spontaneous miracles. The distance from the Workshop to the Kit affects construction efficiency and, consequently, the time needed. So it’s best to make Workshops mobile and get as close to the Kit as possible. The amount of free space per kerbal inside the Workshop also affects efficiency: a small compartment with a place for a single kerbal may be more efficient than a big one packed with two dozen passenger chairs. Note 1: the crewable parts that have Workshop capability have the “Ground Workshop” module (could be seen in part’s extended tooltip in Editor), which shows the efficiency of that part. Note 2: the efficiency of any generic habitat is capped at 50%. To be more efficient you need to use the provided Mobile Workshop part and build a rover with it. If you want to benefit from background construction, you need to make sure you have enough power and Metals to work with, as resources are not generated in the background. When the Kit is complete, you can “wirelessly” transfer resources and crew to it from the Workshop using dedicated UI. Then you can Launch the assembled ship, which will appear at the exact place where the Kit was. Acknowledgments My patrons on Patreon. Thank you for your support! Kevin Casey Bob Palmer Ryan Rasmussen Matthew Zaleski Bart Blommaerts eL.Dude Layne Benofsky Igor Zavoychinskiy Issarlk Meiyo BP Jenna Mitchell Squiddy Ted Achenbach SCESW Patrice Hédé Steve Victory

I've been thinking; warfare in KSP2 using mods and multiplayer would be awesome, much more so than in KSP1. In KSP1 you need a lot of mods if you want to play war. You need mods to make bases and cities, you need mods like BDArmory so you can actually fight, and if you're not doing it alone you'll need a multiplayer mod. Most of the time the fighting only happens on Kerbin, and when its in space its usually role play and not strategy based. With the new base system in KSP2 and stock multiplayer, you won't need nearly as much mods, but playing war will (most likely) work much differently. Not only can you fight on other planets without needing to haul weapons and vehicles across space, but you can fight each other's bases and fight for control over parts of a planet/moon, or fight for total control over the whole thing. Imagine scouting a planet for a good spot to place a strategic base! Maybe you've found a good canyon and you can put a fighter base at the base of a cliff, or you have a tall point of land that you place a fort on to protect the nearby area. It'll be fun to play war in KSP2 less as role play but actual strategy in multiplayer. When a weapons mod eventually comes to KSP2, playing war in multiplayer would be very fun IMO CLARIFICATION: I'm not saying stock KSP2 should have weapons and some kind of focus on warfare. That should be delegated solely to mods and how you yourself play KSP.

I'd like to see some of the coolest rockets anyone has designed! I'm new to KSP and I'd like to see cool thing other people have made just for an example to me of how creative you can get!

Shhhh... You can procure it here... Have you wanted a base for landing huge planes? Are you running your own Kerbal Security Program? ...or do you just want to feel like a James Bond villain? Well, this series of bases are for you! Included in this release is 'The Block' a Top Secret base hidden on an unpopulated forgotten island somewhere in the southern hemisphere. The base's real name is unknown and if you ask anyone there what its name is they'll just stare at you blankly. Also included is 'Kilo-Sierra-Papa' Airbase. Here someone locked up an artifact in one of the hangers. No one is allowed in, or is allowed to know what is stored in there. No one but Jeb... This has been a little project in the making for over a year. I put it on the back burner until 1.1 was released. This release includes: 'The Block' 'Kilo-Sierra-Papa' 2 Types of Hangers (Click the Far Right Stripe to Open/Close the Doors) 2 Types of Control Towers Light Tower Radar Station Fuel Tanks Helipads also... very Top Secret extras. Coming Soon: Bulwark Air Station, KHAARP Dependencies: Kerbal Konstructs you can get it here. Issues: Lift and Hanger door animations are a little broken due to changes in new animation code (KSP vs Kerbal Konstructs) hopefully there will be a solution soon. FIXED! Cameras get stuck on the top of the hangers if you zoom out too far, this is a trait dealing with statics in KSP. I made the hangers large enough to allow some room for the camera. Change Log: 1.0.11: Hot fix for the radar animation. 1.0.1: Fixed the lift and hanger door animations. Added fuel tanks, Kilo-Sierra-Papa Airbase, and a few more extras. 1.0: Initial release Credit: Special thank you goes to AlphaAsh for his help, support, his work on Kerbal Konstructs, and the shiney 'Top Secret' banner on the Kerbal Konstructs page. A thank you to Lack for letting me use his models as long as I gave him credit. Although, this was about a year ago, I hope he remembers. Wind sock and palm trees are by Lack, approach lights are based off of his original model. License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The buoyant force works not only from the liquids, but also from the gases. So how possible is to build bases on the level of gases with density equal density of the base? The density of atmosphere at the sea level on the Earth and on the Kerbin ~ 1.25 kg/m3 . So if we need to reach the density level like water, we need to reach the depth when pressure is equal 800 atm. What do you think about this? I think that it's impossible, because pressure must be 80000000 kPa, but the pressure limit for all details is only 4000 kPa. And also it would be impossible to take off from this depth because pressure is unbelievable and I think that the atmosphere altitude would be about 1-3M KM. P.S. That was written by Russian student that study in 8 class. Maybe I don't know some physics laws.

