SorryDave

Goodbye stock aerodynamics, for all your shortcomings you never would drag me down

I cannot wait for the release release

I will build and fly. Then I'll check career. Should consume a solid month or two.

Just brainstorming... I think the strategies would make more sense if the game had victory conditions. Victory conditions could be: Achieve 75,000 science points Accumulate 20M funds Reach highest reputation If someone uses strategy it should be towards a victory condition and more than one should be obtainable. Unlocking the tech tree should not be a victory condition, I think a lot of players feel it is the goal of career mode.

Maybe air breathers should not exceed 600m/s without melting the compressors. If the game was very realistic SSTO would not even be possible, like on earth. Rockets are also way overpowered in this game. It's almost like squad was more concerned about building and flying things in space than just struggling to get there. It seems that these old arguments may be only for pre-release versions of the game, but who knows? Maybe the release will also be easy for experienced players and focused on fun.

For most rockets, i turn 10-12K to 35-45 degrees depending on thrust. I then turn fairly slowly, so that about 30K I am usually pointing at the horizon. I am usually coasting engines off from 55-70k before I burn the last 300m/s into a 70K circular orbit.

I would say that learning docking is the most critical and rewarding thing to learn.

No Minmus was originally called the green pixel. - - - Updated - - - That's an excellent point, I think Kerbals were originally meant to be asexual but ended up looking like American residents of the U.K. because of some miscommunication during development.

I agree a bit with the OP, except that I find the new MK3 parts make better rocket parts than spaceplanes. Larger wings and new landing gear may help. Of course this is still early and my feelings about neglected rockets may change when they release pictures of the procedural fairings and cargo bays.

It's called the Mun for the same reason Kerbol is the Sun. They were both observed by ancient Kerbals as dominating the sky. They were neither fixed or wandering stars. They called them the Sun and The Mun long before they discovered other planets had satellites. Maybe some Kerbals post on their forums that Gilly is Eve's Mun, and are corrected by Other Kerbals more concerned with proper grammar.

The Mun is a Kerbin moon as is Minmus

I'm not getting this all wrong, but I do appreciate your insight and taking the time to elaborate on my opinion. In fact I agree with you completely that reaction wheels are great for small medium craft and vectored engines are only good for steering during accent (large or small). Even for large craft reaction wheels help when spinning/banking to orientate parts and do so without burning fuel. I think a large craft with RCS thrusters and a reaction wheel would be better than with just RCS. For heavy ships like in your links, I like to use action keys and LV-1/LV-1R engines instead of the Vernor. Sure they are heavier at .09 instead of .08 per 12 thrust but they have better ISP and in my opinion look really spacey on big rockets. The thrust is also changeable preset and with the throttle allowing better control. I tend to use the Vernor since their introduction just for translation. The monopropllant thrusters are a waste of fuel on ships that big, in my opinion. With all respect sir, this isn't all wrong, just my humble opinion.

Things I'll snibble: 1. Flying straight up to 350km, looking around, and coming back like a meteor. 2. Building fantastic looking rockets right out of sci-fi. 3. Struggling with RSC thrusters during landing to get zero horizontal velocity. 4. Genderless Kerbal jokes. 5. Hearing the excuse that it has bugs because it is still early access. 6. Drop ships. 7. Building planes before it was intuitive 8. Challenging stock Eve accent 9. Launching the whole damn thing because I don't want to build it in orbit 10. Everyone building different looking rockets to suit their playstyle Of course these are all just snibbles as I am all aboard the hype train for what looks like the greatest release yet. I mean for this release release, do we really have to wait till experimentals?

I would have bought this game without kerbals, I just would not have enjoyed it as much.

OP, yeah rover physics is horrible. The work arounds mentioned in this thread helps. Rover mishaps are my most common way to loose a Kerbal. I flip rovers far more often than I tip a lander. If I cared more about Kerbals I would not use them. The Kerbals don't like it either because they become frozen with fear or something and they become unplayable when knocked off the seat. Isn't it strange that during a RSC backpack mishap a Kerbal can slide 1km on his face through the thick dust of the Mun. But a rover flips over when you try a shallow turn at 2m/s?

Looks like they will be procedural per Devnote Tuesday, additionally they may work as heat shields giving us options for crafts designed for aerobraking as well as launches.

I support a fourth female Kerbal with a fixed name and stats. If so she should also wear a prison orange high visibility suit which is never worn outside the rec center.

I thought that this was going to be addressed in 1.0. It is clear from the in-game description that they were not meant to survive reentry. I thought only command pods and spaceplane parts were going to have heat shields, and some fairings. But I can't find any post that states this, was it a dream?

Better water model? I never really thought about it. I always land at Kerbin in water because it is at sea level and just a little NASA. I guess I would support a better water model, but after better rover physics.

I agree with what you said but I would add that Non-casual players like myself need it as well. Maybe it isn't needed for launching small rockets or simple missions like fly-bys. For more advanced missions like base building and orbital construction reaction wheels really help. Docking with only RSC thrusters on a heavy payload is a real pain, as soon as you take your finger off a key, you need to turn off the thrusters to avoid the game trying to stop you from the rotation you started. They are best used for translation Designing a vehicle to land on the moon with the cockpit reaction wheels disabled using only vectored thrust might require a good pilot, but it isn't good rocket design. Orbiting the moon alone with only vectored engines for control can be done if you aren't trying for any precision. There are better challenges in this game than tapping away WWWSWSSSW.

I haven't found this to be true, if you can turn a ship manually it is probably because the command module has a reaction wheel and can provide torque. I generally only add reaction wheels for craft that must change orientation quickly, like for docking. Thrust vectoring alone does not help keep a rocket on a true course during accent or on a 90 degree heading without a lot of corrections. Fly without toggling "t" for a waste of fuel. Stability assist is not autopilot. But a good reason to use stability assist is to use pilot skills to land a vehicle without any horizontal velocity, or to change inclination while keeping a circular orbit.

Maybe they should just consume a great deal of electricity. RCS thrusters are horrible for stabilizing a large vehicle. They are just okay for turning a vehicle even if only for a limited number of times. When used to stabilize they turn on and off as they try to counter harmless rocking and consume a lot of fuel. They can be tough to setup on multistage rockets and can translate your vehicle as well as rotate it. Large tall pointed rockets can easily consume a lot of fuel on its way to orbit, wether or not stabilization was required.

One of the best things about using this in the tracking station is that you can turn things from debris to a station. This way you do not need a probe core to keep your debris from vanishing.

I minimize debris, but I rarely use probe cores to do it. My interplanetary and moon transfers always starts as a collision course for spent stages. It doesn't always work, sometimes even the slightest push from a decoupler can push debris into a flyby orbit when I am far from the destination. Then I just leave it. I also leave a lot of parts on planet surfaces; pilotless rovers, landing gear stages, skycranes, etc.

My heavy pieces (usually fuel tanks) have an attached upper stage with reaction wheels, retrograde engines on action keys, small monopropellent tanks, parachutes and a pilot. On the payload 4 RCS thrusters are attached to stayputnik probes with jr ports. The probes have disabled batteries and a disabled monopropellent tank, they pop off and either deorbit or ride back on the tug.