SorryDave

For setting up an interplanetary/moon transfer, the lower the better (71K) to save fuel. I also start lower when setting up to dock with a higher (100K-200K) target. When entering orbit of an airless target, I also aim as low as possible to get the most from my fuel. Of course I do this so the target is slowing me down, not "assisting" me out of the SOI.

Now that SQUAD is adding lose conditions, the should consider adding multiple victory conditions, something simular to CIV4. You could earn a victory by accumulating X science points, funds, rep, or bodies visited. Ideally, you could keep playing after meeting a condition.

I collect science points for fun. The later technology on the tree is not required to complete contracts or make money. I think that the tech tree should require only funds and the science points should only be used as a score or just for fluff. The human race has developed some of the later technology, and never sent a person beyond the earths SOI.

One of the best things about KSP was learning the game, it will be nice to start again learning a rebalanced version.

I think a pork chop style tool would be useful to have, one that displays delta V vs. date. This would be useful even for those who like to burn a large amount of delta-v to launch earlier. A simple indicator would be the best approach for stock, it would not make anyone do anything and lowest delta V is a standard and reasonable requirement for most every space planner. Mods exist for planning other transfers.

I recommend playing first without mods. When you pick mods later you will be making sharper decisions about what to add.

Most of my dreams about KSP happen at work, or when the X begins with; "you never blah blah blah"

I am sure my X would agree that this is a game for kids. I think my son agrees as he introduced it to me knowing I would love it.

Either KSP was written for me, or I was made to play KSP.

My biggest accomplishments are those I haven't done yet. Every time I finish something I am proud of, I take a screen shot, show my kid, and then try something new. Right now I am building a set of ships that will capture two large asteroids in LKO and then dock them together.

If the game has reached scope completion then it should be ready for release. I do not think SQUAD should wait for a unity release, unless it lines up with their release date. They plan to address the bugs and balance in this next release, and with any luck will. SQUAD has made improvements to bug tracking and to the internal QA process. I just hope QA gets more time than a couple weeks to work the game, especially if rebalance is part of the release.

I crash MK3 spaceplanes the most, they usually tear themselves apart on the runway. My games rarely crash, probably because I am playing on a six year old computer.

I never test rockets in career. I usually just wing it. Usually with no problem. but almost every game my first rocket ignites the engines and deploys chutes in the first stage,.

Some games I minimiz debris, other games I do not. I almost never use probe cores.

Stock and Rockets I do lbuild a lot of aircraft and spaceplanes but not nearly as much as rockets.

I agree with the OP, he is mad.

I am currently trying to dock to asteroids in orbit to a space station that will connect them

I do not believe that fun comes at the expense of realistic, unless fun is not the goal. SQUAD seems to have the right idea by developing lift and drag models as well as better tools in the SPH. Spaceplane development is not intuitive in either FAR or the current model.

Sometime ago I drove my first off-Kerbin rover with Bill and Jeb straight onto a deep crater on the Mun. They went straight down about 100 meters but somehow survived, rover upright. Then I did a slight turn at a slow speed at the relatively flat bottom and knocked them both off as the rover overturned. The were so stunned that they both became uncontrollable zombies. I started new game.

I brought a debris field to the Mun It was originally a large square landing pad with a can tower dropped by skycrane - - - Updated - - - Little tip; you can change an object from debris to ship or something in the tracking center by clicking on the name in the info box. Of course you can't turn on the lights or do anything without the probe core, but it won't delete.

I have one recent dark sin to confess... I don't have an issue with the aerodynamics as they are, I spend most of my time in vacuum.

Sometimes, I try to unlock the tech tree as soon as possible so I can actually use the parts to build vehicles that do not exist in the real world (spaceplanes and interplanetary passenger liners). Sometimes I try and complete as many contracts as possible without unlocking the tree. Once you have ladders, fuel lines, solar panels, and docking parts you can visit almost everywhere. Except for better test contract rewards, the later parts are just fun. For fun, the career mode should end with one question: Now that you developed a space program and technology, what will you do with it?

It seems like SQUAD has a grasp on what changes need to be implemented in simulating aerodynamics and still be a fun game. The biggest changes I am looking forward to are wings with enough lift to fly from the runway without a crazy angle of attack and much needed design aids in the editor. A dry mass indicator or maybe center of pressure would be s nice add to the VAB as well. I hope they implement a slider to change lift to simulate different airfoils, that would make balancing tails easier. To get a feel for the changes, I will probably first try and launch large slow pancake rockets and then really fast needlers. I hope it is fun, is there even a real example of a "realistic" space plane?

I'll be designing all new craft, looking forward to the new editor tools for plane design. I will also spend some time designing absurd pancake shaped asparagus rockets because I like a challenge.

The rocket plane has the advantage of being re-usable. The lift of the wings allows you to launch from the runway with less than 1 TWR. If you wish to launch a interplanetary SSTO then I agree you should use air-breathers. One craft I use has a set of jet engines above and below the wings ( 20 total) and twice as many intakes. Even still, this craft has just under 3Km/s dV when in orbit. I do not believe an interplanetary MK3 SSTO recoverable vehicle would be cheaper than a rocket designed for the same thing, but would be more fun. Good flying!