Sky_walker

You need to trigger it through staging. Not manually.

It doesn't look like a tru binary asteroid. As for 67P/Churyumov- Gerasimenko - here we have a topic about that with embedded animation: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/79190-Rosetta-Philae-and-Comet-67P-Churyumov-Gerasimenko/page3

Ok, before I go into details, let me get one thing straight about all these points you make with "pipe dreams", "likely will never fly", etc. We're talking here about "next nation that will walk on the moon". That is a pipe dream no matter who you take into account right now, as noone: literally noone has the capacity to pull it off right now nor secured funding to complete this mission. This whole topic is about estimations, plans, ideas, future capacities. So let's stick to that, as if we'd actually try to do the reality checks on everyone - conclusion would be that noone is going to make a moon landing in any foreseeable future as noone is secure enough to tell when and that for sure they'll do it. Now, back to the topic:

He didn't lost. He intentionally lead himself to bankruption - and achieved this goal. Sounds like a win to me.

Flawless landing in a mountains. 100% of time. Awesome. I want that for every ship I fly. Oh come on! You expect people to do maths? Seriously? They'll always insist it's cheaper to land the thing and recover than simply get rid of it. After all chutes are small and fuel tanks are big, right?

Good point. Sorry, I thought it's obvious >_> Have some rep.

So much disinformation.... let's make a bulleted list: It's much more modern, can push cargo from Plesetsk to GEO (look at the map how far north that space port is) It doesn't use toxic fuel unlike previous russian rockets It's modular, so it'll be cheaper to build large and small launch vehicles at the same time and cheaper to transport them If we're on a topic of prices - Angara is suppose to replace multiple families of rockets, like Proton, Kosmos or Zenit, what means less maintenance, lower production costs, lower operational costs Russians also hope that by phasing out post-soviet launch systems they will get rid of reliability issues that they had in recent years. Changzheng 5 isn't ready yet and it's Chinese rocket, Russians want something on their own. It's like saying that Antares rockets are pointless cause CZ-5 is larger and more powerful. lol Angara will be more powerful. At least in heavier versions. Russia is the world leading provider of a satellite launches, so they most of all care about having low costs and a wide range of options for their customers with possibly smooth operations.

Preferably: That and take a mission time into account too. So that a few seconds "leap" wouldn't give anything at all, or: almost anything.

Yes, please It'd make life sooo much easier

I would prefer if devs would carter too, and actually deliver some more "meat" to the game, then just hope for modders to do work for them. I paid my money to SQUAD, not modders.

Doesn't change the fact that there is absolutely no need for two toolbars or mod having a dependency on another mod when desired functionality is already in the game. Only if you have a new toolbar. I really, really hope though that it won't be necessary any more as there is a toolbar in the game right now.

Yep. I really hope modders will stop using this toolbar and opt for an in-game one. Nothing worse than a stack of dependencies.

Ugh... and I thought it's just me >_>

Engine changes comparison done by Xavven:

And a manager mode, with science and contracts, but no VAB or SPH?

Yes. It's called "Science" mode. It's on a start screen between Sandbox and Career.

It'd make sense as a feature as long as you have only 2-3 technologies researched. When you got 5+ it becomes impossible to remember names of parts that you discovered and where in a tech tree are these that link to the mission. Would be good, though I'm afraid it might be too complex (time-taking) to be worthwhile.

Have you found any undocumented changes or features of 0.24? Here's changelog. (same on a wiki) One that I know about are changes to SLS. MiniMatt was kind enough to make a comparison: What else did you found? Any fixes to the easter eggs, or other stuff like that? Some non-obvious changes you'd want to highlight?

Yea, looks like a bug.

Nope. Your progress will be slower than if you'd recover everything, but you still will be able to progress no matter what - whole science tree can be explored in Kerbal system itself, so you can build just a cheap and light rockets, what allows you to progress the game even if you run only on an up-front payments. You just need to be clever and avoid overengineering like a fire.

Me too. Overenigeering finally become a sin and something that you need to watch for. Which is good Means less whackjobs and more realism. Besides - it fits perfectly inline with my gameplay style I suddenly feel like an awesome player reading reports from all these other people running into huge issues with managing their finances

Yea, I noticed that. Back in 23.5 I build a fancy rocket capable of Mun landing..... It doesn't work any more I can't keep it straight, and if I add stuff to control it well enough - I run out of fuel :/ Had to build a new rocket.... bit further in a research tree (original one was done with just the initial techs alone)

IMHO research tree should be expanded (reduce the amount of items player gets for each research node) and require more science to complete - in fact the amount of science to max-out research tree should be equal to the maximum that you can get out of exploring Kerbin and it's moons. So that player would be given a choice: Either sit and grind or start exploring other planets (note: obviously it'd require adding biomes at least to Duna).

Play science mode. Found your problem with the career game mode. Build a small sounding rocket, mount chute on it, complete the contract. Besides - noone forces you to pick contracts that you consider impractical. Really? I'm yet to have a problem with funds - and I have barely 100 hours in a game. Hm... perhaps that's what you are doing wrong: Overengineering. I never bothered with returning things like SRBs or stages back to the base and so far - no problems with funds. Rover part?BS. They don't. It's fine. You just have a lot of very bad habits in KSP, and that's your problem, not a problem with the game itself. It plays just fine if you are flexible player.

I did my in a two GOs: 1) Sounding rocket made it to the orbit - it was very simple, just 2 fuel tanks, engine, chute. 2) Mounted 3 staged SRBs on it to push myself up and then done circulation. at 70km. Easy peasy