Warzouz

For what I understand, programs don't allocate "physical memory", but just memory. The OS manage pages of memory block and swap them from physical memory to page file (stored on HD). when you start a program, this program request memory. The OS give it and if there is not enough physical memory it stores pages of memory of other less used programs on drive to free physical memory for that new program. But if the program don't use it, the memory will quickly be stored. On my last computer on Win XP and also on Win7, I had this issue. Sometimes, my computer would slow down quite harshly. As my computer had 8GB, I forbid the usage of pagefile. Slowdown vanished. Only one game (I don't recall which one) had trouble because there was no pagefile on my computer (but a later patch removed this bug). Now, I'm on Win10 with a SSD as primary disc (OS, softwares and games). I don't have any problem with pagefile. Maybe it's due to the better chipset infrastructure, or on Win 10 management, or on my 16GB or on my SSD. I don't know.

Sorry I didn't see you post. Beware that this designed was mostly done for 1.0.4. Reentry heat was increase in 1.0.5 and 1.1 so this design may noe be as easy as before. But your question is about ascent and there shouldn't be any difference with 1.0.4 on that part. You've used all your fuel around 25km ? wow, that's strange... - Maybe you set a too heavy payload ona given launcher - Maybe you didn't do you gravity turn correctly (notch at 50m/s) - Maybe you payload is too bulky or not streamlined - You are trying to reach a too high orbit. Thoses rockets are designed to go to LKO (75/80 km) A 25km you should already be at 10 to 30° to the horizon and your engines should still be burning fuel. I don't remember at which altitude I stop burning because I'm usually focused on apoapsis to reach 75km. In any case, if you have too little fuel, use the next rocket design. But beware that you TWR may be too high so you'll got upward too straight and will do an inefficient orbital insertion. So don't hesitate to lower the thrust on engines before take-off.

If you don't want to go to mods but still try to recover your launcher, you can build SSTO rockets and make them recoverable. It's quite fun to design and easy to fly. This technique is VERY scalable : once you have your basic design, just double the fuel and engines and you double your payload to LKO. The cost per ton is very low (but not as low as SSTO space planes). Beware that since 1.0.5, reentry is more harsh than before. The following topic is some a bit obsolete now, but the guidelines are the same. On the other hand @Snark explained very well that designs and flight plans are also dependant on the time you have to play KSP and what your like to do. So one's solution is not necessary fit for you.

Minmus is a good first landing area for truly beginners. But you'll learn more while practice landing on Mun. Only Laythe, Tylo an Eve will need more learning to land. Minmus is also a good practice ground for orbital mechanics. As many said : the answer depends on what your easy with. If orbital mechanics is quite clear for you : aim for Minmus If you're not afraid of landing then aim for Mun I would add If you're in a career game, Mun has a better science return (more biomes) but Minmus can be stripped for science in only 2 drops from orbit with a reasonable ship. So Minmus is an easy science earning with a lander with an additional orbital tank. Mun will grant you more science points, but your orbital tank will have to be bigger and Mun striping takes longer (13 biomes, hard to do more than 3 biomes each time) If you run for cash, just follow the profitable contracts your get (usually Mun first). If you're limited by parts and fuel, aim for Minmus, required Delta-V is lower

I voted YES : I'm quite happy with this mechanic. Here is why : - It's quite efficient for new players. It limits new parts so new players aren't overwhelmed by the possibilities. - the MLP was modifier in 1.0 to add a secondary mechanic to get science without grinding experiments. - there are other issues that limits more than the science mechanics : the whole contract mechanic is not "Space Program" oriented. KSP is supposed to be a "Space Program" game, not a "Space Flight" game (it's said in the game title...) - It's an incentive to explore other bodies, even if you can fill the whole tech tree with only Mun and Minmus (without MPL). With administration you can convert that to cash (the only somewhat useful usage of Administration...) But that's true, science could have an additional late game usage. I know there is a nice mod that allow you to tweak parts with science. That's a neat idea, even if identical ships would have different performance depending on you current advancement.

