Alshain

There are a number of solutions to that. Ideally the game would implement several and allow the server operator to choose which one. I doesn't really matter though, as I said, I don't think we will see multiplayer at all.

Because its really not. It thinks it knows better than you, so if a mod doesn't have the correct version number, it doesn't matter if you think it works fine, you can't even install it. I know what is best for my game on my computer, not CKAN. In fact CKAN mods are often outdated too, which is another problem. Then there has been the issue of the CKAN team vs. the mod developers, this has been mostly resolved but reluctantly on the part of the CKAN devs and it still leaves bad taste behind. Suffice to say, CKAN is not the glorious solution it claims to be.

No CKAN. I'd rather leave it like it is that have that.

Welcome to the forums. Sadly, I doubt it will happen in this game, maybe KSP2. Farming Simulator 17 has it done right IMO, but it's too late now for this game.

Welcome to the forums TEmmie. While Co-Op is most definitely possible, there are plenty of people that like to pretend it isn't. Unfortunately it just never materialized on Squad's end. They had a plan at one point but it may have just been too big a project to do after the fact. Mods have proven it works in theory but unfortunately they are very buggy, and it's not really something that works as a mod because of the backend limitations of a mod. I don't feel it is likely to every happen at this stage, though I suppose it's still a possibility someday.

That's what I thought too except he said they disappeared, which wouldn't happen if you didn't decouple. Anyway, we just need him to post a picture. EDIT: Just occurred to me, maybe he thinks the Struts are cables, like the REAL sky crane. OP, if that is what you think, that's not the case here. Sky cranes in KSP don't have cables you just have to get close to the ground and decouple and let it fall a few feet.

Wow, that's new to me too. It's been over a year since I fired up KSP, maybe it's time for a comeback.

I suppose I could be mistaken, but it sounds like he is trying to fashion a sky crane landing.

Not a joke, Winglets are still wings. He could be asking how much wing you need to balance the rocket. That's why I asked, nothing in the OP really suggests one or the other.

Well in that case it does sound like a mod issue, the only real solution to solving that is to remove each non-essential mod one at a time (or a few at a time) till it stops. If it still happens, you may have to remove any mod parts from the craft and keep going. If you can, make your first test with no mods and all and start adding back mods instead, that will let you know if it is a stock issue or a mod issue to begin with.

Can you post a picture? It sounds like you aren't fully decoupling somewhere.

Landing a plane on a banked surface in KSP probably won't work the same way it does in real life.

I guess I don't know what you mean by "build like an Igloo" then.

It's hard to tell because the video is so fast, but it looks like Duna is obstructing your relay when Ike is behind it.

Are you sure you have them placed correctly? Getting the boosters on the radial decouplers can be a bit quirky. A screenshot is always helpful. Do you have sepatrons aiming toward the rocket? Is the exploding part even close to some other engine exaust?

Duna is pretty flat all around, but here is a topography map. You can see quite a few craters and basins have flat spots on them

Well, first things first... what kind of SSTO are we referring to in this case... plane or rocket?

The best gravity turn is a real gravity turn, but it takes practice to get it right. If you can get your Launchpad Atmospheric TWR to around 1.5, then launch and tip over about 5 degrees just a bit off the pad. Wait for the rocket to center (the SAS will stop making adjustments as seen in the lower left on the HUD), turn off SAS, and take your hands off the keyboard. The rocket should fly it's own gravity turn, at least most of the way. Minor adjustments may be needed.

Well, first of all this is a concept, not a final product, but these building have to be able to hold out a vacuum. It can't be airtight-ish, it has to be air tight.

When you are designing 2 stage lifters (that is 2 stages not counting boosters), remember that the more fuel you add, the more mass you have and therefore your engine becomes quickly insufficient at the upper stage. The biggest problem I see is the overly large amount of boosters, but the second biggest problem I see is a mother load of fuel tanks on the upper stage. Your first stage should get you through the thickest parts of the atmosphere, after that you shouldn't need a lot of fuel because the upper stage engine is more efficient at that point. If you make the upper stage too big, not only does the upper stage engine need more power, but then you have to lift the upper stage which takes more power in the lower stage... the problem feeds on itself. This of course means you need to know where your engine is best used. In the case of the Terrier, it's a vacuum engine. Of course upper atmosphere is almost the same as vacuum so it works perfect for that, as long as it isn't over worked. @Harry Rhodan's lifter looks pretty much like mine would. Notice how little his upper stage is. If you are launching a well maneuvered gravity turn, that lifter should have you at about 30-40km (maybe a bit more depending on your piloting) before discarding the first stage. That is far enough out of the atmosphere to take advantage of the Terrier's efficiency.

@Iamsodarncool The reason for the disparity in modules is because the Porkjet models were made with built in animations for turning on and off the cabin lights. The older command pods have no such animations in the model itself so instead they changed the color of a specific region of the model, otherwise they would have had to re-make the model. The color changer is much easier for the developer but sadly it is much more limited in capability because AnimateGeneric does so many things. I had the exact same issues making them consume electricity. As far as a work around, the only way you could do it is with a dll mod. The same is true for the name of the Deploy Limiter.

Actually, Squad redefined the tech tree as a script some time ago, so you don't need a special mod anymore. However, for simplicity Module Manager is better than file editing, so a mod is recommended... just not required. However, even then you still don't need a special 'tech tree' mod, just Module Manager and a text editor. EDIT: Specifically, Nodes are defined in 'GameData\Squad\Resources\TechTree.cfg', and of course the individual part files themselves place the parts in the nodes.

Saitek sucks in general, thats why Logitech was able to buy them out.

Maybe if you turn off heat but I don't see that working under normal circumstances.

Even this is not 100% accurate either. A rocket that accelerates too quickly will reach suborbit long before a proper gravity turn can possibly be made. That results in consuming more fuel. The air resistance at high speeds prevent turning, and by the time you get out of the air it's too late. Then you have a long orbital insertion burn, which is costly. @JestersageMy personal recommendation is 1.5, that's largely personal preference and it doesn't have to be exact, but no lower that 1.25, and absolutely no higher than 2 would be the best guidelines I could really offer. Streetwind is correct when he says there is no good answer to this question.