So, i'm trying to make a Mun base. But i'm having i big problem with the question of assembling of the parts. My plan is make a rover to assemble the parts. I build the prototipe of the rover, but i'm can't dock with the parts without using brute force. Align the docking ports of the modules of the base with the docking port of the assembler rover will need of a really lot of tests. And when i dock with some module, when i retract the landing legs of the module, the weight of the module make the rover topple, and drive the rover with some module with the landing legs extended will be a very long mission. So, if you have a opinion about how i can fix that problem, post here.

Some people like to build ships, others submarines, even others dream of a base on the bottom of the ocean. We all know building ships is incredibly easy, much too easy in fact. Building a sub or a base, that's a different story. We need to make them excessively heavy using lots of ore tanks. So I started to look at most parts and their buoyancy values. The game uses a formula which, as far as I can tell, involves basic part mass, density/mass of resource(s), volume and funny enough, sometimes surface area instead of volume. More about that later. The most striking conclusion from these tests is that there's no logic behind most of these parts. This can be solved by testing each part and adding a simple line to the part.cfg: buoyancy = 0 (or whatever value seems plausible, sometimes even negative values are needed). Parts I haven't included in the tests: Command pods/cores, I think we can all agree these parts need to float. Fuel tanks/SRB's. While most tanks are too buoyant, changing their buoyancy values would need some/lots of math and unfortunately I'm unable to do these calculations. However, I think we can all agree empty fuel tanks should be the source of buoyancy for all ships. Cargo bays - tricky subject. I feel they're much too buoyant but we might need to discuss this further. Maybe closed cargo bays (contents occluded) should be very buoyant, open they should sink. This can't be changed with adding a single parameter, my guess some code would need to change. One heavy offender is the MK3 cargo ramp ... you lower the ramp and instead of sinking, pushes the rest up. Wing parts. We all know they float, to the absurd. While I can see the logic of wings with empty fuel tanks floating, the rest should not. Structural parts like I-beams, girders and panels. We know they sink. Due to a problem with Imgur, I'm unable to include all pictures at the moment. More will come later. Test 1: engines. There are multiple offenders in this category. Some sink to the bottom as expected, others float like maniacs. The ones that float are the Goliath Rhino Panther Whiplash Terrier Mainsail Poodle Skipper Puff. Test 2: structural & control parts. Almost all of them have excessive buoyancy. All SAS modules float which is odd, heavy metal wheels inside a small enclosure. The Fly-by-Wire avionics hub floats, maybe it's logical because it's just electronics and almost works like a probe core. All adapters for rockets float as if their lives depend on it. Same with the MK3 engine mount. The structural pylon floats (0.2t), curiously enough the small hardpoint (0.05t) sinks. The Mk1 structural fuselage floats like bricks do not. The Rockomax Hubmax floats which is odd, 1.5t and such a small volume, considering all the internal reinforcements needed for station building. The cubic and octagonal struts float. Test 3: docking ports and decouplers. This is a mixed bag without any logic. All standard docking ports float. Looking at the fact in real life they're just doors without a volume, very peculiar. All Clamp-o-Trons float excessively. The 3.75m and 2.5m decouplers float, the others sink. The 2.5m and 0.625m separators sink, the 1.25m floats. The Claw floats like something out of a movie, barely touches the water. The TT38K radial decoupler floats as well ... odd. Test 4: nose cones, air intakes, fairing bases and fairings. Some very odd results here. A real life nose cone is hollow and open and would therefore sink. All nose cones in KSP, because they're not hollow, float like it's a horror movie. But let's forget that collider at the bottom. They should sink. Same story with the tail connectors. All air intakes float. Odd. Just hollow tubes made out of metal with some internal guidance for air. They should sink. All fairing bases float. Again against all logic. A complete fairing floats but is so happy it even bounces up and down. A decoupled fairing does what it's supposed to: it sinks. Test 5: Wheels & legs. Once again strange results. Of the retractable landing gear department, the LY10 and LY35 sink, the others float, both barely touching the water and exposing their naked parts towards the sky. Yuck. When I did the test again with wheels retracted, both the LY10 and LY35 became torpedoes, pointing straight down and traveling with speeds over 20m/s. The others stayed at the surface. Both non retractables float. All rover wheels except the S2 float. Only the LT-05 landing strut sinks ... but only when extended (?) Test 6: thermal. Strange results? You guessed right! So I mentioned earlier the buoyancy calculation sometimes takes in account surface area instead of volume. Look at what we have here. Of the normal heat shields only the 0.625m sinks, but not without ablator. The expandable heat shield sinks like a stone when closed however it makes a pretty good life raft when open. All fixed radiators float. Odd. Metal filled with coolant. They should sink. The deployable radiators are even weirder. The smallest one sinks, the medium just falls apart and the big one floats. When deployed, the small one floats, the medium still falls apart and the big one points straight up and starts bouncing off the water until it falls apart as well. I guess radiators are really allergic to water. Not a pretty sight. I don't recommend it. Test 7: electrics. Once again, no logic. All batteries float. Ever seen a floating battery? Me neither. Except a lemon. Also a potato. All solar panels float. It's magic, really. The fuel cell sinks but ... the fuel cell array floats! At least the RTG sinks. Test 8: comms & science Yep, no logic. All dishes except the 88-88, the DTS-M1 and the small antennae float. Both ore scanners float excessively. All experiments except the Mystery Goo and the Double-C, float. The lab floats but maybe too much. The science container shouldn't sink ... and guess what: it doesn't. Test 9: utilities. Realm of fantasy. Both drills. They float. Seriously. Both ISRU's float. The extendable ladders float. The short ladder however, sinks. The lamps float. All crew modules are excessively buoyant, especially the MK2. The launch escape system floats. The parachutes are the weirdest: the MK16-XL and MK25 float, the radials and MK16 sink with the MK12-R having the speed record: 28m/s! So ... what's the next step? In the future I'll update this post with adjusted values for all parts to make things ... a little bit more realistic and most of all: fun. If/when we all agree, I'll offer them to Squad.

