A_name

You can also use a small fuel tank at the top of the stage and lock it to act as ballast, it’ll keep your COM forward.

For some reason, I always get unsettled when flying under planets in polar orbits. It's like a looming dread. Very strange.

Interstage fairings FTW. Make sure your decoupler is one size smaller than the upper stage tank, so that it doesn't interfere with the fairing. If you have Editor Extensions, you can even offset it down as much as you want to avoid having to use a girder. Then, place the fairing base directly below the decoupler, and build it so that it closes onto the edge of the upper stage tank. A fairing in this configuration provides additional support to the joint, so having your upper stage hinging on a small decoupler (or girder) will no longer be an issue.

Updated.

1 minute burns are totally fine. A long burn I would consider to be above 5 or 10 minutes. Just make sure you split your burn time half way before and after the maneuver node. This is totally the wrong way to launch in the new versions. See this tutorial:

OP, for your presentation make sure you bind the solar panels and antenna to action groups (second blue button at the top left of the VAB editor) so that you can deploy them with the push of a button for a sleek effect.

Can it be made so that the environment (on Kerbin at least) looks a little bit more "crisp" and less hazy? I have no idea how to work with the configs, so sorry if this is an obvious question. Also, is there a way to make the sun look less like a fried egg? I don't have a screenshot right now but what I mean is that there's a very noticeable boundary between the "central circle" and the "halo" part of the sun, so that it looks like the yolk, and then the halo part ends too sharply so it looks like the white part of a fried egg. Thank you in advance for the help!

I want to make the sound effects louder. Can this be done via config?

I'm not sure if this belongs here or in the Stock Visual Enhancements or Scatterer threads, but here goes. Background: I purchased a glorious new computer and for the first time ever I've been able to install ALL visual mods. I've been enjoying myself a lot! Problem is, I have a couple of peeves with it. First, things are too hazy. I understand this is what Scatterer does, but to my taste they've overdone it. Second, the sun looks weird, like a fried egg. Too jagged on the edges. I don't like it. I'm sure both these problems can be easily solved with some config wizardry, but alas I am not tech savvy. I have no idea what any of the things do in the in-game GUI of Scatterer. Thus I turn to you for help. Thank you in advance.

These are all good answers but none address the underlying issue. Even with SAS turned off, there should be no reason why the craft should start rotating unless there's an external force applied. The mere act of going EVA and letting go of the ladder does not exert torque over a ship. My guess is that OP is using the Mk-1 capsule with a part attached to the top that is slightly clipping through the hatch. This situation WILL induce a force on the capsule when a Kerbal goes EVA (the Kerbal also is sometimes flung away at high speed in these instances). Usual culprits are batteries, probe cores and other components placed on top of the capsule (the small parachute is safe to use, never had a problem with that part in particular). Use the offset tool with fine control (press 'c') to move the part ever so slightly so that it's not fitting so tight against the capsule. This usually fixes the issue.

Is CKAN working on KSP 1.3? Sorry if this has been asked before.

Depends on what you mean by "best" engine. Best for what? Using your example, the Terrier would be a great choice for space maneuvers once you're out of the atmo, provided your plane is not too heavy. As to the Reliant, there are very few scenarios where this engine is actually the best option, the obvious one being when you’re building a 1.25 m lifter need just a bit of extra thrust on liftoff. The swivel is better in most all other applications, due to its gimbaling capacity and its higher Isp. As to how much difference it makes, I’m sure it wouldn’t be so hard to do the math and find out exactly how much Dv you waste by going with a lower efficiency or heavier set of engines, but in terms of gameplay feel, I can tell you from my own experience it does make a difference. That said, for spaceplanes you’re almost always better off just going with RAPIERS as your only LFO engine, because any benefit of including a more efficient engine will likely be offset by the Dv losses of carrying around the extra mass. The exception being the Nerv for long-haul flights. Another thing to note is that engine performance rises to near-maximum values at around 8 km altitude, so ASL values are only really relevant for the first stage of a rocket lifter. On a personal note, my favorite engine is the Rhino, extremely efficient and a very good thrust. Only disadvantage of course is its size. IMO the 2.5 m engines are mostly useless (i.e. you’re better off going with another size option altogether), except for the Twin Boar on lifter first stages. In the 1.25 m size my favorite is the Aerospike due to its good efficiency across all flight conditions.

But how reliable would that be, that was my point. You can definitely pull it off more often than not but it's not a solution.

This is the only real way to do it reliably.

