Gaarst

Your favorite whats?

Oh, well. vOv

It's nothing like an aimbot. An aimbot is there to remove the couple tenths on seconds you need to aim at your enemy, giving you superhuman reactions and a very unfair advantage over your enemy, whether it is a person or a bot. In a game where the difficulty is based on your abilities to properly aim at enemies, it is very much a cheat. A dV readout is there to save you a few minutes of calculations whenever you're adding or removing a part from your rocket. Sure it does things automatically in your place and a lot faster than a human could, but who cares? KSP is not about sending a rocket before your enemy, it's about sending rockets to wherever you want. Giving you information to help you playing the game properly is not cheating*. Now, a wallhack also gives you information to help you play the game, but it's a cheat because you're not supposed to have access to that information and it's giving you an unfair advantage over an opponent; in KSP you have all the information you need to calculate dV, so why would calculating it be cheating? If the devs didn't want you to do it they would remove any mentions of Isps and fuel masses, then you could argue that having a dV readout would be cheating because you would not be supposed to have access to that information. The trial and error method pushed by the devs in their early PR only gets you so far. Getting to Eve over and over again to see if your lander can make orbit is not "good" gameplay, it's just annoying. In every game with thought-out gameplay, there are techniques and knowledge to learn to achieve a better level (weapons, maps, enemies, equipment, strategies...); in KSP it's learning how to properly fly and design your craft, this includes using proper engineering to optimise your rockets. Since the devs are so opposed to giving us any piece of useful information in the game, we either have to calculate things ourselves (which gets old really quickly) or use a mod that calculates these things for us. * It's a game about flying rockets and the devs would be against using any kind of proper engineering while playing? In my opinion the only reason there isn't a dV readout in the stock game is because the devs can't program one properly (burn times have been broken since they were implemented), and in no way because their "vision" of the game forbids it. Remember that manoeuvre nodes are specified in terms of dV but that the game never explains what it is or how to calculate it.

Read the stickied thread called "How To Get Support (READ FIRST)" and tagged "important support information". Hint:

Then say that it's much smaller and don't throw random numbers around.

You might want to review your powers of ten. Even Planck scale numbers never go beyond 10100, which is a lot less than 10100000. You probably meant 105 (100,000).

You didn't read the instructions.

Are you sure you followed all the instructions to install it correctly, along with the required mods? If it doesn't change anything then something's wrong on your install because you should definitely see a difference.

Yes.

5-10 years means launchers that are pretty far in development today. Ariane 6, Vulcan and H3 are not reusable (so is whatever rocket the Russians will end up with), Falcon 9 doesn't account for "most" payloads, BO has zero market today so they are not magically gonna jump to 50% in a few years, SLS and Falcon Heavy are too large for most commercial payloads, ITS lol, the Chinese and Indians don't seem to care about reusability for now, Skylon is still a pretty drawing... So yeah, I voted expandable.

Debatable. I personally spend more time designing my missions and spacecraft than flying them, and I've never touched MechJeb.

The guide linked above is severely outdated, a lot of things have changed in 2 years, especially concerning 64bit and all the DirectX/OpenGL/ATM stuff we used to deal with RAM issues.

Looks a lot like this mod: What mods do you currently have?

The Saturn V is a tad more iconic than the Kerbal X.

The localisation was originally meant to include 9 languages, which were probably Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, and two other languages that I don't remember being mentioned/announced (maybe Arab, Italian or Polish, choose two). At one point the five latter languages kinda disappeared from the developers updates and 1.3 was released with only Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Spanish, and the other languages were still not mentioned. I guess German will come at some point, but we don't have any information.

The jet powered altitude record is 37,650 m, set by a MiG-25 in 1977. The MiG-25 was an interceptor with a lot of trade-offs to enable speeds up to Mach 3.2; most modern fighters tend to be multirole: they are better overall but I don't think any of them can beat this old record.

I guess the one from this thread: Sadly, the download was hosted on Kerbalstuff. @GregroxMun might still have the file available somewhere if you're interested.

Is there a way to default the sorting order in the "Support" subforums to date instead of votes as I have it now? I prefer doing many clicks once over one click many times.

Try flying a plane with planks instead of wings in real life: it's not going to be a pleasant experience. Since KSP doesn't have proper wings we are stuck with flying plank-winged aircraft with generate very little lift, the game compensates this by making the atmosphere more soupy, ie: more drag which means terrible L/D ratios and diving shuttle landings. The fact KSP's drag model is terrible doesn't make things better. I'm not familiar with FAR but I'm guessing wings generating proper lift helps in a realer atmosphere.

