Daripuff

Unfortunately, that cannot be done without mods, as once a craft that is being affected by physics is 23km away from the focus craft, it despawns. So long as you stay within 23km of the other craft, you're able to do so, but you wouldn't be able to fly in different directions for long.

You don't need to worry about balance issues if you use the CoM and CoT display when designing the satellite. You can offset the main engine to the center of mass quite easily, and that solves all balance issues of the satellite. The only downside is that the faring might be larger than it otherwise would need to be.

How do you make satellites interesting looking? You give up on making them efficient. In real life the reason interesting looking satellites like Voyager have those spindly arms is because need, not want. They have to keep certain instruments away from the RTG or comm dish, otherwise the instrument won't work properly. They have to install the RTG prominently out in the open because it needs to be able to cool itself with the fins, and the radiated heat can't be directed at the ship. There are so many requirements that force designers into those "interesting" satellite shapes. Ones we don't have in KSP. If they could make the satellites compact and efficient, and make them into a tight cylinder shape, so as to be able to fit them into a smaller faring, so as to be able to use a smaller, cheaper launch vehicle, they absolutely would. But they can't ignore many of the laws of physics quite like we can, so they can't make satellites with as efficient of shapes as we can. So... If you want your satellites to look cooler, impose yourself some artificial restrictions. Make it so an RTG always has to be standing on end, and be isolated. Make it so that a gravioli detector always has to be at least 1 meter from any electrical part. Make sure that solar arrays can never obscure scientific equipment. Make it so that you never use reaction wheels, you only use RCS thrusters to orient your probe. Only by putting artificial yet realistic limitations, or simply deciding to eschew efficiency for aesthetics will you ever step away from cylinder probes.

Nope, not with a NERVA as your vacuum motor. You can do an oxidizer free SSTO spaceplane quite readily with a RAPIER / nuke combo. Not as easily as you used to, but it can be done.

A single player game cannot truly die. It can cease to be updated, then it can cease to be supported, and eventually, the mod community can cease to be active, but so long as you have the ability to emulate an operating system that it works on, or can never actually die. I mean, heck, to cease to be updated means nothing at all. That point in a game's development is what used to be referred to as "launch".

Wow.... I noticed the MET jumps all over the place. It's at 1 day 2 hours with the Minmus transfer burn, it's at only 39 seconds with the Minmus orbit, and 5 minutes at the "approach to landing" and when landed, it jumps back down to 1 minute 38 seconds. Are you just using hyperedit and the F12 cheat menu to do this? It looks like you launched a ship, achieved a Minmus intercept, then hyperedited a lander to orbit, attempted to land it with infinite fuel, and then hyperedited another lander to the surface.

A gravity turn is still the most efficient way to get to orbit of Eve, but 45°at 10km is WAY too shallow a turn. You do the gravity turn to balance out the losses of fighting gravity with the losses of air resistance. On a planet with no atmosphere, and therefore no air resistance to fight, you go full horizontal the moment your altitude is higher than the hills you might hit, no gravity turn there. Or rather, a gravity turn so shallow it might as well not exist. On a planet with a truly brutal atmosphere like Eve? You need to be more vertical for longer. Air resistance down low is much much more difficult to fight than gravity, so you need to tune your gravity turn much steeper. Something like 45° at 25 or 30km. You want to go nearly straight up until you're in thinner air. If you're doing 45° at 10km on eve, you're wasting far, far too much fuel fighting that brutal atmosphere.

You're problems are twofold : One, the "top" decoupler in the left: decouplers only detach from one side, so if you want to detach from both sides, you need a separator. Two, the "bottom" decoupler on the right: You put the decoupler under the faring base, so even in the best circumstance, all you'd detach is the fuel tank, and the faring base would remain attached. If you want to detach the payload, you want to use a decoupler smaller than the faring base, attached to the top of the base.

I found an easy way to do this . Just have the final stage have 24 seperatrons attached directly to the capsule . Insane TWR , and when attached directly to an mk1 capsule, it does something like 14:1 TWR. Little additional mass , easy to haul into space , and will quickly and cheaply knock out any tourist .

