that1guy

Personally, I do not mind the wait. Every time they release a new update, it is like a whole new game. Most of the old ships I built need to be tweaked or redesigned. Plus there are planets and other challenges to try before docking. At first, when docking was not included in .15, I was angry. Then I realized, if I want Squad to make something good, I need to give them time. Honestly I would rather see the IVA for the remaining 2 cockpits first, then some sort of expanded IVA (with a payload bay or whatnot), then the idea of interior construction (for Space Lab-esque stations) for long term space missions, then docking and orbital construction. If I had to guess, I would say that the next update would be the next 2 iva cockpits and sound stuff, possibly with the addition of a payload part.

update: I hit the mark for Duna, landed, and took a pic, then returned to Kerbin on a 316 day trip

*foaming mouth* Must kill magic boulder by landing on it...

Thanks QWERT1221, I hope you have smooth landings, I forgot to mention in the starting post, the best way to get to Duna is to do gravity kicks around Kerbin. This is where you would (to get to Duna) fire the engines at the 6pm terminator (the line of shadow that indicates sunset) and throw the AP to 500km, 1500km, 4500km, then launch out from the Kerbin SOI. In theory, you could do a sustained burn with out affecting the amount of fuel that you would have taking off from Duna with. I will post a flight manual video in due time.

yay random point generation of Magic Boulder!

.17 added a lot. IVA's, new easter eggs, and a little thing called planets. To that end, I present the IP Lander I... The IP Lander I: This has more than enough fuel to get to orbit, go to the target (Duna, this one is only designed to land on Duna), land, and return your slightly less than sane Kerbal. I have launched 2 missions with this craft, both have ended in a Kerbonaut returning home. it does this all in 7 stages and 171 parts. I have not experienced lag in my game with it, but if you encounter lag that makes it unflyable please let me know and I will try to shave a few parts off.

if you are going for a manual rendevous, you need to launch when the target craft is about on the western shore of the launch country.

I explain it as buying stock. It is a risk, but you must be willing to accept the risk that comes with investing. He must decide if he wants to risk 20$ for the promise of a good game.

I REALLY hate to be a kill joy, but in all likelihood, the Magic Boulder is not what the SSTV is referring to, based on the fact that it is by Nova's admission, the only implemented piece of the puzzle in the game... but grats on finding the Magic Boulder the Kerbal way... FACE FIRST!

Okay, this is my new theory: based on the new finding of the clarified photo, the SSTV refers to a volcanic eruption. The orange part is the magma chamber, there is a vent to the hill, and the red line is a lava burst... open to being corrected, but this is what I am currently running with. My alternate justification is this: planet cores have not been activated/added to the game yet, therefore it would be the first and only piece of the puzzle to be able to be found. The eruption could be some sort of timer

yeah, we were being nuts

okay, here is a dumb question, has anyone followed the ridges on the ground to see where they go, IE, perhaps to part 2 of the puzzle?

okay, but hear me out. I did get a picture that has things that the original did not, IE, the shadowy dude in the upper right

oops, forgot to post the pic... Anyways, I would LOVE for someone else to do this too as, I am not sure if this is right. Now, there is a 4 in the bottom corner (it being completely inverted in the original was what made me want to try this backward) with a matching colored dot, there are now three orange things, and this looks to be on some planet that has a purple atmosphere. My guess it that there is a pattern on Eve that has either 3 craters in a row, or the 4 and dot crater, near that you have to EVA (thus the shadowy Kerbalnaut). This is all speculation tho.

an easy way to eyeball the 45 deg needed for the planetary transfer is to use the 6am terminator (sunrise). If Ike/Duna line up with that in the map view, you are at about a 45 deg angle.

I have found gravity kicks around Kerbin to be insanely helpful in saving fuel for the trip to Duna

Did anyone else try decoding the sound backwards?

I was playing with the mini SRBs that are used to move things away from your craft on my Duna lander system (Bloaghanoth III). I thought that I would be smart, and rather than test the separators out on Duna, I would do a pad test. I only forgot two things. Firstly, the tower was at the right height to have a fuel tank smash into it (on Duna it would be empty, here, not so much). Second, I had a fully fueled rocket sitting below the fuel pods. When I hit the button to release the pods, all hell broke loose. Suddenly, my beautiful lifter and ship were engulfed in flames. The command pod was hurled into the air, team rocket style. The chute on top saved the life of one Kerbal that day. The lesson here is, pad testing cant replace real world testing.

You can easily get to anywhere using the onion design (fuel feeding toward the center). That said, all you need in order to land and return is a BIG FREAKING LAUNCH VEHICLE. My Bloaghanoth III (yes i am using insane made up words now after that whole "Orca" thing) is basically 2 vehicles. A lander/inter-planetary stage that is strapped to a heavy lifter. It kind of looks like a deer strapped to the hood of a car. My point is, get a lander/travel system into orbit, then worry about landing.

man, and I thought I found something that would help with the SSTV thing on Bop

sweet lander, can it get back to Kerbin?

Try building in intent stages. For example, the pod has to come back to Kerbin, the lander has to be able to lift off the planet, and the bottom of the rocket has to get the whole thing into orbit. I know this sounds basic and dumb, but it helped me out.

did anyone else notice this at the north pole of Bop?

meh, it happens...

... ehhhhh.... my point is this, at times there will be name overlap in KSP. I am not sure if this is because there are so many people designing ships and posting them or if there is a common logic to all the names given to ships that get posted. Now we could argue about who came up with the name first, who's ship is better; but that idea tires me. I honestly don't care about name overlap, what I do care about is someone posting a link to their ship in a post where I am trying to promote my ship. It would be like having a press conference to promote the Xbox, when Sony comes in and starts pitching for the PS3. While both products achieve the end result of entertainment, there is no possible way that the products are similar enough to justify Sony crashing an Xbox event. To put this in internet terms, if you pee in my pool and run, I will pee in yours.