Tourist

I play mostly stock, only using Kerbal Alarm Clock and Docking Alignment Indicator. I also used Hyper Edit when I was testing a Eve Ascent Vehicle, but once I had one that worked I performed the mission "properly." Next play-though though I'm adding base parts. The hitchhiker module just doesn't do it for me as a hab anymore. I'm thinking Roverdudes do the trick.

Nice one. Challenge is the right word for what you have planned. Not just maneuvering the damn things to the point where they can dock, but to avoid doing so in such a way that leads to a probe sandwich. Good luck!

I'm the opposite, but not deliberately and to my great frustration at times. Neglecting to supplement the cupola or command pod with a probe core. Why have I discovered this to be important? Well, I usually take the pilot on away missions only to discover on my return how useful it would be to have somebody in the mothership capable of operating the SAS.

Hi all. I was reading a forum post today, which made me think about the little self-imposed rules and restrictions we place on ourselves which really make KSP much more difficult. Now, I'm not talking about the old "is (blank) cheating" debate. Rather, what are the idiosyncrasies in your playing style that make your missions much more challenging (and sometimes more frustrating) to complete. I'll start things off. I don't send Kerbals off on long duration missions alone... even if the other crew are not needed. I insist on having sufficient living quarters and work space for a long duration mission. My usual crew size is around 4, so this would mean having living quarters, a capsule/cupola where the pilots work, and a science bay as a work area for the scientists and engineers (I also consider the science bay as a general recreation/study area). No crew transfer through parts which would not support an tunnel/hatch. For instance, through engines, girders, service bays, the science Jr, the refinery etc. I have complex rules about crew transfer through fuel tanks. Generally its not permitted, except for the adapters which I imagine have a small tunnel through the centre. Related to this point, design to avoid EVA. The space agencies don't undertake EVA lightly. Its meticulously planned. I'll therefore try to avoid transferring crew from one ship to another via EVA, or, in accordance with the rule above, between non-connected parts of the one ship by EVA. Docking ports between crew supporting parts are are necessity, which of course has design implications. Over to you. What do you do that makes your life more difficult?

I only use asparagus staging where I really have no other choice. Mainly putting "motherships" into orbit, which need to be large but rigid, or for ships which need complicated staging to get off some body other than Kerbin, like Eve. Otherwise I try to put everything in orbit via spaceplanes, and then dock with a mothership or a tug. If a spaceplane can't lift it then I just use the "moar boosters" approach.

Nice one!! I've been trying to develop a Spaceplane that can take crew to and from my Minmus refinery without much luck. Your success has encouraged to me to persevere. Thanks for sharing!

Wat I fink is. I don't want to be given contracts for stuff I was going to do anyway, whats the point, I could just play sandbox or science mode and just do entirely what I want. I like that a contact may appear that makes me change or alter my plans, or may make me plan to do something I never intended.

I just completed a Kerballed mission to Eve (off again). I did not aerobrake to get into obit around Eve though, rather I used what was left of my transfer stage to burn to an orbit of around 110,000 by 100,000, then burned what was left of my transfer until I had a PE of 45,000. After decoupling the transfer stage, everything, and I mean everything was behind overlapping heat shields. The descent is a bit of a white knuckled affair, with the heat bars getting closer to full than I would have liked. Long story short, Eve continues to be a rather interesting engineering challenge, but certainly not borked... just a bit of a "boss fight".

Kerbal-kind is smart. But Kerbalnauts are not chosen from among the smartest. They are chosen for the courage and ability to survive the ordeal of long-duration spaceflight. The tales of bits of technology being picked up by the side of the road is just a bit of an in joke. In much the same vein of the bill that Grumman sent North American Aviation for towing the Apollo 13 Command and service module. Astronauts, and engineers are well known for their jokes. In many ways, Kerbal kind is smarter having never engaged in the incomprehensible stupidity of war (in my head-cannon).

I'm afraid so. Its a typical, I don't agree with Squad's decision post. Which has as long a history as the "I think (insert my favorite mod) should be stock", post. And I guess there is nothing wrong with that, this is a forum where (cough) KAC and docking alignment indicator should be stock (cough) people get to say how they feel the game should develop. I don't like stealth complaints though. Asking, how does Squad decide what becomes stock, rather than what was really asked, which was, why did Squad not choose Procedural fairings.

I'd suggest watching the clips even if they are long. Rendezvous and docking are vital skills which open up the entire game and create whole new possibilities. You just need to be patient and don't be discouraged.... after all, NASA had trouble with it at first too.

I'm not so fussed about being able to personalize the KSC... I don't really spend that much time there as I'm usually either speeding away from it, or flying towards it (or watching something blow up, disintegrate or tumble over it). I would like other launch-pads and runways. There are parts of Kerbin I've only ever seen from orbit, as there has been no need to fly or land there. Having a distant runway to land at means I may actually see more of the planet. Sure, I could just design a plane and pick a direction, but its more fun I to have a destination to reach, and rewards for reaching it. Perhaps they should only be unlocked by either reaching them for the first time... or alternatively earning them at when certain reputation milestones are reached for the first time. I am intrigued by the museum idea though. I see this however as being more of a garden. Say a pathway in part of the KSC which has the ability of displaying simple models of your craft, which you can actually drive around and look at the models.