I'm starting up a YouTube channel soon, and I'm looking for some ideas, specifically space stations and bases, but you can show me anything, because I can use anything. In advance, thank you.

I'm new here, Steam says I've played for 13 hours at this point. I'm not playing now because my sinuses have overridden higher brain functions, so please pardon me if this post is lacking in literary or logical content. Planetary bases are, from what I've read, one of the few points that KSP falls short on. Orbital stations seem to be fairly well fleshed out, so I would like to see if there's any player or dev interest in letting us build functional, aesthetically pleasing bases on the ground. Anyone here play Subnautica? If so, then you know what I'm looking for. Well, aside from the magical gun that shoots base parts out based on what mats you have on your person... I'm not expecting a radical change in the direction KSP plays, so initial parts would have to be delivered to the planet/satellite where you want your base. I'd like it if there were refining and manufacturing modules that players could land, then take their rovers out to find materials to refine (bases not just for fuel any more!) and construct more base parts to add on. Additional missions could be generated to bring rare minerals back to Kerbin, etc. But emergent gameplay aside, I would really like to see bases that look like bases, and Subnautica has what I consider to be very good examples. Well, I was trying to find some examples of people actually building a smallish base, or maybe even a medium one, but all of the base building videos I looked at were some ADHD Twitch streamers doing everything BUT building a base for the first 45 minutes. Still, you can see from the extravaganzas above what I'm after.

