SkyRender

I mentioned this in the suggestions forum, but it seems to me that the building upgrade prices are about 10 times too high for a "normal" player. It's also mystifying that there's no slider to control building upgrade prices on the Difficulty screen. That aside, this update seems pretty solid.

One of the first things I noticed about the building upgrade prices in 0.90 is that they're... let's just say "not newbie-friendly". Just upgrading the lowest-tier buildings to second-tier costs over 2 million Funds, which is WAY in excess of what most new players are likely to be able to make with the limited options available to them with such entry-level facilities. In fact, the pricing scheme is about (by my estimate) 10 times too high for new players to handle. That said, some particularly dedicated players are bound to like the excessive challenge presented by such high upgrade costs. Thus my suggestion is both simple and elegant: drop the default prices for building upgrades by 1000%, and implement a slider on the Difficulty screen that allows you to adjust building upgrade purchase prices the same way you can rewards and penalties.

You have to read the details of the contract requirements, as there are two different testing requirements you can get with a contract: either Run Test or staging. There does seem to be a way to cause the latter type of test to become the former type by quicksaving and quickloading, however.

Yeah, without building upgrades to worry about yet, you don't really feel much of a pinch even at 10% reward rates if you're a particularly skilled player. Once you have to drop a cumulative million or so Funds to get your space center from entry-level to top-tier, however, I think you'll find that 10% rewards turn the experience into a grindfest. Just my prediction.

There's also a mod for that.

I think what might help is if there were a way to basically "swap" action groups. That way when downloading someone else's craft design, you could move around which key activates which action group.

I'd include Ferram Aerospace Research as well, if only for the better (and more challenging) aerodynamics. Though if you do add that, also add Procedural Fairings. Otherwise your space program is going to get very dull.

No point in posting screenshots of it since nothing meaningful has changed, but I've been performing upkeep on my Kethane refining and fueling cycle. I actually managed to all but fully deplete a Kethane deposit (down to 3,000, from a starting point of about 180,000), no small feat. So far it's returned all of about 1.5 orange tanks' worth of LF+O to low Kerbin orbit, which isn't actually too bad. There's enough in the wings for about 2.5 more orange tanks' worth yet to be transferred to LKO in the Mun fuel depot, too (after deducting fuel costs to get said fuel down to LKO, of course). It may not be especially efficient, but it sure is quick compared to bussing all that fuel from Minmus!

Personally I favor the Skipper for speedy transfers. The Mainsail is a delightful engine in its own right, but definitely overpowered for the sort of payloads I tend to push around. You really need a hefty mass to justify the Mainsail over the Skipper, something in the neighborhood of 4 orange tanks' worth of mass.

Well we do have a Challenges forum if you're looking for some ideas of how to push yourself to the limit. Other than that, mostly there's just the signature ribbons.

"Tedious" and "hard" are often terms used interchangeably when it comes to maths. While it is true that it isn't difficult to calculate dV, it does takes far less time to use a mod like Kerbal Engineer Redux to do the calculations for you on the fly. Why spend the extra time doing it by hand when it doesn't add anything to the experience and you can basically have a mod handle it for you?

I won't touch MechJeb, so that's ruled out. And the wing masses on this craft are all default. The only thing that's been altered about any of them is pitch/yaw/roll control levels and spoiler/flap flags. I can't imagine how that would cause a probe body, fuel tank, and engine with attached solar panels and symmetrical science instruments and nothing else to misbehave so badly. The parent craft's parameters should not impact the child craft once the child craft has been detached.

I don't use flight assistance. I'm old-school like that. And I think it's rather telling that this exact same simple craft behaves in space with absolutely no problems on a stock install of KSP, not to mention that the strange off-center thrust issues only pop up under controllable circumstances while FAR is installed.

Has anyone else been experiencing some rather odd center-of-mass issues when using FAR? I developed a cargo spaceplane and successfully launched it into orbit, then released its payload and sent said payload off on its merry way. Except... it didn't behave properly. At all. Despite being barely more than a probe, fuel tank, and engine (all nicely balanced without any odd jutting mass), the payload craft's thrust started to push it increasingly more intensely "down" (ie. towards the planet). It was inconsistent at times, as well: if I took the thrust up gradually, it would behave itself most of the time, but any sudden thrust jumps and suddenly the whole physics model went pear-shaped. FAR isn't supposed to muck about with travel in a vacuum, as far as I know, so what gives?

For reference, the modding scene for Kerbal Space Program is enormous. The game was already getting mods before it was even pay-to-play, and the number of actively-in-development mods for the game easily numbers in the hundreds. Just about anything you can think of, there's a mod for it. If there's a particular part or feature you're looking for, just ask and we'll point you in the right direction!

In my book, the only absolute requirement for any sort of grand tour is that a single entity (be it a probe body or a Kerbal) visits every single body in the solar system. Circularization and landing is optional but advised everywhere possible. Really, it's silly to limit the idea to one very specific variant of grand tour, as that just locks out a great deal of potential creativity.

It is amazing what sort of crazy antics you end up coming up with when a mission starts to go horribly wrong. A lot of us old-timers forget what that's like after a while, but I find I can re-live the tension of the old days just by trying to fly intentionally-less-than-perfect spaceplanes with an improved aerodynamics mod called Ferram Aerospace Research installed. I recommend you not do that until you've gotten very comfortable with the stock game, however...

Usually it goes something like: throttle max, SAS on, press Space to go to space. Then a whole bunch of steering on the way up and sometimes even stages dropped if I'm feeling particularly ambitious (though if it's a spaceplane, not bloody likely).

This is essential reading for anyone wishing to grasp the fundamentals of rocket science, as is this. They specify how rocket science works and how you can move in space, respectively.

This sort of thing is why I always hit F5 just before recovering a vessel. At worst I lose my latest tech tree upgrades, and even that only happens if I can't revert to VAB/SPH for some reason.

The witticisms of engineers and designers always give me a chuckle, particularly given how true they are. I would add a few of my own: 1. Be certain you've learned the right lessons from your mistakes, unless you want to make even bigger mistakes. 2. The plural of anecdote is not data, so test properly instead of going with your gut feeling. Opinions are not acceptable substitutes for facts. 3. The root of any given problem is usually the one thing you're certain you can't change without having to start the whole process over. 4. An idea that works on paper is useless. Get it to work in the real world before you invest heavily in any concept. 5. Experimentation is not a crime, but always have a backup plan for when it doesn't work the way you thought it was going to. And a backup plan for when that one fails, too.

I have nearly every version of KSP from 0.11 onwards still fully installed on my system. Not that I play any of them but the latest any longer, mind...

"Finished" for Career mode would pretty much be having the tech tree unlocked, at least in terms of progression. From a more considerate angle, it would be getting all of your various Kerbals back to Kerbin. May as well do both if you can.

Its name is Kinta Kunte! Seriously, though, it's the sun. If the Kerbals have any other name for it, they never refer to it by that name anywhere in game itself.

Try making a VTOL spaceplane. It's a fun little challenge, and you learn a lot about weight balancing on spaceplanes in the process.