Alshain

@TriggerAu Since you have the better option for "Warp To Here", would it be possible to add an optional feature to hide the stock button? It's just such a bad ergonomic design, it's far to easy to accidentally click when trying to create a maneuver node, which of course ruins your mission by the time you figure out whats going on.

Making your orbit perpendicular to the planet in order to line up a suicide burn costs a heck of a lot of fuel. You are welcome to try both methods and gather the data you need, I would certainly be interested to see it. I'm not spending the time to do it myself, I already know which is better.

Well I agree with the name being a misnomer (I've mentioned that before) but it is definitely more fuel efficient than a suicide burn.

I feel like it is normal given the scale of the system. We don't send solar powered probes out to Jupiter or beyond, I assume for this reason. Pioneer 10 was the first I think, and it had four RTGs. I'm pretty sure every craft we have sent beyond Mars Ceres was RTG powered. EDIT: Did a little resarch, Dawn is solar powered, and it is in progress.

Suicide burn is not the best landing though. It's just a more efficient way to burn in a very inefficient landing method. To line up for the fall straight down so you can do a suicide burn, you have to expend an awful lot of fuel. Slash has a tutorial on the best way to land here: Eventually you get to a point where you don't need to do all the maneuver node stuff, you will be able to 'eyeball' it pretty well. Back when I learned to do it, I never thought to use a maneuver node so I've not really ever done it exactly as he does, but it's still a good tutorial.

But it works fine as a Mk2 shuttle OMS.

Lol, I do something similar, but I have a Thrustmaster T.Flight HOTAS, so I can remap the throttle to... well the throttle so it stays on without the need for a brick, and it has an analog on the back so I map steering to that and don't even have to touch the flight stick when driving a rover.

Well I'm still playing with these on a lifter, from the cost perspective of course, and I actually found a niche for them in my 35 ton lifter that saves about 2 grand. The previous lifter used a Skipper upper stage, but I swapped it out for 2 thuds and a poodle. Used almost exactly the same fuel to get to orbit, but was cheaper. Looks like that trick may work on my 40 ton as well but I'm still testing it. It may actually replace the skipper as an upper stage entirely.

If they added 0/18 runway you could launch polar without having to turn around.

Well of course, I use them plenty in space, especially on landers, but that isn't the thread topic.

Except you can't control it. Besides, that's not what I was asking for. I was asking if anyone could make a cheaper thud based lifter.

So I decided to try a little empricial testing on what I believed the numbers were telling me from my earlier posts and in the end I believe I was correct, I could not build a Rocket capable of orbit using the Thud cheaper than an equivalent payload rocket using a Swivel and SRB's (specifically Hammers). I did come really really close however, within a few hundred funds. Now I am not perfect by any means, so here is a picture of my rocket including cost and if anyone can build a cheaper rocket using Thuds I would be very curious to see it. This is a 2 ton (2.040 precisely) payload lifter aimed at 100km orbit and I wanted to keep it around 1.5 TWR on the launchpad, I used ore and parachutes to simulate payload. Of course none of this matters if cost is not your concern, but it's still something to consider.

I picked Interstellar because it seemed the most interesting, though I enjoyed reusable before it crashed and burned as well. I haven't watched many of Scott's videos lately, I think RSS may be fun to play but it's so incredibly slow starting that it's just very boring to watch (sorry Scott, if you're reading this). jhawk, @syzygy is his user name by the way, same as his YouTube channel name/url. Though I don't know how much time he actually spends here on the forums.

@sal_vager Ok, well as is made obvious here you have the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. I don't know whether you or @Claw is the accurate one but since you work for the same company, you really should figure it out. However, I am not paid by Squad to move issues into a bug tracker. I am paid by another company to do the same and I will not give away my services for free, to do so would be career suicide. So, I no longer care, it does explain why KSP always seems to be bugged though, you don't know how to identify bugs! Close the thread please, KSP can stay bugged and awful for all I care.

I might have got you confused with someone else, I apologize for that. It was someone with a Squad Employee tag (which you don't have), I'll look for it. Ok, found it here: Again, sorry I got you confused RIC.

It's not my job to fill out another companies issue tracker, unless you are offering me a job at Squad's customer service department (which I doubt). @Red Iron Crown said bugs were accepted in the forums technical support section so that's where I put it. Maybe you guys should get together and figure out how to, you know, moderate appropriately.

It doesn't work, it's functionality is backward, that makes it a bug. It wasn't bugged like that in 1.0.5, so it was introduced in 1.1 Look:

@sal_vager Why was this moved to suggestions? It's a bug, the light is backward. You have to turn in off to turn the lights on.

They are stale to you and I because we bought into early access. Tons of people only bought the game after it was 'released'. We really just got biomes on all the planets, I know that feels like forever ago because changing game engines took a year, but it was only 2 major versions ago. I'm not saying more planets wouldn't be nice, but you do have to remember the early access players are probably a fraction of the total playerbase now.

I concur, if you want something done, gotta do it yourself.

I like to use it as a Shuttle OMS.

@regex @klgraham1013 I mean, really both of you make good arguments. I'd like some new places around Kerbin to explore with atmospheric planes, but I'd also love some new planets. Both KerbinSide and Outer Planets Mod have proven that people want both. Can't we all just get along?

I always take 20% more on interplanetary journeys than Transfer Window Planner says I need. Like you, no matter how perfect I get it, I always run shorter than the estimate for some reason.

Not true, it means it's a lot harder to get a scared look on their face. You can still frighten Jeb, it's not easy, but it happens. By the way, it is BadS not BadAss