The thing is, though, you don't really see much reentry heating while in the thermosphere. Heck, you don't even really necessarily consider travel through the thermosphere to be reentry. I mean, the ISS orbits in the thermosphere, so it's traveling in that "high temp" area at 8km/s, and experiencing no compression heating whatsoever. Edit: In fact, most LEO orbits are actually in the thermosphere. LEO being defined as approximately 120km-1000km, and thermosphere being approximately 85km-600km With the space shuttle, it didn't actually get compression heating to the point of plasma generation until it hit roughly an 80km altitude, where the thermosphere ends 5km above that. The atmosphere of the thermosphere is so negligible that all it requires is the occasional re-boost burn to counteract the drag it causes. KSP's approximation of the Thermosphere by simply not modeling it is not their least accurate approximation.

The only problem with that statement is that you really can't call the thermosphere "air". The thermosphere is "space". The molecules of gas do in fact have a lot of thermal energy per molocule, but there are so few of them that it is actually brutally cold. A billion molecules at 300° K has a lot more thermal energy than a thousand molocules at 3000° K.

It's KSP. (and all the implications of what a fun, rewarding, enjoyable game that is. If you need to know what's good about KSP itself, well, you're on a forum dedicated to the game, it can't be hard to find great things about KSP here) On console. (with the accessibility and comfort of gaming on your couch that that entails) There is literally nothing more. Then stop acting so aggressive, rude, and demeaning, such as: I really hope so, because you're refusing to accept the answers that people have given, and refusing to accept that literally, the only thing that is good anybody has said about KSP console that is not also good about KSP PC is the fact that it is on console. But that's not a bad thing. The fact that it's on console means you can actually play KSP if you don't have a PC that can handle it, and therefore it's expanding the audience of KSP beyond the PC gamers. The fact that it's on console means that you can play on your big screen TV while sitting on your couch. The fact that it's on console is a GOOD THING. However, that's the only good thing about KSP console that is unique to KSP console. Literally everything else that is good about KSP console is the exact same as KSP PC. Everything else that is unique about KSP console, is not a good thing. However, you're not allowing us to talk about the negative. You're getting mad at us when we talk about the negative. It really comes off as a case of, "Nevermind that, Mrs Lincoln, what did you like about the play?"

But... The post you really liked, by Dufor, has nothing good to say about the experience on the console. There is literally nothing positive in that post that is not exactly the same as it is on the PC version. Seriously, look at it. He's talking about the joy that is playing KSP, the trials and triumph that is KSP. Nothing that is positive about his comment has anything to do with console other than the fact he experienced it on a console. The only console-specific comments are either "it could be better/it fell short of expectations" or "it's workable and doesn't detract from the game". KSP for console is simply KSP. If you reject any negative, then you are left with the positive of the fact that it is KSP on console, and nothing more. I think that you are asking for something that doesn't exist, which is positive experiences with KSP console that are unique to console, and not to PC. There are none. Nobody has been able to state a single one, other than the simple fact that you can play it on a console, with the ease of access that is every console game. You are being constantly disappointed with the responses because you set impossible expectations.

It sounds like you're just looking for justification of your choice to go for the console, since you already love KSP. Why bother asking what's positive about KSP console, and specify not to compare it to the PC? It's not like it's a different game. It's the exact same game as the PC version, except it was shoehorned into a platform it wasn't designed for. Everything you can say that's fun and good about the console version, you can also say about the PC version, except that you don't have to deal with the awkwardness of using a controller to play a game designed for keyboard and mouse. To ask your question "what do you find nice about KSP console" is literally the same as asking "what do you find nice about stock KSP?" Since you don't want the negative, people can't bring up the awkward controls, lack of mods, overwhelmed CPU, or the myriad of other problems that the console version has. Do you want the simple answer to your question? Q: "What's nice about KSP console?" A: "It's KSP, on a console." And that's that. But that's not a bad thing, because it opened up the joy of KSP to everyone who doesn't have a PC, but does have a current gen console, and that's a very good thing.

Well there is your problem. Your aircraft design means that your stable wheel set leaves the runway first, before you have sufficient speed for full aerodynamic stability. Even if wheels were perfect, you'd still be having this issue, because you can't have stability on one wheel. You have to either switch to a "two wheels in front one in back" setup, or move your rear wheels to just behind the CoM, and give your plane a level or slightly nose down stance on the runway. If you don't do either of those, you'll continue to have the exact same phenomenon, even with theoretically perfectly simulated wheels. PEBKAC.