Stratzenblitz75

Gee thanks Moar Boosters, now I'll have nightmares for the rest of my life.

Ahh yes, TAC and Deadly Rentry, the ultimate Kerbal killers. I once managed to mix up my "food" and "life support" tanks and didn't realize my mistake until my poor kerbal was too far away from home. On the bright side, I guess I learned that Kerbals can't breathe snacks...

There's actually two faces in that image, as highlighted by my 1337 paint skillz:

These are hilarious! Keep it up

Holy **** that is amazing. I have no words...

Mario was bad example. My point is that plenty of games, including exploration games, have static universes and yet they can be interesting and re-playable. Also, science wouldn't be useless, you could still patent your reports for Funds or publish them for reputation. My idea is to give players more ways to run their space program. For example, you could gain your income from completing contracts and launching customer's satellites and other space craft into space. Or, you could run a science based program that gets its money to build and launch space probes, rovers and other sciency stuff. Or, you could even run a space program that earns its income from sending Kerbal "tourists" into space. I'll have to give this some more thought... Perhaps there is a good way to incorporate a form of "science" into each of these play-styles... Agreed, as long as there are some "checks" to prevent overly difficult, ridiculous, or bland solar systems, I would love to see something like this. Space Engine + KSP is my dream space game.

Well, I went to space (completely legitimately of course, that hyper edit window is for ermm... decoration:wink:), and decided to land on Duna... Looks like I'm not coming back...

Backspace is your friend

Use Goooooooogle http://tektek.org/color/

I'm sad to say this is one of my most successful landings so far: Yeah... I need to work on my suicide burn a bit more so that my ship actually lands in one piece.

IMO, that's not even that much of problem. Of course people who are familiar with a game are going to know how it works, that's going to happen with pretty much ANY game. The point of science is gaining knowledge. If you already know how to do something, then you shouldn't need to do science to learn how to do it. For example, if you know exactly where Eve's tallest mountains are from heart, then why should you have to map the planet to find them? Apply this logic to any other game. If you've already played a Mario game and you know exactly where are the secrets, enemies, and power-ups are, why should you be forced to find them again? You already found them, randomizing their location isn't going to make the game a "new experience", in fact, its probably just going to frustrate you. I know "Rougelites" follow this exact concept but the difference is that they were built and balanced around the idea of procedural or random generation. KSP was never built as a proceduraly generated game, so putting in procedural elements just to force the experienced players to do science is IMO not a very good idea, especially when it can mess up so many other things (like the challenge sub-forum, for example). Sure, I actually wouldn't mind this as an optional feature, but not as mandatory one. I don't think we should try to balance the game around "whether the people will look at the wiki". There are kinds of people who will always check cheat-sheets, wikis, etc no matter what game they play. Slightly mixing up the Kerbol System just to prevent these people from cheating seems kinda unnecessary.

I'd actually quite enjoy a system where everything is initially hidden and you have to discover it. There could be an interactive archive of the Kerbol System complete with maps, atmosphere layer charts, interesting facts, and possibly, interior "cutouts" of each of the planets. Some of the information, such as atmosphere density and height maps combined with some, IMO much needed, in-game calculators, could be useful in planning your missions. For example, it would be helpful to know how thick Eve's atmosphere is so you can calculate an aerobrake, (because right now, its just guess work). Slope and height maps could also be useful for picking specific landing sites for your missions. The other information, such as interior cutouts, interesting facts, anomaly maps, would be there to enrich the universe and make it seem more dynamic and interesting, like the planets aren't just collision meshes with textures, there's something more to them. This way, science is no longer used for part unlocking. Instead, I think completing contracts and spending funds should unlock parts. This idea isn't really fleshed out, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

The only "fun" my Kerbals experience is the relief that they weren't chosen to test my new 99.9% likely to fail contraption.

Luckily, we have mods to complete the game for us. FAR + DRE + KWRocketry + Karbonite/Kethane + Astronomer's visual pack + Remote Tech + Kerbal Engineer Redux + RealChute + ScanSAT + B9 Aerospace +... Too many mods to count. There, now KSP is more complete. I just saved everyone 3 months of waiting for an official update the barely adds anything. Where's my medal? In all seriousness though, I agree with Frostiken on this issue; the past few official updates have been fairly underwhelming. This game has so much potential and I feel the developers aren't really taking advantage of it. Oh well, as stated before, at least I have my mods.

