tranenturm

Just got to orbit with this method even after going into a spin at 40k cause I forgot the SAS. Did take me a few tries because I'm incapable of reading the nav ball and was tilting over 20 degrees instead of ten. But the technique is awesome! (It's my skills that suck) You just made me a better rocketeer! Thanks.

You're so demanding.

I would love in a future release to be able to set a rover driving towards a destination on autopilot and then come back when it's finished. That would up the usability considerably. It would have to be a safe autopilot of course. Perhaps with a limit on the slope it could safely move on. Has as anyone tried a SAS ball? I haven't done it yet, but I see a central module with SAS to propel, and lander legs sticking out every which way to cushion the movement.

Knock on wood, the kraken has been kind to me. I'm also not trying 500 part space stations. I also tend to exit the game every now and then, particularly when I see signs of code being broken (after a while clicking on the buildings at KSP stops working, stuff like that). Next start I will enable auto save for the sole purpose of kraken insurance. As as for punishment, the 100% funds helps make sure I have extra cash to run new ships for testing. Most of the time I'm making profit even with screw ups and testing. So I'm not hesitant to test. It does mean I'm unlikely to try more outlandish configs. But if I'm cash poor but really want to try something unconventional I can always "simulate" in sandbox mode. So far though, I haven't gone far enough off the scales to warrant that. It also makes me think about "safe" testing. I've never really done space planes but I'm going through a testing phase to make a space bus. I'm getting science stations around the Kerbin system and want a way to transfer crew. I'm currently too low tech for a true SSTO so by strapping on some kickbacks to the wing tips (and then ejecting them) I can make orbit. In figuring this out, I both made sure I had a probe core driving (and not Jeb or Val) and plenty of radial parachutes. I recovered a fair number of mistakes during the process for a percentage of funds back lessening the sting. In some ways it drives my science research as I know once the tree is done I'll be converting the science into funds for the more crazy expensive tests. Currently my tech level is too low for most things. I'm close to the 3 mil in funds needed for the level 3 R&D. Only a couple of 300 sci techs, lots of holes at 160, and even a few 90s are missing.

I've been "playing" KSP since the steam launch, but didn't really get into the early game. It should enough promise but without a career mode it never really grabbed me. I jumped back in when 1.0 hit and played a series of "normal" mode careers to learn how to fly (again), (and again and again as the updates came). Part of me thought I couldn't really play without being able to revert, but the normal mode science progression was too quick and easy. I considered just playing straight Hard mode, but what I didn't want was a money grind. So I came to my personal sweet spot of the following settings: No mods Click on Hard, Set funds back to 100% Reduce Science from 60% to 50%. Keep the rest like hard. I'm LOVING this! For me the joy of the game comes from new and interesting decisions. Have some constraints around funds forces some tough decisions. I care about unlocking parts. I care about relative costs. I have a reason to build reusable vehicles and to keep from over engineering. The hard mode increases in unlocking building plus having to pay extra for the first part already put more stress on funds than normal. However, having 100% funds rewards means I haven't had much in the way of repetitive grinding for the purposes of funds only. Instead, gathering science is my primary motivator with funds merely being a check on the outlandish. I don't mind "grinding" for science for 2 reasons. First, science generally requires you to keep going to NEW places. I want a nice reason to go new places so its not a minus, but a plus. Second, it makes the use of the Science Lab a balanced part of the strategy and not just "easy mode". (I refuse to fast forward time for the sake of science alone) Finally, I feel like a see MORE of the science tree. I used to click through nodes purely on the way to latter nodes. With slower science, every science expenditure NEEDS to get me something useful AND/OR I'm pressed into making use of stuff that's merely "on the way" to the "good stuff." On the part of no reverts, I'm pleasantly surprised to find the game is BETTER without reverting. I think when learning the early part of the game when you're new, reverts make good sense. But once you're able to do the basics of orbiting, I like revert going away. First, I like how it forces me to do a better job thinking through the missions, double checking everything. Second, I enjoy how it forces me to consider the cost of testing new ships. Going from 1.25 rockets to 2.5 is not straightforward. Sure, some things are still relevant, but until you launch a few new rockets you don't really know how they will fair. I guess you could cheat and actually do math, but that's not the Kerbal way! Fund concerns combined with no revert and permadeath for my pilots, means I actually have to consider what might go wrong before hitting GO! I'm actually putting probe cores onto to rockets to launch before putting crew on. Crew safety is actually a concern! With revert (and MIA instead of KIA) I had never considered the launch abort system. Now I'm considering it. (Considering, I still haven't actually used it...) Finally, I like how I no longer "need" to do missions in one sitting anymore. Sure I could have saved instead, but I always preferred the revert function. Now that its not an option, my only concerns regarding in-game vs real-world times is during launches and burns. Otherwise, its always a pretty quick exit. Just wanted to share!

The monolith on Minimus triggers a world first. I over flew it at about 7,000 meters and saw the first come up. Never saw the monolith myself as it was shrouded in darkness.

