Warzouz

In a pure roleplay style, this station wouldn't be much fun. In beta, I had a dedicated mission around Kerbol. This mission was boring. The scenery was nearly still. On the opposite, the station orbiting Laythe was increadibly nice with Jool-rises and neaby Vall and Tylo with the naked eye. Fantastic sight !

It doesn't change much. It's not worth it. Still, you can do it for fun (that's way we all play KSP

Thx. That's understandable. This whole negative reaction mess could have been avoided, if it had been done before. It's very strange from a company which is such as close to it's community as Squad.

Yes this is true, I'm organise artificial crew rotations on my space station to climb the XP ladder. I need an excel sheet to manage who did what and need to do what before going home. It's kind of RP (after all, returning hope is a reward for kerbals !) but it's sometime tiresome. I know we can get 3 stars kerbal by doing a kerbol SOI peek, but at that time the entire scienc tree is already unlocked. It's strange. Want why can't the SOI peek go to Duna an learn thing on the way there. It's not logical. Hopefully, the "Field Experience" mod works like a charm and do exactly that. But it's a mod and it should be stock.

Or a way to hide avatars as we could do in previous forum.

But maybe this forum software doesn't rely on BBCode so you can't really turn the editor off so see it. Maybe it's some proprietary format coding.

Yes, there is very little use for a solar space station. Time to get there will be very bound by windows. I use a lot of space stations, but I've none around Kerbol and my Kerbin station is never used, except on very rare occasion to refuel my space plane for high orbit operation (kerbal rescue due to old and ill designed return vehicle from interplanetary transfers)

What do you think about the Kerbal XP stuff Q1 : XP progression rate, compared to science progression rate (too quick, too slow). Q2 : Need to land on kerbin/retrieve to gain and levels XP Q3 : XP is grindy ? Here is what I think : Q1 : The XP progression rate is too slow compared to science. You can unlock all the parts with science and still not have any level 3 kerbals. I find that strange. Either way, science unlocks too quickly, or XP is gained too slow. Q2 : XP should be gained during flight as rewards for milestones do. (there is a simple and nice mod for that) so Kerbals wouldn't have to return to Kerbin. Q3 : I find XP much more grindy than science. Having to plant flag seems a little stupid as you get points for landing. What do you think ?

Let's give it a try. There maybe a difference between questions asked by newbees which need step by step help, and "not so newbees" which are able to navigate trough existing topics.

Your orbit inclination around target body is not the real issue. In any case, the cost of a target inclination change is very low if you do it very far from it (even outside it's SOI) The real issue about interplanetary transfer is the inclination plane of the target body itself regarding your own plane of inclination your own around your starting body and the starting body plane itself.

What is the point of all the "ACTIVITY" tab ?

502 Bad Gateway again (but refresh clears it this time.

Just take 2 of those contract : build station around Duna and Build station around Sun. Then get there One station, 2 rewards.

@Geschosskopf, I totally agree with you. I tried the Kerbin LKO refueling tank/station. that was a real waste of time for very little gain. The I begin to look into recoverable SSTO rockets and that was much more profitable, with only 3 minutes of wasted time. Even if I understand that mid trip refuels are a waste of time, and even of fuel, it's sometime fun to do it. There are also contracts that push you to do such operations (journeys and those horrible tourists missions (who do them anyway ?) )

Jut got a brand new Error 500 this time.

The script/redirection should not be the issue. The identifier correspondence may be. Where is that correspondence if softwares are different, I suspect the database is not the same ?

Again, I4m not an expert in web forums, but I know quite few things in data bases. Topic post ID ar identifier. They aren't created by the user, they are created by the software (end sometime even from the data base itself.) There is no real way to get them back. Anyway, if there was (which some kind on export/import features), the migration should have to be redone. But as the softwares are different, I don't see any pertinence of forum software devs to I managed a forum under phpBB once, we handled the "mobile" user with a dedicate simpler skin. That was nearly transparent for all users. Further more, if, on smartphone, it was hard to use the forum, it was totally usable on tablets/pad.

So I don't understand why there is so much wasted place on the web pages. Mobiles have very small screen, thing have to be compact and readable. This skin is not compact at all

The true question is why the old forum has been removed even I've never read any complaints about it. It was reasonably simple and tweakable. The new forum is clearly less efficient than the old one and add nothing more.

Hmmm, I didn't noticed the mess in the old thread formatting and text. All ' and " are replaced by garbage... Hopefully I only have 2 topics I show my stuff in, but I can't imagine what it'll be for many of forum users. And those ridiculous interlines are a pain. I'm not a website designer but those CSS should be fixed. Line 1 Line 2 with 2 wasted lines

I can't agree more.

I'm looking for the feature to hide avatar and signatures, I found none : - There is no way to hide the right column - Why interlines are SO large. Posts become artificially long. - You can only see very few post on a screen now, you have to scoll a lot. On my "discret" window at work I could read 10 or 12 post names before , now, I get only 2...) I don't understand why the forum had to be changed. It was much better before.

If you have a very low TWR you can't really go fully horizontal or you'll crash into the ground. You have to burn partially radially to keep vertical speed positive and increasing horizontal speed. But that's true that vertical speed does only have to be slightly positive. Anyway, beware of mountains at low altitude, especially on Bop (I nearly crashed into one even on a 45° ascent angle...). :D EDIT : BTW, I always overfuel lander by a lot to allow multiple hops and science gathering. My typical lander as 3000m/s. When targeting nice landing zone, you can explore a lot of biomes.

Is there a repository of simple scripts than intelligently tweak the game without changing the gameplay ?

[quote name='Venusgate']This logical fallacy especially falls apart when talking about high altitude flight. Aircraft dump ridiculous amounts of non-capturable pollutants into the upper atmosphere. Developing the technology for an end product that will not take pollutants to where they do the most harm is more than a step in the right direction. The rest down here is just politics.[/QUOTE] Not if it need ten time more pollutant per travel. See "Rebound effect". [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_%28conservation%29[/url] Anyway, it's green washing