This. To much This. KSP isn't fun because of the clickfest "science" (if you could even call it science) system and its occasionally funny flavor text. To me, KSP is fun because it lets you build the creations of your dreams and send them out into space to explore the planets of the Kerbol system. If all the planets in KSP were just grey spheres that gave you "science" every time you landed on them, I wouldn't be playing.

As suggested by one of my first screenshot ever taken in KSP, I've been playing since 0.19 Since then, I've gathered almost 1100 hours (not like that's impressive, I know some of guys have much more) The Mun looked so much flatter back then... (you can tell I was a giant noob, What with the RCS tank and misplaced RCS thrusters on that tiny moon lander)

Welcome to the forums! You'll find that this community is generally* very nice and helpful. I hope you enjoy your stay. On topic: I'd really like some larger landing gear as well. Those LT-2 Landing struts just don't cut it when you need to land 100+ ton monstrosities without spamming a bunch of landing gear. Tougher and longer landing gear that could reach past the length of the NASA engines would be incredibly useful. (BTW. If anyone knows about a mod that adds such landing legs, that would be greatly appreciated) (also, your image is indeed broken, try posting it like this: http://i.imgur.com/ZJ0qJrD.jpg[/ IMG][/ URL] (remove the spaces))

You might want to take a look at Procedural parts. You can make pretty much make any part you want (including 0.62m structural elements and tanks). I found this mod VERY useful for filling in "gaps" in my designs where stock parts or other mod parts don't quite work.

As someone who loves "planetary exploration" type games (such as Space Engine, and Outer Wilds), this game looks VERY promising. I really like the idea of an "abstract" microverse with the static "gravitational cores". Think of all the bizarre configurations that could arise and how challenging it could be to explore them! Also, I like the idea of having a "tangible" ship where you can walk around the interior, sit in the command seat and pilot it. I really wish more games did this. (In fact, I wish there were more planetary exploration games, there seems to be a shortage of good ones as of late) I can't wait to see where you take this.

Something feels different...

This is beauti... I mean, oh the poor planets! What did they ever do to you!?... (On the other hand, I am really looking forward to you punching Eve... That fat purple ***** has been giving me a lot of trouble as of late)

I have it on steam, but I don't run it from steam anymore. Apparently, I can't chose the option to "not update this game" anymore, so I just run it through the executable so I can play 0.24.2 and not have all my mods broken.

Well, Its usually more efficient to aerobrake than to perform an insertion burn, especially if you have a very high relative velocity to your destination (for example, a transfer from Kerbin to Jool would leave you with high velocity relative to Jool). However, there is a more efficient solution than just aerobraking if you want to go to Vall. If you aerobrake at Jool and set up a Tylo or Laythe gravity assist, you can reduce your velocity relative to Vall and therefore reduce the Delta V required for an insertion burn (since the orbit after a Tylo or Laythe gravity assist is more similar to Vall's orbit than the orbit after a Jool aerobrake. If that makes any sense). If you don't want to deal with gravity assists, then yea, in your case, aerobraking at Jool is the best way to go.

If you want to build SSTOs in stock KSP, you must first clear your mind of how you think space planes are supposed to work, you won't be needing that here. Ok, done? good, now we can harness the true power of stock TurboJets without being bogged down by "realism". To design an efficient and powerful Stock SSTO, first determine how much payload/mass you want to put into orbit. Then, go to the VAB, create a rocket like you normally would, but instead of adding rocket engines, add turbojets and intakes (two RAM intakes per turbo engine is usually enough) according to this trick, until your TWR is greater than 1.5. Add one 909 or NERVA engine and struts. Add reaction wheels for control. Add parachutes if you intend to recover the SSTO. You're done! No wings required! Flying it also easy, just get it to 30 Km, level off and gain speed until you reach orbital velocities. Then use your single engine to complete the 50-100m/s circularization burn. Using these easy steps, you can have an SSTO that can lift almost twice its mass in payload to LKO while only burning a few thousand funds or less in fuel. Also, pay no attention to the naysayers, stock SSTOs can easily lift over 100 tons to orbit. .... If you want to get more serious about SSTOs and space planes, I highly recommend FAR. It makes building SSTOs more difficult, but more rewarding and realistic.

Same here, I don't really care about career mode, or for that matter, "science" mode all that much. The first time I played career mode with contracts, I got bored really quickly with the nonsensical contracts and just cheated in a bunch of funds and science and played the game my way. Haven't even attempted to play career mode "the way its meant to played" since then.