Nailed it!!

Base parts! Very needed. The rest of the list is good too. I don't really care about boats or helicopters, but others do so, why not.

This idea I like. Particularly considering the absence of dedicated base-building parts. For instance, for my Pol base I have four Hitchiker modules oriented on their sides (relative to the surface), with the "top" attachment port leading to a central core, and windows pointing outward. This means the only viable hatch is on top of the base, the ones on the bottom resting too close to the ground to access. An airlock I could attach to the "bottom" node, which is facing outward in my configuration, would make the base make more sense.... or, you know, implement base-building parts. (Its a shame there is no person or persons currently working for squad who already have nifty base parts just begging to be added to stock.)

Ksydney (the K is silent), Kaustralia ( the K isn't silent, and the "ralia" is ridiculously overemphasized... kind of like Kost-RAAAIILLL EEya).

Made my first genuine attempt to get off the surface since starting this thread last night. I "simulated" the craft to the ground, in that I turned off heating (when I do it for realsies I won't do this), It appears, based on the gauges, that it may have been unnecessary. The heat got very close, but not to the end of the bar and I landed with about 150 left of the ablator. Alas, on the ascent it only made about 30,000 before being left with only my terrier stage.... and of course, at that stage I started going backwards. Also, I negotiated the issue of making sure everything fitted behind a heat-shield, by putting it all inside a fairing. This worked pretty well (I think it would have survived even if heating was not turned off). Problem was however, it would not slow down to safe parachute deployment speed until the fairing was jettisoned. But when the fairing was jettisoned, it was still travelling quite fast. As a consequence, when it jettisoned it took out one of the radial fuel tanks in the process, and did so incredibly reliably (I only got it past this obstacle by more assistance from alt-12) . So, long story short, its back to the drawing board. I think going for drop tanks, with no engines attached and just relying on a Vector to lift everything was a mistake.... I think I experienced significant gravity losses, may go back to the standard asparagus setup with the drop tanks having their own engines. I also probably need more than just four FL-T800s radial tanks. Finally need to I think I need to replace the Vector for an aerospike on the core section.. It seemed pretty inefficient once the drop tanks were jettisoned.

Closest I've come to landing on Moho is scattering bits of my ship over its surface. After the transfer and the orbital insertion burn, I had just enough fuel left to get suborbital, but not enough left to slow down. Currently I'm going for light and fuel efficient. I've tried a few behemoths, but frankly, while I can do large complex asparagus staging, I find it fiddly and not particularly fun.

Some terrific ideas here, thanks for sharing!! My most recent attempt has been inspired by many of your designs. It blew up during entry into Eve's atmosphere... (I also realized I neglected landing legs.... It's always the little things you forget). I think a simple design change will get me onto the surface... Alas have not yet had the time to test. Short design concept. It uses mk1 cockpit capsule and fuel tanks, a terrier for the final stage, and a vector as the primary engine. Four radially attached fuel tanks, with aerospikes providing fuel to the vector. Every thing fits behind 5 interlocking heat shields. Tempted next time to turn off heat (merely as a simulation) to test proof of concept as a ascent vehicle... Then, if it works sort out the heating issue. Anyway, once again, great responses! Cheers.

She stares out at me from the darkness.... the great purple nemesis, taunting me, daring me, laughing at me. The only planet I've yet to tame*. The beast known as Eve. I'm no beginner. I've flown spaceplanes back from the surface of Laythe. Duna is almost a second home. I've "landed" on Tylo.** But despite my achievements there is one giant purple elephant in the corner of the room. Eve. For awhile I've been avoiding it, always finding another planet or moon to direct my efforts, but finally the time has come... its time to slay Eve***. So Kerbalnauts, If you have conquered Eve, tell us the tale so that I may steal your ideas learn from your great success. Tell us how you did it, tell us about your design philosophy for the mission. What are your Eve slaying tips. * Ok, I haven't landed and returned from Moho yet either. Alright, or Eeloo. ** the probe core and a solar panel survived. *** by that I mean, land on, and return. I don't have a death star capable of actually destroying a planet... yet.