You might have trim enabled. You can set trim by pressing Alt+WASDQE and reset (disable) it by pressing Alt+X. Trim simulates you keeping a key pressed, it can be useful when flying planes to keep a constant altitude. Trim is "paused" when SAS is active: your craft will no longer move by itself with SAS but trim will not be reset when you disable SAS. I don't know how MechJeb handles trim, but it's pretty consistent with what you're describing.

-me

Extensive development time for a feature some people know they won't use, so wasted development time that could be used for other features Several ways of implementing many features, so a majority will inevitably have preferred them done another way Long and complex thing to code (and maintain) possibly requiring much more effort than the entire beta (remember that KSP was never thought for multiplayer) so a lot of places for Squad to mess up and bugs to pop Inherent characteristics of multiplayer meaning that people will have something to get mad at anyway People like to be mad

No. A fairing is a fancy piece of plastic, it vaporises like everything else when reentring.

The old forum was the one before the 2015(6?) host change. The update a few hours ago is just a reskin, I know change is hard to live with but you'll survive as all of us will...

(The following is always assuming perfect ejection angles and planetary alignement) To go from a Kerbin escape trajectory to Duna, you need to get yourself in a transfer orbit between Kerbin and Duna, so with a periapsis of 13,599,840 km and an apoapsis of 20,726,155 km (Duna's SMA). This vis-viva equation tells you that for this orbit the velocity at periapsis is about 10,203 m/s. Kerbin's orbital velocity being about 9,285 m/s, you need to add 918 m/s to that velocity to get into your transfer orbit correctly. Now, let's suppose that you are orbiting at the Mun's altitude but are not in its SOI. Then, your orbital height is 12,000 km and your escape velocity is about 767 m/s. Using the definition of escape velocity and hyperbolic excess velocity, to escape Kerbin with 918 m/s relative velocity, you need to be going 1,197 m/s at the Mun's altitude. (V2 = v_esc2 + v_excess2 = 7672 + 9182 = 11972) The orbital velocity of the Mun being 542 m/s, you need to add 654 m/s to that velocity at the Mun's SOI exit to get into the right orbit. Supposing you are orbiting the Mun at 25 km over sea level (so with a SMA of 225 km), your escape velocity out of the Mun's SOI is 771 m/s. Using once again hyperbolic escape velocity, to escape Mun with 654 m/s relative velocity, you need to be going 1,003 m/s at 25 km over the Mun. In a 25 km circular orbit around the Mun, your orbital velocity will be 538 m/s, you then need to add 465 m/s to that velocity to escape the Mun correctly, ie: you need 465 m/s of dV from a low munar orbit to get to Duna. In the end, what has happened? You are orbiting the Mun 25 km over the ground, going 538 m/s. You light up your engines in the right direction and burn 465 m/s of dV; your orbital velocity is now 1,003 m/s. You are now on an escape trajectory relative to the Mun. When you exit the Mun's SOI, you have a velocity relative to the Mun of 654 m/s. This means that you are now going 1,197 m/s relative to Kerbin at 11,400 km over the ground. You are now on an escape trajectory relative to Kerbin. When you exit Kerbin's SOI, you have a velocity relative to Kerbin of 918 m/s. This means that you are now going 10,203 m/s relative to the Sun at 13,599,840 km over the Sun's centre. You are now on an elliptical orbit with an apoapsis equal to Duna's SMA, if you've timed everything right, you now have an encounter with Duna, all for 465 m/s of dV! That's 615 m/s cheaper than with a LKO transfer, and 65 m/s cheaper than the method Physics Student described above. Is it worth it? No! This method is more of a theoretical minimum than a practical thing. It assumes no relative inclination between Kerbin and Duna, Duna being at an altitude exactly equal to its SMA (happens only twice in an orbit), perfect alignment and infinite SOI (though taking finite SOI would actually reduce the total dV). Setting such a manoeuvre would be a pain and launch windows would be never (you need Duna at the right place in its orbit, Duna and Kerbin at the right phase angle, and the Mun at the right place in Kerbin orbit, all at the same time), plus the dV saved over a more conventional escape is negligible (you'd lose that 65 m/s in inaccuracies and correction burns anyway).