Thanks all. I saw the thermal numbers in the VAB, but I didn't know if they operated with simple addition and subtraction or if something more complicated was going on. There's also some sort of 4x that makes no sense. I don't have the game handy, but when I do I'll post again with something more specific.

Any word on how these are working in 1.05? I'm getting ready to build my first ISRU ship and I'd to be at least in the ball park for needed cooling.

When I first used the extendable solar panels I forgot to extend them before my power ran out. Oops. Now I always have the basic ones scattered around the craft to have enough power to extend the bigger ones in case I forget.

Looks like a TIE Interceptor to me

The biggest help I had in landing was when I learned to use the retrograde SAS. Simplifies things immensely. Line up your landing site and come in fairly shallow. Flip to retrograde and when you're getting close, hit the jets to burn retro until you cancel most of your velocity. The big danger is zeroing out and heading up which will cause your retrograde to switch flipping you over. So long as you don't do that, just get to about 5 m/s and keep it there until landing using the fine point engine control. The retrograde SAS will cancel out your horizontal movement. Knowing you landing altitude will help conserve fuel so you can hit the jets later than when you don't know the hard deck. So long as the landing site is flat enough it's really easy. If you're landing on a slope, it's all up to how top heavy your ship is.

The one stock KSP reason I can think of to have a satellite is for quick turnaround on science around Kerbin contracts.

Sure you can. But when you launch, do you have a bunch of crew cabins stuck on the side of the ship increasing drag? Or do you put rocket parts in front and behind it? Or do you use a 2.5 rocket, put them side by side and ignore the attending structural and aesthetic issues?

While technically correct, are you building and attaching a second stack to the first just to reduce hight? Or do you just put them linear?

The hitchhiker takes less vertical space on the rocket. Also, the Mk2 cabin was already competing with the hitchhiker any. I just choose the one that fits my stack.

After you clear the burn phase (and even during if you're careful) you can wiggle your capsule to slow down. Also, I set my reentry periapsis to between 20k and 30k and drag is enough to land me roughly where the periapsis point is.

I think part of the problem is one of expectations and scope. KSP is a journey game and not a destination game. Once you've gotten everywhere, you've done the journey. Pack it in. KSP focuses on the journey probably because that's what most people do. If you visit everything, that's a crazy amount of game time. I've gone to Duna once and have @150 hours in. I'm probably moe typical than those who have 1000s of hours.

My priority list: 1) Basic Solar Panels 2) Science instruments 3) Control elements 4) Getting to 2.5m rocket parts 5) Getting Mk2 plane parts I'm an odd duck. I'm a rocket guy, so I'm not getting the Mk2 plane parts for planes. I just like their looks better for my Mun base. (Plus the fairings are there which really help certain rockets)

The latest update thinned out the air, so you don't have enough drag to slow your ship down before "landing". To reentry successfully you need to come in shallow to burn as much speed off as possible. When I come in I usually set my periapsis for about 25,000 m. This is high enough to hit plenty of atmosphere so that I don't go explody, but low enough that I capture. This value has plenty of play in it and is also dependent upon mass of your reentry vehicle. - - - Updated - - - Also. If you're doing early career, a mistake I first made was going straight up on an early launch. If the launch goes high enough, more explody on the return. So just angle those early launches.

I surfaced attached the tank. I could not surface attach the hitchhiker. I don't know why that should work that way.

Great! That helps for the radial! I was able to connect a Rockomax X200-8 Fuel tank to the end of the I-beam and place the hitchhiker on top of it. So it appears to be specific to the hitchhiker. Bug or WAD?

So I'm trying to build a space station on the ground before I lift it. My starting point is the cupola with the science center next. I then connect an I-beam (200) to the science just below the side hatch. But then I'm unable to connect a hitchhiker module to the end of the i-beam. What gives? I did manage to connect a mk-2 fuel tank. Similarly, I can't attach a fuel tank onto the BZ-52 radial attachment point in an intelligent manner. It never wants to snap onto the connection point, rather it attempts to attach the tank sideways. Suggestions?

I do revert flights for test flights. I'm a flybytheseatofmypants pilot/builder so the revert missions are my testing and "planning" team before money is spent. As for money, I seem to have plenty left over. By the time the tech tree is finished, I still do sci recovery to convert into cash. Go NORMAL! The only thing hard mode brings is grinding.

I play in Normal. I do a few side missions, but generally only those to where I'm already going. I also am careful to wait for the world record missions to trigger. So I get Mun fly-by, I DONT orbit the Mun as that one is next. Doing it this way means I get extra money. As for science, once you realize you can land on the Mun with 1.25 parts, you have as much science so long as you are willing to go to the Mun (or Minimus) to pick it up.

I thought you couldn't escape the Kerbol SOI as it has no bounds. There is a second option of escaping Kerbin on a sub-orbital Kerbol trajectory.