cantab

Sometimes you want both parts of the craft. If you use decouplers one of them has the decoupler left stuck to it and you might not want that. Also, even with nominally equal ejection forces, I've found separators to have more "punch" than decouplers. Probably because they apply that force to both sides rather than just one.

Considering the performance problems the game has, anything that encourages the player to use more smaller parts is bad. With that in mind, there's a case for the rebalance making the mass ratios at least equal, if not better for the wider tanks. Though the differences should be fairly subtle, for example an 8.5-9.5 range, not a 5-25 range!

Can anything be done about the stutter that happens every few seconds in KSP? It affects me in a bone-stock 0.90 install, with a 2-part ship (HECS+RTG) in Mun orbit. Neither my CPU core nor my GPU are at 100% use, KSP uses around 80-90% of a core (with frequency scaling disabled) and the GPU is around 40-70% utilised. Yet still that stutter is there, clearly apparent at 10x timewarp.

What happens when the plane reaches the end of the runway? If it drops off then flies, you've built a plane that can't rotate for takeoff. Move the elevators further back and/or the main gear closer to the CoM so that it can lift the nose. Alternatively, build it so the wings are angled when it's sitting on the runway. And if you're worried about tailstrikes add a safety wheel or skid under the tail. If it can't fly at 100 m/s, well that's already a very fast speed for takeoff. Since you're using FAR, if you haven't already set up some flaps do that. If you have, you'll just need to reduce the wing loading by either adding more wing or reducing weight.

The TWR is excellent. That means a rocket stage needs less mass of engines, and that means more delta-V. The Isp is good enough. It's not so bad as to undo the benefits of the high TWR. It's small. That means it can be used on all sorts of craft, unlike say the KR-2L that's only any good on really big stuff. In career mode it's the cheapest engine available, and you also unlock it early.

I find Mun and Minmus landings routine. I sent a 65 ton boat to Laythe. I landed on Tylo in a ship of near-Whackjovian proportions and got the Kerbal back into orbit afterwards. I dropped a rover on Eve and drove about 50 miles (no return though). That was after the rover had stopped off at Gilly, where it worked well. I took a lander meant for the Mun and got it to Eeloo. The worst place for me, then: Duna. Duna remains my nemesis. The atmosphere lulls me into thinking it will help, only to be as useful as a chocolate teapot. I've messed up aerobrakes, had chuted landers tear themselves apart on parachute opening, and powered landers slam into the surface. The one rover I did land I then crashed driving.

Lack of analogue acceleration, braking, and steering honestly isn't a big deal. We were playing and enjoying racing games back in the NES days. Something like ABS would be a big help though, since it's easy to build a rover that likes to do stoppies otherwise.

Well, not quite. Like I said, all celestial bodies must have parallel rotation axes; to put it another way, they must all have the same pole star. But they can have different orbital planes and from that can and do have axial tilts, since axial tilt is measured relative to the planet or moon's orbital plane. What is not possible in KSP is to vary axial tilt independently of orbital inclination. For example Bop in stock KSP has an axial tilt of 15 degrees.Therefore when it comes to RSS, assuming you want the orbital inclinations to all be correct then only one celestial can be given the right axial tilt. The natural choice for said one celestial is Earth.

If not, would you be able to release your build, or a relevant replacement .dll or similar?

Indeed. The most efficient takeoff - and for that matter landing - on an airless body is as horizontal as possible, building or killing your orbital speed without gaining or losing altitude. TWR is a tradeoff between losses because of low TWR and losses because of carrying too much weight in engines, and is of course influenced by staging strategy.

The MK-3 parts are notorious for falling apart easily. You may need to add reinforcing struts, or else just treat the thing with kid gloves.

I feel bad saying this, but that's gonna be obsolete in a couple of months. But I think we're all looking forward to the pictures from Dawn. To expand, my understanding is that all bodies in KSP have parallel rotation axes. That means RSS!Jupiter has about the same 23.5° axial tilt as Earth.The decision then needs to be made whether the orbits of Jupiter's moons are correct relative to Jupiter's equator, or correct relative to the ecliptic, since you can't have both. For spaceflight the latter is by far more important. Essentially you should see it as the orbits being right, but Jupiter (and the moons!) having the wrong axial tilt.

There are no sudden jumps. The specific impulse smoothly increases from sea level to vacuum just as it does in the bone stock game.

The challenges are slightly different. Tylo is perhaps the highest test of your rocket piloting skills, with the strong gravity that will slam your lander downwards if you aren't careful, and guzzle your fuel if you have to hover for any length of time. But design-wise it's not too bad. Eve on the other hand is a major design and engineering challenge, but the flying is relatively straightforward - though you may need to be good at precision landings if you aren't taking enough delta-V for a launch from low altitude.

Eight. Ey. Two.

78...

80 another thyme

Andrew edited his post. CHEATS. DOWN WITH THE CHEATING PLUSES! 80 now.

Now 77 that's what I call music.

77 again

79. We need some backup here!

78. tough

Seventy seven

Seventy nine

Well, technically anything can be changed. But realistically you are going to stick with your case and motherboard. Case generally isn't a big issue, though a good one can make the build process easier. Motherboard choice on the other hand defines the range of processors you can use, and what overclocking options there are, as well as a lot else about your PC.On the other hand the graphics card, disk drives, and peripherals are good candidates to save money on now and plan a future upgrade. Then again, if games other than KSP are a focus don't spend loads more on the CPU than on the GPU. And really, you don't at all need an aftermarket CPU cooler. If you're happy to increase the cost of the build then go for it, but if budget's an issue that's the first thing I'd drop.