cantab

I've used girders and yeah, find them bouncy. So normally I use the legs that feel right for the craft in question. Even if I'm only going to Minmus, the toothpick legs on a 3-kerbal lander just wouldn't feel right. And always at least four legs. Three makes the lander too tippy on a slope.

Just because the ships are crewed by funny-looking aliens rather than never seeing the crew at all doesn't mean the game should be wilfully unrealistic.KSP isn't a simulator, but it is a physics game, and it would be better if it follows real physics except where needed for gameplay or technical reasons. For example small (and thus over-dense) celestials help the gameplay by making it quicker to orbit and more feasible to get huge things in space. Lack of axial tilt is I believe a technical limitation or issue, maybe one day it should be fixed. Stock aero is neither and warrants improving, but maybe X-Plane levels of realism would be bad for gameplay. And incidentally Orbiter, Euro Truck Simulator, and so on are simulators and games. They are not mutually exclusive things to be.

I had some success with VLC. Not the simplest to use but free and works on every platform.

You do need the claw to come "straight" onto the asteroid. If the asteroid's surface slopes away you can have problems.

I've become not so much angry as disinterested. KSP's the first game on anything other than my 3DS that's really caught my attention in a long time.

Regarding simplicity, maybe see that as precisely the advantage of the LV-N in some modded settings - it's a simple sealed unit but with less performance than a custom setup. Regarding nukes being the best thing for space travel, well they kind of are! Though I'd say ions and similar give them nice competition.

Ignore it, they aren't that big. If you must deflect it, get to it as soon as possible and it'll only need a small nudge, you can use a clawless pusher.

Yeah, there are two or three "Experimental" nodes that aren't used in the stock game but are there for mods to add their parts to. If you have the Mainsail and the KR-2L, and I think you do, you have the rockets you need for a Saturn-V-alike. Getting a good look is more a case of using the structural parts and/or fairing mods.

Regarding the Mk1 parts, well there's not a lot to them really. It's not a size as such, just an alternate name for a few 1.25 m parts, and because it's the 1.25 m size there's not a need for many parts. We have two cockpits - I think the old "Mk 2 cockpit" should be renamed since it's actually Mk1/1.25 m size - a jet fuel tank and a structural fuselage. An improved mass fractions on the jet fuel tank and a half-length version would be nice, ditto a half-length structural fuselage, but what else is there really to add? Passenger fuselage maybe, like a skinny version of the hitchhiker, that's about it.

An inclined geosynchronous orbit will make a figure-8 over the primary's surface. If the orbit is circular the figure-8 will be symmetric, probably not very useful, but if the orbit is elliptical the figure-8 will be asymmetric and the satellite can be made to spend most of its time over the northern or southern bit. This is known as a tundra orbit. A few satellites in such an orbit would give continuous coverage to a chosen area, though IRL the ground stations may require motorised dishes since the satellites will appear to move. A Molniya orbit is similar, but semi-synchronous, orbiting twice a day.

I've been wanting to try one of these for a while, good to see they're possible in KSP. I can see refuelling from a cycler depot being useful, since you wouldn't need to carry your fuel for your insertion burn on your ejection burn. Not such an issue for Kerbin-Duna in stock when you can freely aerocapture either way, but in a FAR+DRE setting it might help, or maybe a Kerbin-Dres cycler if you fancy doing stuff there. Of course the big issue is whether the benefit from that offsets the extra dV needed for the non-optimal transfer. (And you have to get the fuel on the cycler in the first place, so it might be best suited to resource mod settings where you could mine it from Ike or even an asteroid.)

HypeBirail. Because two are better than one.

If you're trying to create an aesthetic replica, you'll probably need to unlocked the late-game structural parts first. If you're trying to create a "workalike", that's simpler. If you're running delta-V calculations the slightly tricky bit can be the fuel in the orbiter, since it will make one burn with the lander to enter Munar orbit, but then leave Munar orbit without the lander. If you're just guesstimating just remember you won't need anything like as much fuel to come back as to go out. Because the Mun doesn't need as much delta-V as the real Moon you can use a single-stage lander quite easily, but there's nothing wrong in a two-stage lander if you prefer. And make sure you know how to rendezvous!

I wonder if RSS could do this more permanently? I think you can configure your own orbits in it. Also, in the earliest versions of KSP Kerbin was flat.

Failed to get a 500-ton ship into orbit. Turns out these big launches are tougher than they look.

If you want to orient yourself by sighting the stars, you only need the bright ones. If you're looking at a planet or moon, if it's near enough to see detail without needing a telescope it's bright enough to see easily. Even if you're looking at another ship, if it's near enough to matter then again it's probably plenty bright enough - the ISS from Earth is about the brightest thing in the sky after the Moon when it passes over at night - or else it's in shadow and too dim to see anyway. Basically you won't be looking at faint stuff for flying a spacecraft.

If you're consistent in your entry trajectory, eg you always deorbit from 100km with a 1km periapsis, you can learn the angle between deorbit burn and landing site by experience.

Regarding plants on Laythe, wouldn't there be some that would still grow, just more slowly? At least in a warmed greenhouse.

Indeed in stock KSP it's not much of an issue, unless you want to carry a payload that would physically collide with a vertical stabiliser in a certain place. In FAR you might have issues if the airflow to the stabiliser is obstructed, but I'm not sure.

Yeah, 3.5 g isn't a problem for a healthy person. Though you'd probably need training to be able to reliably operate a spacecraft under it. It takes 5 g or so for there to be a serious risk of blacking out. Orientation matters too; lying on your back you can handle more.

Good thing it's a foam one! I smack the next poster over the face with my wench.

Kerberos is the actual Greek name, Cerberus is a Latinisation.

Agreed with James May. "Sailing is really boring." Currently sailing my Laythe boat from its landing site to the nearest island. It handles 4x warp without any serious issues though some parts do start getting displaced, but is still gonna take a while. EDIT: And I just wrecked it trying to turn while still at top speed. Damn this game can be harsh sometimes. Still undecided whether to revert it, I normally don't but I'm trying to wind down my missions and rescuing four Kerbals from Laythe is a huge new undertaking.

Kerberos is also a technology that guards access to Windows servers. I think the choice is apter than even Microsoft intended.

Many players don't need much help doing that But as ever, there's a mod for it. I forget which though.