selfish_meme

Yeah my landing gear design was very tippy, and I have found the large landing gear very...stiff, if you land a bit fast they start to break stuff on the ship they are strutted to (I can't see any struts on yours?). I had to do a lot of landings testing the design out before I found a spot flat enough to allow a landing. My pre-1.0 design was much more forgiving. It could only get back from the top of the highest mountain though. I found I could run one drill and the ISRU with 2 Gigantors for a while, but the rate was very slow. I loved Melkins craft, using the same engines for launch, braking and return, its just so common sense. We know any Eve capable craft is virtually an SSTO on Kerbin anyway. All you need is fuel.

I use a magic mouse on my macbook, its great for scrolling in the VAB, and once you enable right click works as expected. The lack of any buttons is a problem on missions, I get by but I wish I was using the Logitech, but when I am in the VAB I wish I was using the apple magic mouse.

That is a flat bit of Eve, I have not found anywhere that flat yet. Is that your newest ship, she looks sleek. - - - Updated - - - By the way how is running four drills and two ISRU's working with only two Gigantors?

It does not work that way, nothing under 2.1 in KER with body set to Eve will lift off. I have tried.

Is the Kerbal lying sideways in the bay, what did you connect the seat to?

In KER you need a 2.0 TWR in relation to Eve to take off.

5% is more than enough to win the mass class

I'd like to see that sometime, every time I try it shakes itself apart when the Kerbal enters the seat. - - - Updated - - - Not on Eve

On eve

Instead I would download a stock space bar to orbit replica from the spacecraft exchange if you don't want to put in the hours.

If you put a lander can at the bottom you can dispense with the ladders which will probably explode anyway.

Its just stock, but I run Linux/opengl, it looks better in windows/directx

I have found that random yaw, when not because the vertical control is insufficient is due to flex. The engines at the end of your wings are probably to blame as you suspected. If you strut them it will probably improve your yaw problem but negatively affect your performance.

This, getting up from sea level pre-1.0 with a capsule was a daunting task. Most of us landed on high mountains so we could cut 7km from the ascent. My old lander was around the same weight but I would never land it at sea level.

I have seen heat shields float away and up, falling at a much lower rate than even fairly aerodynamic craft. Somethings off with their behaviour.

You need to get above 80km to get out of Eve's atmosphere, usually a 90 to 100km orbit is necessary. Also you need a TWR above 2.0 to get off the ground. Once you do start moving you hit mach at like 150m/s. Straight is easier because of drag causing you to flip until 30-40km, I usually let Mechjeb fly until I get to around 700 m/s then I jockey it through the last air to prevent burning up, then hand it back to mechjeb for the rest.

I saw another one recently which used a mammoth as the first stage for Kerbin and Eve, nice shape and not too heavy. A really neat way to put together an Eve mission. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/124166-Eve-for-Valentine-%28Val-s-journey-to-purple-planet%29

I have a video?

I use Mechjeb a lot and it has no problems putting a rocket in orbit even without editing the ascent profile. The only ascent profile I edit is for Eve because you burn up a lot quicker and need to go straight for longer. If your rocket flips it is because it is aerodynamically unsound and you are pushing too fast through the atmosphere.

Its your rockets not mechjeb, check the flipping rockets threads.

Did some more testing and building

Yeah you need high TWR at least 2, but you cannot go fast until you get high

Amazing effort, I'll just leave this here http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/123380-The-Bare-Minimum-Eve-Lander-and-Return-Vehicle

Nothing wrong with my osx play, it never crashes, it must be something to do with your install.

Yeah but it's not the same issue that other games have, most games like Battlefield and such are limited by their graphical output (for which you have a honkin great GPU card for) so the investment is not just a good computer it's a Graphics card as well to just to play the game. KSP looks pretty much the same even with all the graphics turned down (not sure about Windows DirectX, who has time for Microsoft or 32bit). Its the FPU and CPU that are being stressed (plus memory if you want to run mods). I think to compare KSP to Farcry say you would need to invest the same sort of money in your CPU and Memory that you would for a Graphics Card to play the aforementioned game. Maybe a eight Core i7 extreme and 16GB of DDR4 RAM, run that on Linux and watch it fly, you could get away with a $100 graphics card.