Oafman

That's pretty flimsy

Was it this mod that used to give you an option in the top left of the KSC screen to change the physics distance of your save? Reducing down to 1km is useful for laggy bases etc (park your rovers 1.1km away). I always thought it was Lazor that did this, but I see nothing in the OP and might be misremembering...

It would have to be optional, because it's kind of hard at first, and KSP already offers more than enough challenge for newbies. And if it needs to be optional, then it might as well remain a mod. I think RT is fantastic btw, I never play without it, but it shouldn't be forced on people. Scansat has a better case, because it presents challenges but doesn't prevent you doing other things when you're starting out.

No technical advice to offer, beyond what has been given, but just two things to add: 1) This is the hardest thing to do in KSP. Don't get disheartened that it's taking a long time to perfect. 2) You are close. Your ascent vehicle has a lot of the right kind of attributes for a successful take off and escape. You're nearly there, so don't quit now. Think how good it will feel when you achieve it. And think of the poor kerbals... Good luck, and keep us informed

Quick question: There's no mention of dependencies in the OP, but EVE is mentioned. Do I need EVE (or any other mod) installed before adding AVP, or is it standalone?

Thanks Sarbian. 128TB?! That's a lot of mods... I will take the plunge and install the non-aggressive ATM. I know it will take ages the first time, but it's worth it. One question though; should I add all the extra mods I want first (including AVP etc) and then install ATM so it can work its magic on them? or should I add ATM first, then add the remaining mods I want afterwards?

I recently started using Linux 64bit KSP, which by the way is very stable, and has been great. I use loads of mods, and I now have a save with a huge amount of active parts. I started to notice a slow down at scene changes, so I checked System Monitor to find out what memory the game was using, and was very surprised to see it reporting that KSP_x64.exe was using slightly over 9.5GB (this was after about 3-4 hours of playing, it runs at about 6GB on the startup screen straight after loading). My understanding was that 64bit could handle twice the memory of the 32bit builds, so a limit of somewhere around 7GB. I'm interested if anyone can suggest how it is possible for KSP to use so much more than this. Also, I'm new to Linux and to Kubuntu, so not sure how much I trust the data on System Monitor. When I switched to Linux I initially thought I would not need to return to ATM, since I suddenly had so much more available memory than I had with 32bit. But I guess RAM is like your cupboards at home; you eventually fill them no matter how much space you have to start with. To be clear, I have not experienced any crashes. The only loss in performance has been the slow down at scene change, which I'm not convinced is related to RAM anyway (wouldn't this be a CPU thing? Although I do have a fast processor). But I still have mods I want to add, including Astronomer's Visual Pack, which looks RAM heavy. So should I just keep adding them, and see how high I can go until I experience a crash? Or should I run the non-aggressive ATM now, slashing my memory usage and freeing up plenty more space? Any advice would be welcome.

Yes, there's no limit to how many reports you can store in the can

Squad will be able to get a fortune out of me if they come up with a few decent expansion packs.

I'm delighted this got bumped. I recently changed PC and found I missed the little RCS port greatly, as well as a few other parts, and could not remember which mod contained them.

You can revert. In Steam, go to KSP's properties, and select previous version (or something to that effect). It will re download 0.25 into your KSP folder, and you're back in business

Well, yeah, ideally, but it depends on your plane. I've been building a lot of heavy planes of late, and all that mass, combined with the B9 jet nerf, means I often don't get much past 1600m/s before switching to rockets. But big planes can carry plenty of fuel, so this is enough velocity to convert into an orbit. To the OP, you could do with getting slightly higher before switching, as well as slightly faster. Try to squeeze on a few more intakes (you never have too many), which should enable you to improve both altitude and velocity before you switch. Also, pictures would help. Are you just using a single in-line set of MK2 parts, or are you sticking extra tanks (like MK1 maybe) onto the side? More fuel does not necessarily solve your problem, as it might require you to use more engines, and the whole thing gets exponentially bigger. But it might be an option.

You're so kind to us players, with all the great mods, but so mean to the poor Kerbals.....

