GoSlash27

In the "tips" department: Assuming you have adjusted your thrust limiters as described above, I design my first stage to provide 1,800 m/sec DV at 1/2 ATM. This is enough to get you roughly 700 m/sec at 27 km altitude on a proper gravity turn. 27km is the point where you can safely jettison the first stage and ditch the fins without fear of tumbling. In this scheme, the first stage carries all the fins. I make 1.2G at liftoff, 1.8G at 60° pitch, 1.5G at 45°, and 1G at 30°. If you have too much thrust, it tends to not want to gravity turn. *Grumble*... Scott Manley gets credit for a lot of things he didn't invent. We've been doing that around here since ditching the souposphere and the FAR folks have been doing it for years. Best, -Slashy

It was not made to "slowly introduce players to the game's concepts and mechanics". It's there to act as a foil. The intention is to limit what a player can achieve without stalling them, give them a reason to collect science, and gradually expand their abilities so that they always have new missions and destinations. This is what makes it a "game", and the fact that it is a game is what makes career enjoyable. The current tech tree is very bad at this job, and the fact that you can put a kerbal into orbit within minutes of starting career is an indication of this. The proposed tree layout in this thread may not be ideal for game play (or it may be... who knows), but it is *most definitely* better than the current tree. Best, -Slashy

I use SRBs for my first stage when cost is a factor but mass isn't. I cluster them into an assembly and adjust the limiters so that thrust diminishes over the time of flight. http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/CnCRocketFactory Best, -Slashy

This is probably a good way to go, especially when you're still new at KSP. Turning off SAS eventually leads to gravity turning. Not only is it more efficient, but it's also easier once you get the hang of it. Best, -Slashy

I think that reorganizing the tech tree along these lines would not only satisfy the "simulator" crowd, but actually *improve* gameplay. Starting with simple sounders and progressing from there means that there are many more milestones to achieve in career, which ultimately means more fun. Just my opinion... -Slashy

The way I do it: Ablator in the nose and about 100 m/sec reserve fuel. I shoot for 42km Pe (your mileage may vary). I add throttle to maintain apoapsis as required. If another pass is necessary, I raise Pe accordingly, rinse and repeat. I plan on trying replaceable ablators using clamp-o-trons later, but I haven't tried that yet. Best, -Slashy

Dichie Bach, It looks to me like the leading edge of your wing is lower than the trailing edge when at rest; "negative static incidence". This is going to press the aircraft down into the runway as speed increases. That, in turn, will bow your wings and put your main gear out of alignment and in addition force you to have a higher takeoff speed/ longer takeoff run... which compounds the problem. I recommend clipping your wings higher into the fuselage and rotating them to give positive incidence. With all that wing area, you should be able to float off the runway at a very low speed. You should be airborne before the gear has a chance to give you problems. Best, -Slashy

Well... "Caveman" is a challenge that has been floating around since KSP 1.0.4. The objective is simple: Fill out the tech tree like this: The difficulty is that you have to do it - in stock KSP career mode with no mods - No cheats - Default difficulty settings and most importantly - No upgrading any of the facilities This means that you have to do it within the limitations of beginning stock career, which is 18t vehicle mass, 30 part limit, no maneuver nodes, action groups, or target tracking, lumpy runway, etc. And you can only use the parts that you unlock as you go. The challenge encourages learning how to make do with less and unorthodox problem solving, It's sort of like a "hell week" for aspiring kerbonauts; if it doesn't kill you, it will make you stronger. If anyone's interested, the challenge thread is here: Best, -Slashy

Don't sell yourself short. I bet you could hack it. Best, -Slashy

Actually, my math says 18 days, but yeah... I'll have to mop up the other available science before committing to that chunk of time... if it's available. I like to reuse the equipment and cycle kerbonauts through as part of the training rotation. That makes blanketing Minmus very difficult. Best, -Slashy