Want some new bases on Kerbin? First, backup GameData and saves. You know the drill. Then go look at the downloads and get what you want. DEPENDENCIES Say thanks by donating? Want to say thanks for the mod with hard cash, wonga, dosh etc.? All donations go to the caffeine fund. INCLUDES Kerbin-Side Core, Kerbin-Side MainBases, Kerbin-Side Ground Control, Kerbin-Side Kampus, Kerbin-Side Skyways, Kerbin-Side KSC2 and Kerbin-Side Air-Race Last Update: 6th May 2016 | Version: 1.1.0 | Requires: Kerbal Konstructs Download from Alpha Strike Games | Download from SpaceDock Want to launch from somewhere other than KSC? Grab KerbinSide, install it and then look for the KK icon in the VAB or SPH. Click that. Click a launch site. Launch! KerbinSide uses the Kerbal Konstructs mod to add a number of new bases to Kerbin. Helipads, runways, launch sites and more. Please note that Kerbal Konstructs is NOT included. You'll need to get that separately. Last Update: 22nd April 2016 | Version: 1.1.2 | Requires: Kerbal Konstructs Download from Alpha Strike Games | Download from SpaceDock Kerbin-Side KSC2 is a supplement for Kerbin-Side but it can also standalone. The original Kerbal Space Center, sometimes referred to as 'The Old KSC' is updated into a large spaceplane base with two runways. The old launchpad is available for rocket-launches again as well. Please note that Kerbal Konstructs is NOT included. You'll need to get that separately. Last Update: 22nd April 2016 | Version: 1.1.2 | Requires: Kerbal Konstructs Download from Alpha Strike Games | Download from SpaceDock Kerbin-Side Kampus is a supplement for Kerbin-Side but it can also standalone. Operational hangars, apartments and a business park are added to your KSC. You can utilise these new facilities in a career game through the Inflight Base Boss of Kerbal Konstructs. Please note that Kerbal Konstructs is NOT included. You'll need to get that separately. Last Update: 22nd April 2016 | Version: 1.7.1 | Requires: Kerbal Konstructs Download from Alpha Strike Games | Download from SpaceDock Kerbin-Side Air-Race is a supplement for Kerbin-Side but it can also standalone. Adds three air-racing tracks, one near KSC and two others close to bases from Kerbin-Side. Kerbal Konstructs includes support for time-trial air-racing. Please note that Kerbal Konstructs is NOT included. You'll need to get that separately. Last Update: 24th April 2016 | Version: 0.3.1 | Requires: Kerbal Konstructs Download from Alpha Strike Games | Download from SpaceDock Ground-Control is a supplement for KerbinSide, but it can also stand-alone. It makes use of the latest features of Kerbal Konstructs to update some of the facilities provided by KerbinSide, so that they can function as tracking stations, and as receivers for communications from vessels in the Kerbol system, using an inflight Downlink. Please note that Kerbal Konstructs is NOT included. You'll need to get that separately. Last Update: 23rd May 2016 | Version: 1.0.3 | Requires: Kerbal Konstructs Download from Alpha Strike Games | Download from SpaceDock A stream-lined set of core assets and bases, providing basic airstrips and helipads scattered across Kerbin, with about a quarter of the RAM foot-print of the complete KerbinSide. Includes runways, helipads, control towers, hangars, taxiways, fuel tanks and radar stations. Please note that Kerbal Konstructs is NOT included. You'll need to get that separately. Last Update: 22nd April 2016 | Version: 1.3 | Requires: Kerbal Konstructs Download from Alpha Strike Games | Download from SpaceDock Just the static assets. None of the bases. If you want the bases, you want Kerbin-Side Complete, not this. If you don't want to learn how to use the Kerbal Konstructs editing tools, you want Kerbin-Side Complete, not this. For use if you don't want the bases included in Kerbin-Side but you do want the static assets to make your own bases for your own personal use OR you make and distribute bases using the assets in Kerbin-Side; you point to this as a requirement for your base pack OR you've been pointed to KerbinSide Core as a requirement for a base pack you want to use. Please note that Kerbal Konstructs is NOT included. You'll need to get that separately. Last Update: 28th April 2016 | Version: 2.1 | Requires: Kerbal Konstructs & Contract Configurator Download from Alpha Strike Games | Download from SpaceDock Adds several contracts for transporting kerbals to, from and between the bases in Kerbin-Side, usually with a visit to or close to spaaaace!. Also adds the first four missions of a campaign revolving around ancient places on Kerbin, with espionage and intrigue in spaaaace! Intercept an unregistered satellite. Escort an informant to KSC. And more! Many. Check back regularly.