I’m a bit late to the party but I wanted to share these recommendations: -Base your design from the beginning around having a COM that doesn’t move as you burn fuel. Use the right click menu to empty all your fuel and make sure the COM marker doesn’t move. You can also use the RCS build aid mod that gives you a dry COM indicator: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/33124-12-rcs-build-aid-v091/ -Once you have the plane’s base design built, use the rotate tool to give your main wing a tad bit of incidence, just one or two clicks of the rotate tool with angle snap turned off should do it. This will help to avoid losing vertical speed when flying level. -Once you’re done rotating the wing, use the move tool to adjust your main wing so that your COL is almost directly over the COM, just one or two clicks of the move tool with angle snap off behind it. -If you did the previous steps correctly, your plane will fly level without any input on the controls. -Do yourself a favor and install Atmospheric Autopilot, which apart from the autopilot functions also includes a simple fly-by-wire module that provides stability assist only but is dramatically superior to the stock SAS: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/124417-122-130-atmosphereautopilot-1510-looking-for-maintainer/

RCS actually works quite well for minimal mid-course corrections because you can thrust in any direction without having to reorient your craft (assuming you placed your thrusters correctly). And these engines are usually hypergolic or use monoprop, so they might as well be RCS thrusters. In fact, the engines on Cassini were derived from the Apollo RCS system!

Atmo is just fine IMHO.

Thanks again averyone!

*bump*

Hi guys I'm back to ask for a little bit more help before settling for a new laptop. I'll try to keep my questions succinct: 1. Will there be a noticeable difference between an i5 7300hq and an i7 7700hq? 2. Will there be a noticeable difference between 8gb and 16 gb of RAM? Thank you all!

I'm assuming you know the basics of how to use maneuver nodes and setting targets to plan encounters. For encountering other planets, I look up the phase angle and eyeball it from the tracking station. The phase angle is the relative angle between the locations of the origin planet and destination planet along their respective orbits. Think of it as their position on a clock face. So for example to get to Duna if Kerbin is at 12 oclock you want Duna at around 10:30 roughly, because the phase angle is ~45°. Google "ksp phase angles", there are several sources ranging from simple diagrams to full-scale transfer calculators. To get to Kerbin's moons, the phase angle is 90°, so if the moon is at 12 o clock you want to burn at 3:00. For the Mun this can be eyeballed by burning when it rises above the horizon. As I said, most of this is done by eyeballing the angles. This means you need to leave a margin of extra fuel to do corrections and stuff. if you want to be really efficient, the tools are out there to calculate everything perfectly, but it's not necessary. For rendezvousing with a craft in orbit when you're already in orbit, the larger the difference in altitude the less time it will take to get in phase but it will also make your rendezvous more expensive. If you don't want to wait, burn into an orbit at least a couple hundred kms higher/lower and you'll usually get an encounter within 5 or so orbits. For rendezvousing from the ground to an orbiting craft, wait until the target craft is almost about to pass overhead and launch. During ascent, check map mode to see if your target is passing you or not. Depending on that, launch into a higher or lower orbit. Since you're already close to begin with, it will usually take no more than one or two orbits to catch up or be caught up with.

Wow guys, thanks so much for all the great answers. This is why the KSP community is so awesome. As to the why a laptop debate, I just prefer to have everything in a single package. That said, I will consider buying a cheap laptop for my basic web browsing and word processing needs and use the remaining money for a better PC. If it works out money-wise I just might do it. @Raven. the price is USD $1,200. This is a good deal for those specs in my country, no idea how much this would cost in the US or somewhere else. Right on, thanks! I enjoyed your metaphors, do you follow football (soccer) by any chance? You're the Ray Hudson of gaming : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS6Np-g_h5w

For those wanting to try 6.4x or even 10x/RSS but not wanting to bother with all the part overhaul, consider the SMURF mod which rebalances the stock parts to be usable in larger scales. It's what I use and I love it.

Thanks for the reply dude. Sadly this is the best graphics card I could afford in a laptop and I need it to be a laptop because this will be my primary computer for work and school too. On a related note, I found another option that is $400 dollars cheaper but has not so good specs: Intel core i5 7300HQ 3.5 GHz (vs. Intel Core i7 7700HQ 3.8GHz ) 8gb RAM (vs. 16gb) Nvidia GeForce GTX1050 (same as above) $400 is a substantial difference given my current budget. Would there be a noticeable difference between the two options in terms of running the game smoothly? Thanks again for the help!

So I'm considering a new laptop which I want to be able to run KSP smoothly and finally be able to use visual mods. What do you guys think? Intel Core i7 7700HQ 3.8GHz 16GB RAM NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050