Evanitis

I think the op overlooked the simplest posted solution to the problem. But the ladder-car is more fun anyways. Strange, I had the exact opposite impression. Whenever I launched an MPL-based mission, it was enough to unlock the rest of the tree, even on 50% science gain (maybe it isn't affected by that setting?). Though I never used it on Kerbin orbit - it gets a boost if it's far from home (even more if landed somewhere), so I always sent it to another planet on the first available launch window as soon as I built it. These days I just never use it. I do career to be forced to use the low-tech parts. Efficient use of MPL ruins that very soon, even if I don't timewarp and do other stuff while it travels. Though I might try limiting it's use to LKO - this thread suggests that it might be the solution to -my- problem with the lab.

That's an excellent idea. I think I'll find a way to simulate such experience by picking a random planet-pack whithout looking into it (or the ingame planet-details.)

There are so many things in this post that echoes my KSP experience... and some quite similar solutions too. For one, it was also an averted huge cargo-plane disaster that made me realize I want the reverting safety net off (sometimes). After a too heavy pitch-input on supersonic velocity, 8 out of 10 jet engines decided to stop thrusting forward and aim the main fuel-tank instead... in a few seconds most of the craft evaporated in a quite spectacular way. The pod with the crew remained miraculously intact, and I could land it with the canards. Pretty exhilarating experience. Anways, back on topic indeed, career difficulty. I totally love that game-mode. Limitations create challenge, that results in fun. But I have the feeling that it's risk and reward system just can't be universally balanced by Squad. The game is too complex, at the same time it can be played so many ways, on so many skill levels. I think it takes a lot of KSP experience to set those difficulty sliders so that most resources stay relevant trough most of a playtrough - while the progress not becoming too grindy. If such setting exists at all. It would only be -slightly- easier if the difficulty sliders indicated what exactly they do. I wonder how many players can tell which one controls the building costs for example. I dislike the pacing of the rewards. I feel the first ~1000 science takes so much effort and repeating routine missions, while interplanetary trips just unlocks the rest of the tree too fast (even without MPL - that part in itself screams 'I dun wanna do science anymore!'). It's pretty much the same with funds - depending on the gain you initially set, either you play caveman style for a long-long time, or money becomes irrelevant pretty soon. In every career I start I tried to tackle this problem a different way. One of the closest solution was to start with 100% rewards, but each time I orbited or landed on a new body the first time (Kerbin included) I decreased it by 15%. This way the start was quick, but by the time I was ready to leave Kerbin SoI, I only gained 10% funds and sci. This way I really had to re-use everything I built, and had to do a lot of interplanetary adventures to unlock the most convenient parts. Though in my current career, I took control, and kinda' ditched the funding system altogether. Started the game with 30-30% gains. (That's abysamal - I think the 'hard' preset has 40-40%) On 30% payouts from the start, a mission needs to be really efficient to even turn a profit. Taking 8 tourists to orbit with 30 parts... damn, that was challenging. It brought 50k profit (minus simulation costs - 100 funds/safe test-launch is a -lot- in these circumstances). BUT I add my own rewards. About a minor tech-node for minor contracts, and a building upgrade or an expensive node for complex, multi-contract missions. It works for me currently, but probably I'll find a new way to make my own balance the next time I play career. I love that modders and Squad provides me tools to tailor my difficulty, but I doubt there's a preset that would fit everyone (or even the majority). Guess that's why I stopped commenting on threads like these. (well, I tried to at least. )

I feel with you. Doing simulations is a compromise on my end too. Most of my launches are 'fake', but this way at least the real ones are really tense. I'm pretty sure I -could- play a hardcore game without such feature, but it would require me to triple-check everything and not to take take risks or untested solutions. And to pay attention in general. That's pretty much the complete opposite of how I enjoy playing.

I can load VAB crafts in SPH and vica versa. (not by placing files around in the folders, but in an ingame menu) I'm not sure how your mod operates (or any mod by that matter), but if stock can do it, why not just use the stock solution?

Consider Kerbal Construction Time mod. I kinda' overlooked it because it's main feature didn't interest me much. But it has a simulator mode (that costs some funds to use). It's nice to test if a rocket will explode on the launchpad, but it wont take the edge of 'real' missions. It was the final thing I needed for a hardcore career. Also with 30% financial gains, I nearly got broke just by running simulations for 100 funds each.

That sounds like a design issue. If the CoL is slightly behind the CoM (as it should), you should be able to pitch as much as you want once in the atmo, even with torque from the pod turned off. Though if one doesn't pay attention at building the plane, the CoM shifts backwards as the fuel is spent. That leads to all sorts of funny instabilities on re-entry. Not being able to pull up the nose is one of the less catastrophic options. Indeed, it's easy to pinpoint a landing if one has fuel remaining - it doesn't require any further trickery. Though I kinda' always land with fully dried tanks. If I have such luxury for landing, I fix it on the next iteration. Taking juice to orbit just to bring it down is pretty wasteful. I rather have more payload.

Poor console pea.. people. Like if nudging that manuver-node with a thumbstick cursor isn't painful enough. Let's hope some serious optimizing is going on at the devs.

