andruszkow

Hi guys, Is there a way to set the camera angle in such a way, that you basically have the "Free View" camera, but always looking at where your "nose" is pointing? I figured it would be pretty useful for VTOL-maneuvering. I kind of want this, so I don't have to focus on turning the camera with my mouse (or with the hat switch on my joystick), while concentrating on maneuvering in tight spaces, or do precision docking with stuff on the ground.

Accomplishing next step in maneuvering: Learning to fly VTOL's properly with my new joystick. I'm still a bit slow at maneuvering, but I haven't adjusted my joysticks sensitivity properly yet, that's the next step Ultimately, these VTOL's shall aid me in assembling ground bases on other bodies, by lifting stuff around via docking ports, and dock then with ground modules.

Hey, what about Jules Verne? Submersible functionality for mining on the bottom of Laythe/Eve oceans.

Check out this post, it has a lot of great tips and standards. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/48876-The-art-of-modular-base-building Other than that, depending on tech, you could just send it in one single go, just build upwards

They already stated that V was the letter, not the roman numeric.

Vesta = Asteroid belt?

This so, so, so, so much. "You're not even a real astronaut, idiot!"

SpaceDreams channel on www.di.fm

I always put this on, when I'm approaching the Mün. Edit: Don't mind the title of the video

Question: I've read through the posts, and no real thing has been done to lift ratings. However, I guess this does affect the effective lift of planes? Even though the total mass of a plane is the same, there's less drag, because fuel is out of the equation. How does it really affect the dynamics of lift-surface vessels?

This! Even with the stock aero model rework for the future release coming, is it possible to implement this?

Spent the last two days trying to think of a proper design of a craft to transport base parts around Kerbin. Today I realised I need to go the VTOL/Sky crane route to be able to transport large stuff without wingspamming a spaceplane or using part-heavy mods like B9. So yeah.

I'll get back to this thread later tonight! Going to be building a VTOL (or 2), for assembling and carrying stuff around for building a Kerbin-base somewhere pretty.

Well, this. - - - Updated - - - From the opposite site post sunset, after the Nuclear lander was stripped (KAS) from power panels and RCS tanks, and ultimately, sent off to go to blow up. Return vehicle arrives in 8 days.

But, but... Stacking Mk1's is the Kerbal way!

What I did, was put another Mk1 Pod on top of the first I add. Just upside down.

I dont get the hazzle I read about here. I'm in no way an expert player. I started a normal carreer game, and towards upgrading the VAB, launchpad, R&B, Mission control and Tracking station, I didn't really do any mission twice (or more, aka grinding). I cut my costs a lot and handpicked my contracts. I did the first "Explore the Mun" mission without patched conics, with a ~$16.000 vessel (which BARELY had enough fuel to make it back). From there on out, the timing of things was just perfect. I combined the "Test the Poodle enigne" mission, which pays off fairly good, with more Mun missions, eg. "Plant a flag on the Mun", "Measure the temperature at x and y on the Mun" etc. After that mission, I could afford the $510k R&D upgrade, and Duna/Ike contracts started coming in. Advice: Make silly contraptions. If you're asked to test the BACC SRB between 16.000 and 19.000 meters, at a speed of 300-650m/s, build the following (from top down): Parachute -> Mk1 Pod -> Stack Decoupler -> BACC SRB -> Stack Decoupler -> FL-T800 Fuel tank (or something similar) -> LV-T30 Engine. Before launch, empty the BACC SRB completely from fuel. I think its a bit lame that you can complete objectives even when engines never really ignite, but that's how it is. Else, leave as little fuel in the BACC as you can, and set the thrust to as low as you can as well

You get to the subassembly section by: Pressing the "Play"-alike button in top left corner. Subassembly menu button will be in the bottom of that list.

I could have put a LV909 and a near empty small fuel tank on the satellite to fix the orbit afterwards, but that was a bit overkill to be honest

My problem with these kinds of rants/critiques, is that they generalize the wish for content across all players. I'd much rather have an evolved base game, and extend with mods. Seeing mod's isn't Squad's business, it only makes sense that they update the game and go for scope complete, don't you think? So yes, KSC upgrades are indeed in high demand for a lot of players. To me, and a lot of others, it makes the carreer game seem like an actual carreer. We now have proper gameplay in the game. Also, the 64-bit still isn't Squads problem entirely, because Unity.

Well, with the satellite missions, you do get the desired orbit from the contract marked in map-mode. I lacked some parts for doing the mission correctly. Word of advise: Do not attach your newly built satellite to the top of your pod with a stack decoupler. I got into perfect orbit, completely not thinking of the fact, that the stack decoupler would drasticly alter the orbit of the satellite, once ejected...

Until you go reusable, you just really have to be conservative on the part counts. All the small stuff, solar panels, antennas etc, place it on the part you intend to land.

The first building I upgraded was the launch pad. Grinding for the launch pad is more than doable (depending on level, I just play normal). After that I spent some science getting some decouplers and LV909. Did the Mun-mission without maneuvre nodes. I brought Jeb, he was a 1-star pilot at that point, the pilot-functions works well for pro/retrograde maneuvres. Some orbits got a bit wonky, but they were orbits none the less Spent the science from the Mun-mission to upgrade quite a bit of the tech tree. I only need one 90 science upgrade, before I've maxed out the first Science building limits.

These kind of assumptions are really, really annoying. Not only do you by your post assume how everybody, or at least the majority wants to play the game, you also dictate how they in any case should. I'm not even gonna pick out examples from your post, all you really need to do is re-read it.