@JoseEduardo, well I don't regret my purchase. True that I could have spent it on mure useful things, but with this kind of thinking, I would never play computer games... NMS is a nice game to play with 10 to 40h (which is already more than some of games). Don't expect to play more, as you could play Mincraft or KSP ; except if you like heavy repetition. I'm not disappointed because I hadn't any expectations. Before buying it, I understood this was an exploration/contemplation game. It was... for 20h. I can understand heavy disappointment for those who thought it would be an Elite-like game (which feels sometime empty too). Some features are nice but are quickly boring due to repetition (you may have get that by now )

"than you planned" Seriously, the OP question is not that precise : do you have difficulties to land ? To learn landing (awfully unefficient but good to learn slowing down) : - Set your orbital speed to "Surface" - Target retrograde (SAS) - Stop your horizontal speed (yes I know that's ugly...) - Let you fall down, control your speed so it doesn't go over 100m/s - when you see scatters, reduce to 50m/s - when you see your shadow, reduce to 20m/s - Try to touch down around 1m/s It's best to practice on Minmus, then on Mun Now, an efficient suicide burn - Do a light deorbit burn so you touchdown point would be between 90 and 180° (I usually set around 120°). Check that your projected orbit don't cross cliffs or mountains. - At the location of the touchdown point, set a node and pull the retrogade handle until it flips - The total burn duration is a good approximation of your suicide burn starting time. - So timewarp, then start burning when your are at the duration of the burn. Discard the node, it's not useful any more. Just follow retrograde. - This technique has reasonable margin (depending on your ship TWR), so don't hesitate to stop burning if you feel you're too high. - Again, control you speed to be around 50m/s when you see scatters. As you go mostly horizontal, the ground will arrive much slower than with the previous technique. Land around 1m/s if you can. You'll see that you can start burning safely even you passed the burning duration : it's an optimistic approximation. When you are easy with this technique, you can learn precise landing which is much much easier with this technique than with the previous one. To do a precise landing : your touchdown location should be few degrees farther than your target location, but must pass above it. After de orbiting, adjust your normal so you still fly above your location. Don't forget the body also rotates. Orbit that matches may not do so in few minutes. So do slight correction burns before the real suicide burn. Decelerate on map view and check your projected landing point and real location converges. If it don't converge fast enough, burn downward (radial-in). I you're too short burn upward (radial-out). The farther you adjust the cheapest it is. With little practice, you should be able to select one crater on the Mun (even the smallest ones) and land into it (that means around 1km range).

Kerbin Space stations aren't that useful. But putting space stations around other bodies is VERY efficient for science and refuel. I used that a lot. Sure the first flight is usually much more expensive and hard, but the next ones are ridiculously cheap (basically a crew rotation transport). Landers and fuel infrastructure stays on target. Of course, for several bodies (Eve, Tylo, Laythe...) designs have to be specific On the other hand, I never find Kerbin space stations useful. The only usage I found is an emergency refuel station for badly designed return vehicles. Even science quick contracts can be dealt with a basic satellite. Some players designed some complex Minmus refueling capacity. But I find that too time consuming to be fun to play. Fuel is so cheap and easy to lift of from Kerbin. Why build small when you can build big ! As for you suggestion : the issue is not about space station, it about purpose in the whole game. KSP doesn't have a real "program management". The title of the game is wrong : it shouldn't be "Kerbal Space Program" but "Kerbal Space Flight" : you don't manage a program : you manage a single mission flight. Only since 1.1, the game discovers you have existing ships in the save game and offers some minor and not so interesting contracts to upgrade them. But that's still very light. Finally : space stations could be more interesting if they could count as return point for rescue and recover missions so you don't need to do an interminable mission to collect stuff on Kerbin.

That's not very reassuring. We all know how it's ended...