My first run in 1.1.3. http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Caveman challenge/113?sort=3 Normal difficulty. I was hoping to complete this in 6 days in- game, but I ran into a snag with my munar flyby probes; the science jr has a nasty habit of exploding on reentry. This cost me 6 1/2 days of failed missions. If anyone else is planning on returning a science jr, from the Mun or higher, I recommend slapping a radiator on it in addition to all the usual precautions. Other than that, not much to report. I focused on getting as much science as I could from Kerbin itself. While this is tedious in playing time, it is very efficient in game time. The landing gear didn't give me any hassles with the cart or my puddlejumper, but my long range plane had difficulties in rough terrain. Just a hair heavy for the gear. Also, I didn't bother taking any contracts. The world's first awards provided plenty of cash. Some useful tips: -The flagpole and corner lab of R&D are unique biomes. -docking 2 manned craft in low orbit will yield 5 science; 2 for the rendezvous and 3 for "beginning a space station". -While the abandoned space center shows biomes, they are not unique. Don't fly all the way out there hoping to collect science. Best, -Slashy *edit* I also enjoyed @IncongruousGoat 's naming scheme. I was hoping to see a "StateMachine" and I didn't leave disappointed

Right now, Minmus is my sworn enemy. I'm trying to pad out my tech tree as rapidly as possible in career in anticipation of the first window to Duna. Minmus offers a trove of easy science points, but the travel time is prohibitive. Must resist the urge...

SpacedCowboy, Unfortunately, the large storage bay isn't available in caveman game play. The objective is to fill out the tech tree through level 5 in career without upgrading any facilities. The Science Jr worked okay in 1.1.2, but in my case the update to 1.1.3 made it unreliable. I could do everything "right" and it would still blow up. The radiator seemed to do the trick for me. Now that I've completed caveman, I'll try some faster reentries just to be sure the radiator fixes it. Best, -Slashy

Oo. Shadoobay... Shattered. Sorry. I'm a big dumb animal. -Slashy

I was able to recover one today with the radiator installed. I'll try a few from higher reentry speeds to make sure that cures it. Best, -Slashy

That's actually how I do it as well. I think I'll try slapping a radiator on it and see if that helps. Best, -Slashy

HvP, Yes I did. I found that one out the hard way. What Foamy said; I'm playing "caveman" style. That munar flyby was the last piece of the puzzle. I was on track to complete it in 4 days, but the failures ruined my schedule. Thus far I've had 6 launches and 3 burn-ups. The first was a low orbit. I assumed it was due to leaving the doors open. The 2 munar returns shouldn't have burned up, but they did. *shrug*. Best, -Slashy

... or is this thing ridiculously fragile all of a sudden? I ran 3 flyby probes to the Mun today and 2 of them blew up on reentry due to the material lab overheating. Full ablator shield, normal reentry profile, no indication of heat. Just *bang* and the missions failed. Has anyone else noticed this problem, or is it just me? Best, -Slashy

That's beyond our borders. You must never go there, Simba... Seriously, it's the game engine that KSP switched to in ( I think) 1.1.1. It caused all sorts of problems, some of which have yet to be fixed. Best, -Slashy

We have a winner!

kiwi1960, I suppose this is where we differ. The fact that I never use certain engines is *because* I consider them to be bad. Their non- use does not make them "good" engines by my criteria, it merely makes them so bad that I can't justify their use. But again... I'm going by strictly stock career. I'm sure deviating from that opens things up quite a bit. Best, -Slashy

The_Rocketeer, I can't really speak to this, since my engineering process is almost completely mathematical. For any payload, DV, t/w, and environment, I instantly know which engine/ tank combo is ideal in terms of mass and/ or cost... as well as how they all rank. There are some engines in the game that are just plain a poor fit, no matter what the job is. These are the ones I consider "bad". Best, -Slashy

kiwi1960, I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree. Not all jobs are of equal importance to the player (particularly in stock career) and not all engines have a scenario where they are the best option. I would consider these engines to be "bad". Best, -Slashy

ruiluth, You did state upstream... And that's fine; it happens. Especially when that's part of your design requirement. My disagreement is with the followup statement "more DV never hurts". Clearly it *does* hurt, as demonstrated by your difficulties. Dialing in more DV than you need bloats the total mass of your ship exponentially, which increases difficulty in design and deployment and skyrockets costs. Best, -Slashy

As you can see by your difficulties here, more actually does hurt. Unneeded DV is dead weight, and dead weight is the difference between a straightforward problem and an impossible one. Had you designed this mission with the bare minimum of equipment and the exact required DV (plus a safety margin), it would've been a lot easier to accomplish. Best, -Slashy