Thanks for the update Eskandare. Like many others, I'm not switching to 0.90 until I have all my global launch sites! So good to hear that such quick progress is being made.

Yeah rapiers work on Laythe. Could this be another version of the right click menu bug? Good luck for the long term rescue mission with an amphibious lander

It's fun. It's much harder to make good planes than it is to make good rockets, so the additional challenge adds to the fun of the game. Also, when you start building bases on places like Laythe, the re-usability of planes becomes vital.

No it doesn't need to be outside the fairings. In fact, you can activate an antenna in a plane's cargo bay, and it should be safe from atmospheric forces and allow you to remote control. I'm not sure about the KR-7 as I never use it (it weights half a tonne!), but the DP10 doesn't need to be activated, it always starts on. The Commu32 starts off, unless you change its right click settings in the VAB. So yeah, you can remotely launch your first satellite. But bear in mind that, as its your first, the second it goes beyond the horizon from KSC, you lose it until it comes all the way back around, so getting a network started is not the most straightforward thing.

So, I got it all up and running. Not without a few issues, I must confess (I messed up initial partitioning, couldn't boot up PC, stuck in grub rescue, had to recover with Windows CD then manually correct partitioning, took about 4 hours and a bunch of websites/youtube vids. As I said in the OP, a steep learning curve! ) Anyway, I'm now a happy Kubuntu user, and it's great. Really easy to use (I always thought Linux involved entering text into command prompt, but of course things have moved on - assuming it ever was that). KSP is running brilliantly, between 6 to 7 Gb of RAM (I have all the mods!) but no problems at all. It's the game I always wanted it to be, but was constantly frustrated with having to be so picky on mods, and having to put up with such poor performance. Thank you to everyone who gave me advice and tips. Particularly those of you who suggested backing up Windows files, and who suggested setting a good chunk of time aside in case of 'complications' - I needed it!

What antenna were you using? If you fit the Reflectron DP-10 to the outside of the ship for launch (a popular option as it can withstand atmosphere) then it will only provide a connection up to 500km from KSC. But this ought to be enough time to get your ship out of the atmosphere, where you can activate an antenna with a longer range (eg the Communotron 16 or 32). If you're finding that you're not out of the atmosphere in time, then use a less aggressive ascent profile; go more vertically so you enter space well within the 500km range of KSC. And importantly, once you're in space, don't forget to activate the better antenna. The number of times I have forgotten to do this is not funny.

Sheesh, I would have Hyperedited it by now...

To move little things a really long way. Even though my ions have been significantly nerfed by near Future, I still use them for probes which I think might not get a great response from my beamed power network. If I was stock only, I would use them even more often.

Start your gravity turn right off the pad, but only very gently to begin with. They key with FAR - this applies to planes as well as to rockets - is to never stray far from your prograde vector. So the whole turn has to be much more gradual, which is why starting it so early is important.

1. No it's not just you. The Tree can easily be completed without leaving the Kerbin system. Luckily we now have the ability to change settings and make it slightly harder to earn science. 2. Not sure what you mean. Can you rephrase that please? 3. Very little in stock. But there are a couple of fantastic mods that make satellites worthwhile, namely Remotetech2 and Scansat. The former makes you set up line-of-sight connections in order to control your unmanned ships, and the latter enables you to scan planets and moons, earning science and also making very useful maps. 4. A difficult question, as it's really a matter of opinion. Personally, I would say Mechjeb, because in the stock game, you have very little actual data on what your ship is doing (eg orbital characteristics, available deltav etc), and MJ gives you plenty of that, in many different ways. It is also known, sometimes negatively, for its autopilot features, and some people are critical of others who use them. But tbh, when you're faced with launching yet another fuel resupply, or yet another constellation satellite, it is nice to have the option of having your staff do it for you! Kerbal Engineer does the same, without the autopilot, though I've never used it.

Well that is pretty good, considering hard settings. I think you have to go for it! If you have mods like KSPI it will be much easier than if you're using stock.

How much is the reward for completion?