So I'm trying to set up an interplanetary transport system between Kerbin and Moho, and my plan is to have a large tanker refuel the interplanetary ship at Moho. It requires 10,000 units of LiquidFuel to Low Moho orbit, so I'm using a large Mk3 fuel tank. My plan was to land the tanker near a mining base, and move it using a rover. The problem is, the tanker is so heavy, even when empty, that the rover can barely move, and goes at 0.5 m/s up slightly inclined hills on Moho. Does anyone have any suggestions for how I could do this better? https://1drv.ms/i/s!Ag6H0m7Hg8jmgrJ26CD_EbCQaWxvQA https://1drv.ms/i/s!Ag6H0m7Hg8jmgrJ44EK5T1iLzQVsag https://1drv.ms/i/s!Ag6H0m7Hg8jmgrJ44EK5T1iLzQVsag

This may already be a topic, but after a quick search I couldn't find anything related. Is anyone else having a problem with extreme instability with docked space-stations and bases? Much more so than any previous version? I currently have a space station around Duna and am trying to piece together bases on Ike and Duna. I first really started seeing this issue with the Space station. If I try to use SAS to hold the station in a specific position, the base would soon start to oscillate back and forth until it eventually ripped itself apart. I tried to disable most of the SAS modules on the various remote guidance units I had on each station piece, but it still seems to wobble out of control. I then built a base on Ike. Put down a ISU converter piece and a driller piece and docked them with a few fuel pipes and a main communication battery. It seemed stable at first, but when I returned to the base after a few days, the station wobbled completely out of control and ripped itself apart in about 3 seconds. I was able to "fast-forward" and resume over and over to keep the station long enough for me to disable all the drills, retract them and undock the drill unit from the rest of the station, but it was a really frustrating process. Is anyone else having problems with really unstable docked stations? Any way of avoiding/getting around this? Thanks!

I've been thinking about this for a while and my question is: What is your opinion on there being a natural base or counting system? Taking a Platonic view of the universe, is there any 'system' to the universe regarding numbers, not just 'there are x apples'? I mean, we might just be measuring the universe wrong. Most people would probably default to either base one or binary (base two), but why? Is there any reason that the numbers one and two are special? This brings us to my second questions: Integers. Why are they considered different and get precedence over other numbers? What is even the definition of an integer, I mean even though the number 5 doesn't have any decimals in base ten, if written in base Pi, it's irrational. It might also be that x whole apples are necessarily an integer number of apples, but the operating word is whole and it might just be us that are centred around whole, full and integer, even though they might not be different or special in any way. -T (P.S. Maths counts as science in this forum right?)

As a relatively new KSP player, I find it hard to get to places like the Mun and other planets easily with bases and such. It would be awesome if you added an option to instantly spawn the base you built in the VAB or the SPH onto a planet and location of your choosing. The same with satellites and stations.

Have you ever thought about it? The Mun seems like a super lame planet. It's the closest to Kerbin, it's copied off the Moon. It looks boring. But when you put your imagination to it, you could turn the whole Mun into a completely new Kerbin! You could build a futuristic new base! You could make a racecourse for you and your friends to drive on! So scrap Duna, and Eeloo, and Dres, and stick with the basics. Stick with the Mun ( Or low Kerbin Orbit )

I don't often find much to complain about with the game but I do have one major gripe and I really hope its at least on squads radar in terms of some kind of improvement. Bases! I continually see contracts to construct surface bases but I really hate the current system of wedging rocket parts together with docking nodes. Dear Squad and devs, if you read this, please please look at giving us some dedicated surface modules with a sensible means of connecting them at the landing site. It can only make KSP an even better experience. Thanks for reading.

Advanced building 101 I recently found a problem, and I would like to know if there's someone else out there with the same problem. I am building colonies at every world. Some are older and are, therefore, bigger. They have been built in career mode, so they are made up of a mix of attached blocks through docking ports, on the surface. One of them, my minmus fuel factory, has grown in size quite a bit, the latest addition was a nice landing pad, placed quite far from the main building, via a long pipe which was assembled, in place, in 3 sections. What happens is that, since terrain is not level and there is yet to be done a mod that allows for buldozzers or terrain levelling, the landing pad, when I warp time, clips the terrain mesh a little. this is enough, however, to make parts of the landing pad exploding and jumping into the air. the reason why I adopted the "no legs" building process is that it is easier to standardize equipment, since, independently of local gravity the port height for each block remains the same, unlike when we use legs. Besides... It looks better... Knowing if port height matches is, as you can see, of paramount importance before sending base components to be assembled millions of miles away, and if I have to design this for each scenario, instead of using default design for all, it's a pain in the ass... but.... The no legs approach is giving me this problem... What do you suggest? Using legs will prevent this on larger ground bases? Is it worth the pain? Anyone knows when bulldozer mod will be available? Maybe making smaller bases (in terms of area)? How have you overcome this problem, if you ever encountered it? I can think on a number of alternatives, Imwould be interested in knowing thenless painfull ones eheh