Technical Ben

Best idea ever. Make them RCS if torque is not enough. Make them mainsails if RCS is too weak (you only need to get it rolling + stop. So a little fuel tank for each might do. This is mainly because the game physics make a lot of things slide like on ice).

Not the biggest, but I put this up in 2 launches. One for the core/transport with full fuel, and one for the 4 fuel pods. Docking the 4 pods was fun, it was done radially and not sequentially/parallel (I have videos ). Gee wheeze, oh gads. This game is both beautiful in engineering, and beautiful in rendering (has something updated, it looks really slick now ).

IS it USB 3.0? I had a customer uninstall USB 3.0 support by mistake and had this same problem. I had to re-install via serial mouse or keyboard input and google/manufacture drivers. Hope it helps! PS, it was funny, as the same customer drove 20 miles to talk to the "PC experts" to fix his mouse. They obviously tested it and it was ok and working. I never did ask why he did not call me first to fix it. Oh, and it happened as his daughter was trying to get "free sky", and installed all these useless apps, but ended up uninstalling the USB drivers when taking off the apps. PPS, by that I'm suggesting Windows might have messed up the 3.0 drivers (likely your unplug triggered a normal shutdown/Windows update which is the cause, and not a breakage in carrying. ), and not that you messed them up.

Here is a video for effect/explanation. Note one has struts, one has docking ports. Docking ports give "real" connections, but might send fuel in the wrong direction. Without the docking ports, you need to use struts, and only need a decoupler on 1 (the original) connection, but can add others for looks. You do that by placing a decoupler under each engine, then a docking port under each engine pointing down. Then add 1 docking port pointing up and connect to 1 of the ports/engines. Then connect 4 docking ports to a 4 way connector (may need to do this on a separate part). Then connect the 4 way connector with 4 docking ports underneath. When the game loads, it then "connects" all 4 docking ports. Giving you true 4 way structural connection.

I do this, but docking can be difficult as it's hard to get so close at such great distances. So it can be handy, but is extra work. I have a fuelling station, or use tugs to refuel existing transports as they reach higher orbits, just before a departure. Oh, so scratch that idea. I guess the only reason to do it then is "rule of kool".

Flight and or rolling seems the only way. Or can you rocket drag it?

Pulsed RCS using some other type of fuel. Also the ability to repurpose them for this: http://youtu.be/gpdfoePZ1kg Some RCS system designs could even use solid fuel. The ablate metal rods/lead etc.

"Bells"? For some reason it rings true...

Wait, that scene was in Airplane, right?

A simulation first, a game second. Perhaps? Real life does not care about "balance" or mechanical designs. For instance, we have adjusted the mass of planets in KSP for gameplay reasons, but that's to avoid grind. The game very rarely, if ever, adds changes for cost/point/mechanical balance reasons. Only time, such as the mass/size of planets, the ion engine power/efficiency etc. Most other balances will be done on cost/availability of parts, not on their mechanical function. Why? The sim part requires some parts TO be more powerful, just as in real life new tech IS better than the old. Not all parts mind, but some will be, and the player will go "wow, new tech can be better". Sometimes it can be worse too (looks at the old ion engine). PS, also as already mentioned. Sepratrons etc show that unbalanced gameplay IS possible. Take another real world + gameplay example. Any rocket with real power and fuel efficiency can be used providing you have the funds. We would have hundreds of space hotels already providing we had infinite funds (like Sandbox mode), as current tech and fuel and TTW and ISP are all find in real life. Same goes for KSP, it could have the most silly rocket and thrust ever, providing you had the "science" and "kerbal bucks". In Sandbox on any game, everything is OP by design, in SP/missions/career, it's balanced via other metrics.

Real life does not care for gameplay balance. Hence the rockets can be "unrealistic" or "unfun to play with", but as there is little goal for a balance in <i>sandbox</i> mode, all comparisons can only be made in Career which is currently not feature complete. As it's not feature complete it may have additional hurdles, costs, variable etc added. So even if they are career unbalanced, it's not the time to change them. I would have thought the current parts are "end game" or "special purpose" parts that are suppose to replace the "junk (in name and design, not in actual gameplay)" parts that Kerbals make at the beginning. Mainsails have weight differences, design differences and size differences. So they are not useless.

A mission would probably be optional. Though if you wish to do the mission, you like have to do the mission. It will be "useless" in comparison to your own goals if it has economic/company based missions. The only ones that would follow useful play would be research missions.

Wow, I thought my launcher was large! allmhuran, what DV is that thing? <i>All of the DV?</i>

Depends how good (bad) the telescope is.

Wait, what... it's out? (Swoons) Whoo, gonna check out some giant rockets.

Thanks. I'm still planning on returning all Kerbs and "Spectacularly De-Orbiting" all craft to start afresh. Mainly because some of the new parts will make most designs obsolete. That and I've only been doing sandbox, I'm due a proper mission/SP mode. Nah, scratch that. I've got too many cool Kerbals waiting at Jool for some landers and space stations. I'll bring some over to them... plus possibly a big rock or two.

1.0 is feature complete. 0.24 has about half the features, but also half the bug squashing needed to make it 1.0. If the developers decide not to add other things later, we will see a jump to 0.9 then after bug testing 1.0. For now they are happy with progress and still want to add additional mission and design tools/gameplay which will add to the game.

Ahhh. Similar to what I'm doing but half the height, and twice the length/width. So I need to trim it down that way... PS, less/no spontaneous explosions with the latest build. So might try upping the design a bit.

Still getting spontaneous disassembly, before even trying to launch. That's from a too light lander too (as I forgot half my engine clusters on the build... XD ). I might just give up, or wait for the less wobbly AMD/0.24 update.

I'll see if I can get the lander up to the mountain. I landed low altitude to save on landing rockets, and due to mountains being hard to hit targets. I'll then launch it for effect, but will need an adjusted replacement with your added tweaks, to get the kerbal back. PS, yep, TWR is totally different when I reach Eve. Rather more confusing than most launches. Any rough idea what TWR I should aim for without mods to tall me the kerbin/eve differences?

Thanks. I'll take that to not and I'll send a recovery which should work, will be similar design, but this time I'll remember to put rockets on the stages! (Duh!)

It's not necessarily the legs. I can do that bit. It's the fact it all falls apart, as such: Old video, but similar problems. Thought I'd sorted them since. http://youtu.be/8Kd4EIR1ylo Good news is the latest design does land with enough effort, but has a fatal floor, I made it's floor (as in literally, the bit under the cabin) a battery, and it scrapes the ground. Never mind, something went very wrong with my TWR calculation, and it seems I have 1.0... Gah!

So I'm not just the only one with spagetification/pancakefication when trying to land on Eve? I can land rovers, but anything bigger just collapses under it's own weight. PS. I managed to get a landing! Lost my main battery though (note to self, do not put under rocket next time). So I cannot drive it to the launch location (up a mountain). So one final attempt and if I keep the battery, I should be good. Else I'll try for a launch from low altitude!

Thanks (sorry "Eve" is too short to search). I might end up on Lander design 3 then. If this last attempt does not work, will ditch the poor Kerbal in orbit to at least leave them safe.

Is it just the really high gravity, or am I doing something wrong? Anything I try to land on Eve larger than a rover becomes a pancake, even with a feather light landing. It just collapses under it's own weight. I'll never be able to do a landing and return.