cantab

With 20:20 hindsight, a quality "procedural" system might have been better for KSP than the lego block style system it's used. But the lego blocks are what it's gone with, and I think a major change in how you build rockets is too much for 1.0. Even perhaps something better for a KSP 2, that might then include more sophisticated considerations than having parts be perfect rigid bodies. The issue then is whether we want a mishmash with some things "procedural" and others pure lego blocks or whether it's better for a unified approach. As far as gameplay goes, personally I find it fun designing my payload to fit inside the fairing I have. That's why I ditched Procedural Fairings - they're very powerful and can do things I've not found possible with other fairing mods, but they were just too automagic for me. In career it restricts the base size, but last I checked still lets the fairing mushroom out as wide as you like. By the same token, I find it fun designing a vehicle that not only does its mission but does it within the mass, size, and part count limits in career. Because of those limits I read up on the real aerodynamics of flying wings then built one in KSP. But really, my only strong view is that plenty of approaches to fairings work well. Contrary to what Maxmaps has said, fairings don't have to be "procedural" to be useful.

Well, that ended quickly. -108

Flew a plane with my brand new XBox 360 controller. OMG it's so much fun Still need to work out a few of the control details, but I can't believe I didn't do this sooner.

Mine. Uss. Thir. Tea. Two.

No, -29 now.

-30+1

The last station I built I made each module autonomous. Cue horrible lag. Tugs are a nice idea, but getting a nice balance with your RCS can be difficult. One approach I've tried is a tug with a counterweight, the part on the left here. Another option I may consider in future is to have the modules autonomously dock, then blow away their controlling stuff to get rid of the part count. Or I might just do a one-piece station and save the trouble.

I've never really cared much. If I do a bunch of launches in a row I do a bunch of launches in a row. If I'm waiting for transfer windows I'm waiting for transfer windows. My previous major save I did have a lot of concurrent missions, and the upshot was it took a long time in the real world to get missions finished, so I think in future I'll try and not have loads of stuff at once.

(4i)2

Mi-mi-mi-mi-minus, fourteen.

Minus. Fricking. Eighteen.

To the Minus World! -22

Step away from the zero! -34

Your horizontal stabiliser looks very small compared to your wings. See what the FAR stability derivatives say at various flight conditions, I wouldn't be surprised if you have some red numbers in the longitudinal section.

Not really a problem I've had. Yes if I come in too steep I'll run too long, but that's what a go-around is for. All these land fine if I fly them right, though I'll grant none are very like a real airliner or a real combat aircraft.

This - done in the map view of course. Then you just head in the direction shown. The marker shows up on the stock navball and in NavHUD. There's no indication of how close you need to be it's true, but just keep going the right way.For aerial surveys, the marker is at either the upper or the lower limit, you'll have to check the contract details.

My first was playing the tutorial in the demo, and putting the fuel tank above the command pod hee hee hee. I late realised that would have actually worked just fine! One of my first things in the full game was creating a replica of a spaceship from a Roald Dahl book. That's actually my only attempt at a replica to date!

While there have been exceptions, most of my rockets were roughly rocket-shaped. My asteroid tug for example was pretty slim and would fit in a sensible fairing. And nowadays I use FAR, so I have to think about aerodynamics. Though some things have ended up wide by necessity and others looked just plain daft.

Granted, you dirty rotten liar. I wish that dropping logic bombs would make the bomb dropper's head explode.

IMHO, 4) Don't use SAS. I find well-designed planes fly better using trim to control pitch and FAR's wing leveller to keep a straight heading, though I'll grant twitchy planes can benefit from SAS.

Sure, it adds a bunch of parts, but it's no worse than the myriad fuel tanks or wing segments the game already has.The various procedural parts mods are excellent, but I'd say they're not "the KSP way". They're at odds with the lego-bricks style system the game has used to date. And since I don't see Squad moving everything over to a procedural system, I'd rather the fairings worked like the other stock parts instead of just them being different and "weird".

Shedding speed in FAR is a nuisance, but that's why you set up spoilers, use mod airbrakes, or if you want to be really fancy learn to forward slip. Or just do it the kerbal way with retro thrust As for the contention that we shouldn't expect realism from a game with little green men, well http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArtStyleDissonance. KSP is already seriously realistic as games go.

If the position just seems to jump around, turn off angle snap if it is on.

It depends on the delta-V you need and the TWR you want. Delta-V wise, a Duna return trip is about the break-even point, where chemical engines are still competitive. For the Mun and Minmus chemical engines generally beat nuclear on a one-trip basis, while for Dres or the Joolian system nuclear engines generally win. TWR-wise, if you want a Kerbin TWR of 1 or more then nuclear engines are generally a bad choice. The other main consideration is overall size. The LV-N is good on most ships, but for very small ones it's too heavy, while for very large ones you'd need to use too many. But ultimately, do what works for you. For example if you have a tried and tested lifter that puts 40 tons into LKO, then does it really matter whether you use a 40 ton chemical engined ship or a 30 ton nuclear engined one?

If you're determined to use Mechjeb, try and understand why it's failing. Is it burning the engine hard but crashing anyway? If so, check you actually have enough TWR for a Mun landing! Is it running out of fuel? Add more. Is it smacking into the ground despite having plenty of fuel and plenty of thrust? Maybe ask for help in the Mechjeb thread. Keep in mind that Mechjeb is an autopilot, it's not a magical I Win button. Mechjeb can and will crash your ships if you don't set it correctly.