Wombats_&Co.

If you're using CKAN, it's a pretty easy installation. I decided to try it on a whim, and had a bunch of fun just getting into orbit in sandbox. Maybe it isn't the sort of thing that works with Career mode (unless certain mods are used? insufficient data for me to say), but if you're wondering whether you should, why not try it experimentally?

albeit patiently. Take your time, whackjob. Let your computer render the frames.

INFINITE POWER FOR ALL! warning: mileage may vary, power may be so finite as to be uncountably small.

I do both Career and Sandbox. Because as fun as it is just to do things (i.e., Sandbox), it's also a blast making do with what you have, and keeping an eye on costs as well (i.e., Career). As much as career doesn't make sense, it's still a blast to go to the Mun on barely-capable crafts to resurrect your dying wallet.

A, a, b. I also generally use chase cam usually just to make sure that ijklhn and wasd actually make sense in terms of what I see, both for landing and docking. With launching, I just use the navball, and don't bother looking at rocket except for aesthetic satisfaction.

In my experience, Stock KSP is nearly perfectly stable - no crashes/bugs ever, unless you were doing ridiculously stupid things anyhow (like creating 4000 part ships... that isn't the best idea). Slightly modded KSP (i.e., when below 20 mods) is also nearly perfectly stable. There are more bugs/crashes, but nothing that really obstructs me in my experience. Sometimes I need to restart KSP to fix some crazy thing. Heavily modded KSP (which I have almost never reached, it is worth noting) is nearly perfectly unstable. I have experienced, in bad cases, crashes with every single vessel recovery, alongside random crashes at other times. There are certain mods which I completely avoid simply because i have experienced nasty amounts of instability with just them installed. And it is worth noting that I am not taking into consideration the memory-limit crashes on loading, as those are entirely my fault, not the game's. I do think that Squad should perhaps be more ferocious with squashing bugs with 1.0, but I would expect the majority of them to come from newly implemented features. And I fully respect that I have no reliable experience with making games, nor with marketing, so they are probably better equiped to figure out what they should do.

... That would cause the science report popup to not appear, but the report to still be kept around? Maybe should've kept that install around just a bit longer... I did reinstall, and it did fix the problem.

(2+4+4+(2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2)+10+16+(4*4))/20 = 3.4 for me. Having never done a return mission from outside of Kerbin's SOI (well, outside it's near orbits, too... thank you Kerbol for your lovely science), my score is kinda low for how much I have done, and that without reverting past stupid failures on ascent. (I pretty much never quickload) But still a good poll. Needs tweaking, perhaps, but still a decent comparator.

One thing in favour of it being a proper in-universe unit is the fact that it is nearly exactly (if not exactly - then again, the in-game measurement might be an approximation of all kerbals to give the model-makers an easier time) a Kerbal's height. Similar to how a metre is around the distance between a grown humans' nose and outstretched fingertip. Given that Kerbin's radius is precisely 600,000 m, and that the Kerbals have somehow constructed the KSC directly on the equator, I wouldn't be surprised if they had figured the metre out. Circumfrence will not help them in any meaningful way, being 3,769,911.1843 m. Distance to the mun is also a very round number, being 12,000,000 m from Kerbin's centre. Further, the mun is 200,000 m in radius. All of these astoundingly round numbers would give significant weight to the idea of kerbals using Metres as their standard measurement.

I joined the day the demo switched from 0.13.3 to 0.18.3.

This strikes me as the most likely option. Also, I wonder if there is in fact a source for the metre on Kerbin. On earth it's supposed to be a certain sub-distance of the length of a meridian, right? So... it might be interesting to try to look for a source for it. I don't think it'd be a very worthwhile thing to do, but could be interesting anyhow. Also, in regards to the original post... I think it would be more useful first to have finer control over throttle. As things stand, the throttle moves with enough speed that having the two larger markers is enough to gauge quite well where about you have your throttle set, and more would not be particularly useful.

Perhaps... though I never have really kept logs of what I've done in KSP. Could always start, I suppose. Hrm.

Hello, people who like KSP enough to spend time talking about it a lot. Interesting things: I started playing KSP the day the 0.18.3 demo came out. I downloaded 0.13.3, played it, had tonnes of fun, showed it to my brother, and he downloaded 0.18.3, the same day. I have landed on one body around every planet. I have only landed on Laythe, of Jool's moons. And as far as I can remember, I've never actually had a successful landing on Dres (apart from a single extended landing leg... dunno quite how that survived the lithobraking). But I have put debris on a lump of rock at every planet. So i've got that going for me, which is nice. I... may have broken KSP at the moment. I can't figure out how to fix, or re-cause the problem, but I've stopped seeing the science reports. That's fun. I'm probably going to reinstall fresh. I cannot remember not liking space. But at my heart, I'm a writer. I hope to be an author, someday. Without a secondary job. But that's a dream. As yet I can only have fun with words for myself to enjoy. Onwards to the Mun, and beyond!