As you stated in another thread, gravity assisting will be the key here. Though I'm not really a math guy to tell if Mun can slow you down in itself to remain in Kerbin's SoI. Probably not. Though doing a slingshot also make your burns more effective. If you burned that 1000 m/s while slinging by the Mun, it would probably be enough. I guess. Though you could get a better assist from a planet. It's really hard to tell without a picture of your Kerbol if Duna, Eve maybe Jool can be reached by a little burn (or by waiting a few orbits ). But planetary mass is a lot higher than munar one, so if I had to pick a place to burn most of my fuel, I chose one of them.

KISS - Kerbal Interactive Simulation System KRASH - Kerbal Ramification Averting Simulated Hub VITA - Vehicle Integrity Testing Algorithm

The easiest way is to ctrl+left click the image, click 'edit image', and paste url into the url field.

Dunno. I totally get where Squad is coming from. When I fist played KSP, I totally loved that I only see 3 numbers (and one of those is the clock). I had much fun watching rockets explode, and figuring out that I also need to go sideways to get into orbit. I landed a kerbal on the Mun. A few days later I landed a living kerbal too. A week later I landed a kerbal on the Mun and brought him back. All without even knowing what 'V' means in dV. Jolly good times. When I got deeper into the game, I of course added readouts and various tools. But having those (or just a portion of those) at the very start would have been daunting. I probably would have given up playing if I had to figure out what KER data means, or how can I use various MJ functions. Of course I'd probably have a different opinion if KSP was a console game (and soon it will be). Hope the poor guys will not need to calculate dV on a paper separate app. Though no matter how many features will the devs include in the console versions, it'll still be a lot less flexible game. I'd feel with them, but I'll just remind myself that unlike me, they played The Last of Us and God of War.

1 (-)

Do you use any visual mods? In my experience anything that changes kerbin textures leaves the default KSC grass untouched.

You could post a screenshot of the craft you are using - probably along with the engines and fuel-tanks page of the editor, so we know what's available for you. I'm pretty sure we could help after we know how you approach the problem and what tools you have at your disposal.

I'm tempted to link some of my own Laythe-project, but others did much more impressive missions. Mr Alpaca even caught a kraken. I'd fail to express how awesome the project below is. I'd rep it a hundred times if I could, instead I just link the thread it resides. It's the most awesome KSP video I even seen - I'm not sure if only because I'm an SSTO-plane fan. But probably not.

Are you sure that other command modules -have- such restriction? I'm pretty sure I never managed to fill one, and I never seen a limit mentioned. Neither the wiki has any reference for this. Hell, even an EVA kerbal can carry (and recover with) like a hundred of experiments. I like you planes regardless, and I fully support the idea of training Bob to withstand a few Machs in a bare spacesuit.

That's a really lovely looking plane. My eyeball-sense also suggests its well balanced - even on the way down. I think you should take a leap of faith, ditch those parachutes, and just glide down. If you make a quicksave on a few hundred meters altitude, you'll figure it out in a few tries.

Did some roleplay related unfun stuff happen around here? I can hardly think of another explanation for the presence of a harmless hobby listed as Forbidden Content in Community Guidelines. Not that I think such forum is a place for such, or that the KSP universe would be a great setting for roleplay. I'm just curious how can it be listed along with such infernal items as adult content, racist iconography or *spit* politics.

I did an SSTO Challenge that went under my radar. Built a plane that could go to orbit (and dock) as fast as I dared to risk. I'd link the full album, but it's not too spectacular as the silly me picked a night hour to do the mission.

Well, that I can't debate with.

You guys should try spaceplanes. You go faster if there's no air around. Mind you, I'm not talking about SSTO planes (that would require late tech), just planes that get to space by 'conventional' staged rockets. Reaching the poles or other continents doesn't even require a full orbit. And it's great fun to try ways you can launch spaceplanes, as gluing one to the top of a rocket won't really work. By the way.. Anomaly Surveyor and GAP Contracts are great mods that both give many exciting things to do with conventional jet-planes too.

Hmm. Nice. Hope we'll see some screens.

I love that challenge. I forgot that getting to orbit quickly can be a goal of an SSTO besides efficiency and payload. I had great fun. Docked at MET 7:40 Hmm.. It appears I forgot to screen my starting UT. Though it was Y9 D288 1:16:50. I had to do a few test flights until I decided that launching at 16:50 will get me very close to a rendezvous, so fired my engines at the exact moment. There's a screen a few seconds before the magnets clicking, MET on that should roughly confirm the launch time. Docking happens at 24:20. I probably could have waited a few orbits to do not the whole stuff in full darkness for everyone's pleasure. (KSP 1.0.5, MJ was only used for the readouts)

0 AoA above 40km? Sounds rad, but indeed I don't experience much slowing before that. Not much heating either when I'm coming in with nose pulled up to 90°. I generally use the thin atmo above 40km to fine-tune my landing approach. If the target area is too far, I pick a low initial AoA, while if I'm afraid to overshoot, I pull up early. Love the idea of the nose-engine too. I doubt it's the best solution to balance the dry-CoM or to help in atmoless landings, but a totally viable and fun looking one.