I've discovered this game quite late, after its release. I've played it nearly 40h. As other said, the interface is quite unintuitive and truly bothersome... But the game is fun to discover. Chasing animals is quite fun. Discover aeras, new buildings. Crossing chasms, exploring caves and being lost in it. Until you discover that all building are basically the same, an most of planets are basically identical. Procedural generation create very little difference in planets. Flying is nice but to simple to be a real fun gameplay. (Elite flying is a much more pleasant experience). You moslty fight with your own ship. Ship upgrades are fun to start with but in the end it's very repetitive. "OK, I've to rebuild everything just to have ONE more inventory ?" Then you turn to the objectives/story and notice it's not really going anywhere. So after 40hours, this has been a good experience, especially in the first 20h and it too me 20h more to understand there is not much to get from there except if you like to explore the same planet over and over, mine you gold ore/aluminum/emerald to get money (what for ?). I also abandoned Elite, but I played it around 200h, because there is much more various gameplay to explore. In the end, NMS is not a bad game. But there will only be discovery and exploration in the first 10 to 20 hours. After that it's only repetition.

That's a very good technique I always use. Beware that if your TWR is low (1 to 1.5), you may start burning sooner.

KSP is much like the PARANOIA RPG. Kebals have clones which are activated upon death (good memories )

I agree. Even, it's not realistic (?), it's more logical to use a 3 seats pods than a stack of 3 one seat pods. That's ridiculous, but we are compelled to do that to save payload mass. For now, with the level of simulation in KSP, and the current gameplay, the mass of the mk1-2 pod is not justified. Even the torque is usually too powerful (I hope the next patch will deal with that...). Edit. But there are many other parts that are severely over or under weight. Many beams and structural parts are too heavy. Struts too. On the other hand, the cubic octogonal strut is only 1kg (lol) and the structural fuselage is only 100Kg. You can redo the 6 side node for space station (1.5Tons) with a structural fuselage, and 4 radial attachments nodes : total 300Kg from memory). In the end, we all know all those parts : it's the one we don't use. I remember a miniature wargame. It wasn't unbalanced army against army, but units inside armies were. In the end, all games would involved the same units. Many units were so unbalanced than they would never used them. Tos units were poorly sold and games were more boring than it should be (always the same units played). Part balancing must be thought with gameplay in mind. When you go for a stack of 3 MK1 command pod for a 3 seat ship, something is wrong.

Minmus is a bit harder to get to, but much easier to land on for a first landing. As for a new game for a regular player, It depends on how you'll explore both bodies. As for science game mode, I agree that's it's the best way to discover the game. You have access to limited parts which reduce the "overwhelming" effect and you don't have to bother about part count limitations and funds. True, that you're not encouraged to build efficiently, but that can be learned later. As for my first game experience, I remember planing an orbiting Mun mission from which I didn't know really how to get back to earth... Then I remember a chaotic landing on Minmus :D. Then Mun landing and a dual mission Ike + Duna. Then a massive Jool exploration.

The whole purpose of a SSTO (whatever design it has is reusability. Other than that, there is no real meaning for SSTO. When you use a Tylo SSTO lander, as I did back in 0.9, it's because you want to use it multiple times (or recover funds for most of it). Leaving a platform on Eve will make your ship not a SSTO, because you leave a part. Sure it's not 100% wordy accurate (that' why we have flourishing ridiculous acronyms...). But the concept of SSTO (rocket of space plane is REUSABILITY). Sure on Kerbin, SSTO only have to take-off and reenter (if reusable, which most of them are). On other planets, they should land and ascent to be qualified as SSTO. In orbit, they would refuel using whatever tug/station/mothership/fuel tank you have designed but that's not part of a SSTO. And the lander could do it again and again.