Welcome to the forums LordKael, you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy... uh, I mean, you will never find a more helpful community. Orbital rendezvous is difficult, so don't feel bad, NASA had trouble with it at first too. I'm not clear from your post, what part you are finding difficult. Here is a brief run down of how I see it works in as non technical terms as possible. I'm not sure how long you've been playing, so If I'm stating the insultingly obvious, then I apologize. You probably want to start by targeting the vessel with which you wish to rendezvous. First step, timing the launch. Very important if you don't want to be warping for ages, which if your in a low orbit is a terrible pain. Ideally you want to launch so you will end up in a reasonably close orbit to begin with. As a rule of thumb I launch when the target is over the ocean to the West of the KSC, or sometimes right where the desert continent to the west meets that ocean. Step two. Plane alignment. Fancy words for making orbits line up when looking at them side on. To do this you burn at the point where the two orbits cross. In slightly more technical terms burn at either the Ascending Node, or the Descending node, towards the normal or anti-normal marks on your navball (pink triangle, upside-down pink triangle with spikes). These nodes will indicate how many degrees you are out... so you do not need to eyeball them. Burn until they are at zero. If you burn near them and it gets larger, your burning at the wrong marker. Step three. Catch up with the target. If you haven't already done so make its so your orbit crosses the orbit of the target. This should bring marks showing your position when the orbits cross, and the targets position at the time you cross the orbit, if you cursor over the mark corresponding to your position it should give you a separation distance. As you orbit around, these marks should get closer together. If so, great. Ultimately you want to to get to a separation of less than a Km ideally, but a couple of KMs is not fatal (just annoying). If the marks are not getting closer together, or not getting closer fast enough you need to make you orbit smaller, so that you go around Kerbin faster. You burn retrograde to do that. If you want the target .... to catch up with you, you do the opposite, burn prograde, and make your orbit larger (take the outside track, if you will.) Step Four. Excellent, you come within 1 km of your target. What next? We want to kill your speed relative to the target. Your Navball should have changed from showing your orbital speed to your speed relative to the target. However if it doesn't say "target" above your speed, click on it till it does so. Next point at the retrograde marker on your navball (the yellow circle with a cross though it and spikes) until your speed is zero. Next burn towards your target prograde marker (purple broken circle with a dot in the centre.) as you do this the yellow prograde marker should move towards the target prograde marker. You should now be moving towards the target, but be careful of your speed. You may need to burn retrograde again to kill your speed. Rinse and repeat until rendezvous achieved.

Good work LadyAthena. There is nothing like the moment when after blazing through the heavens like a metor, you can place the wheels safely down on the runway at the place from where it took off.

Short answer, base-building parts and contracts that make base and rovers meaningful in the area in which they are placed. Long answer At this point, all I'd feel the game needs is more base building parts.... I mean, we have base building contracts, but not a single part suitable for habitation on other planets. The Hitchhiker module is not suitable because it is clearly oriented for Zero-G with the beds on the walls the node on the roof if you orient it "upright", but sadly its the only real option. I suppose you can use the spaceplane passenger parts, but they clearly look like a plane cabin. So long story short, base parts would be my first thing from here on out (after upgrade to unity, optomisation, bugfixing etc.) Second would be add features to planets which require exploration, performing tests etc. Leading to ultra complex base and rover contracts. For example. Contract 1: place a base containing 5 kerbals that can generate power, antenna etc... within area X. (X being an area with a diameter of say 10 km) Contract two: Take two kerbals to anomaly Y (which would be within a short distance from or within area X and would actually be a thing, an easter egg, interesting formation, a wreck etc). And perform a specific scientific test or tests at the location. This would encourage players to use rovers to explore the area around their base (or build surveying spacecraft, if not rover inclined). Contract three: explore anomlay Z (again, also within a short range of the base at location X, and again an actual thing.) Contract four: Mission complete, abandon base return to Kerbin. (completion criteria being no more kerbals at station, former inhabitants returned to Kerbin.)

My partner has begun to consider KSP my mistress.... so, I guess that means she considers it cheating. :wink:

[quote name='Snark']Also, SSTOs aren't really needed for funds, either. Yes, you'll get a better cost savings per flight. However, in return for that, you have to spend a lot more of your time controlling them, both on the ascent and on the landing, than you would for a conventional rocket. And the cost effectiveness isn't [I][U]that[/U][/I] much better than a conventional rocket, compared with the financial rewards of contracts. So what it boils down to is: with spaceplanes you'll make more money [I]per contract[/I], but with conventional rockets you'll make more money [I]per hour of your time[/I]. For me, the latter is much more important than the former. In the time it takes me to do one contract with a spaceplane, I could do two with rockets, and make more money that way in spite of the rocket costs. And these days, the cost of the vehicle itself is not the major money sink. The real money sink is upgrading the buildings; rocket costs are chicken feed in comparison, and one good contract can pay for many launches. Therefore, I would contend that "saving funds" is not a reason to go with SSTOs. The reason to go with SSTOs is the same that it always has been: because you like them. So when you're deciding whether to go with SSTOs or conventional rockets, just ask yourself which you enjoy flying more, and go with that. :)[/QUOTE] Snarks nailed it. Even in Career where it does have cost benefit, it is pretty negligible once you're past early game budget squeeze. I use spaceplanes for everything I can, and only launch rockets for big infrastructure... but honestly, I could launch everything on the biggest, most expensive rockets I have and would not face any budget issues for a long time, it at all. But I like the engineering challenge of having to build everything from modules small enough to fit in a Mk3 cargo bay.