I did quite a lot of Reusable SSTO Rockets (even 600T payloads). They are cheap if recovered properly but since 1.0.5 reentry is much harder and big babies tend to blow quicker than lighter ones. I didn't played with Eve since 1.0.4, but I already had trouble with reentry overheating. Landing big SSTO rockets on Eve (because it'll be heavy) will already be very hard (but far from impossible). As for the ascent part, I never tried SSTO on Eve so I don't know. Even if the chart says 8000m/s, I already did a ascent from Eve with 6600m/s (VAC) starting from around 1000m (but I even failed later with a modified 7000m/s rocket...). Eve ascent path and rocket aero profile seems to be VERY significant. I never tried SSTO spaceplanes though.

In you Settings.CFG CONIC_PATCH_DRAW_MODE = 3 CONIC_PATCH_LIMIT = 6 (you can even set it higher) EDIT : ninja'd by @Streetwind, I didn't know about the ingame option.

T0 + 20min = burn T0+ 1 kerbal days = Mun PE T0 + 18 kerbal days = Minmus PE T0 + 27 kerbal days = Mun PE again

I don't know what you meant. It's a standard transfer orbit to Mun, but I got 2 other encounter later. After the burn, the 2 other encounter were even better than node prevision

I was doing a very classic transfer to Mun when I got this. On one burn, I got a Mun encounter then a Minmus encounter and finally another Mun encounter.

It depends what you want to do and where you are on your orbit. Usually you go for the retrograde if you're on a near circular orbit. You wait for AP, and burn retrograde until your PE is where you want. You AP should not change much. Now if you are on a hyperbolic orbit and want to set your PE at the right altitude for aerobraking, you should go for radial burn the farther you can from your target body (even outside SOI). From you screenshot, I think it's too late for a cheap radial burn : you'll loose much more than you'll gain from a lower PE circularization. Just burn retro at PE, then adjust your altitude by another retrograde burn when you'll be on a elliptic orbit. OTOH, if you're not on efficiency (have plenty of fuel), just burn radial to change PE and then retrograde at PE to circularize, it'll be quicker BTW : you could also do a direct landing. Set your PE near the surface, set a node at PE, pull it until it flips. the start landing at the count down = burn time. It's a hyperbolic suicide burn . I did it once or twice. Fun but beware of cliffs !

I also had it since 1.1.3. I quick saved (no change) deactivate SAS (no change). Then I rolled the ship, and I could timewarp.

Remember that LKO stations are usualy designed to dock with. When docking you usually have to timewarp a lot. Having a high timewarp factor is a very important factor for station. You save a lot of time. Further more, Docking with a 71km station is hard to get a precise rendez-vous. If you miss, you don't have any choice than wait on a high orbit that the station gain on you. You loose fuel to go higher then go lower. When your target is higher, you can wait lower thus saving fuel. Further more, you always have the option to wait higher and save time (but you waste fuel) Finally, orbits may not be always stable.Your 71km station could end at 65km... But I think this has been fixed now. Even though, safer is better !

I think @Streetwind explained it, but your rear landing wheels is far too rear. That's why you can't take off. But as you COL is really near you COM, your plain will be very unstable. And as fuel is consumed, the COM may move and if it goes behind COL, your plane will flip or flat spin. COM must always be in front of COL (like a dart). The farther it is, the more stable the plane is, but the harder it is to steer. You have to try different configurations and verify COL/COM when loaded and unloaded. The flipping plane which was flying very nicely after take-off is a classic. Keep in mind that even rules are the same for planes and rockets. Rockets are usually less subject to unstability because they usually don't diverge from prograde much. (rockets don't "fly" much). So building plains is harder than rockets.

That would be nice, especially in EVA on the ground, or even in space. IVA could be nice too. But windows should be broaden even if it's not realistic. But KSP is not designed for VR. You couldn't simply plug a device and hope for the best. The commands are numerous and very keyboard oriented and the FOV is quite narrow. Most of the interface should have to be totally redone (many readings are too small). It could be interesting, but its for a KSP 2.0 designed for that.