MR L A

It could do, but it is the most difficult way of doing so and is very inaccurate compared to simply synchronising the orbital period. and I'm pointing out that they needed drift if they're set up properly in the first place and that if OP would like to do so, KER can help them out. In other words, you're pointing out to the OP that drift can be a problem without propulsive compensation, I'm pointing out that drift can be virtually negated and that propulsive compensation is not required. I fail to see how my post is somehow not part of the same conversation as you suggest?

Unfortunately, yes, they will drift away. Have to disagree on the mechjeb part though, you can achive very precise orbits with less then 1m difference between Pe and Ap without this mod (but I'm sure you know this ). Might be easier though... You're both wrong here. 1) MechJeb, afaik, is not capable of ultra precise orbits with comsats 2) Less than 1m difference between Pe and Ap is completely irrelevant - you need to install KER and set exactly matching orbital periods i.e. time of orbit. You can fairly easily have an orbital period that matches your other sats to within one THOUSANDTH of a second - this is the smallest unit of time KER will display. I don't know if the game actually deals with units of time smaller than this, so assuming you match all sats within your network with the chose OP, they will never drift.

I'll certainly give that a bash on Monday (not currently at home and my laptop is ChromeOS so zero chance of playing it on here)

It genuinely excites me that you've not left Kerbin's SOI yet. I wish I could relive the moment I finally explored elsewhere in the Kerbol system, that and the first time I docked Literally one of the most exciting/relieving moments of my life which is probably why I've stuck with KSP for so long

Well that's entirely up to you, it is your design but I'm telling you, that design 100% does not require any additional struts whatsoever I'll even remake it on Monday and show you aha At this point, you may be wondering why I'm making such a big deal out of this... well you're right, I am being a bit of a doorknob about it, but that's because I've been playing KSP for years on a computer that is pretty down on power i.e. I'm FORCED to cut every part I possibly can just to keep my fps from being a slideshow. This mentality has crept through into how I talk about other people's designs e.g. "You don't need this part... you have two of those... etc etc", especially when it is something structural rather than aesthetic - so I apologise for that But I suppose for people with non-potato powered PCs, a strut or two makes ZERO difference when it guarantees the safety of your SSTO (which is quite nice btw).

I love this. I also have mucho love for this part too

I think I'd heard this story before, but thanks for reiterating it! I love this one a lot

You don't need struts, you just need to land with less vertical speed, which is hard to do if you've got a lot of horizontal speed. The parts your using can all easily take the landing strain of that craft if you land at the proper speeds Get KER installed to see your vertical speed accurately

I think it's built in for quite a few capsules... afaik the Dragon capsule has one built in - I seem to remember someone saying something about the difficulty of having landing legs that could extend through the shield without compromising its functionality. Not sure about Mercury and Gemini... anyone? Do you really want a few kilograms less when gently floating through Eve's atmosphere?

Yeah, I end up doing that... though it spoils the "realism" a bit for me Yeah, thinking about it, I do jettison for Duna if I'm using chutes just to cut the weight down a bit. Deffo not on Eve though otherwise a parachute descent takes even longer

I know adding "jettison heat shield" to staging is an option, though I find myself using it extremely rarely. Sometimes I use it for a rover, though I always find myself slightly annoyed that it doesn't jettison (automatically) just as the parachutes open fully... so it does that thing where it sits at the bottom of your craft despite not actually being attached to it =/ Does anyone regularly use the option? If so, why?

Firstly, welcome to KSP and the forums! Because it's a horribly inefficient design, but particularly "using 8 would make it faster and get a higher altitude" - this is wrong as it is not necessarily true and, technically speaking, the highest flying (far from kerbin) and fastest are almost never solid fuel designs. 1) You don't want to be going so fast you burn-up on the way out of that atmosphere. 2) SRBs have no throttle control which winds up ruining your gravity turn (part of the efficiency problem tbf). 3) You don't always need even one SRB to get into orbit, never mind 8 of them. I'm sure somebody will give you a much more detailed response soon enough, but basically your fundamentals of the game (and basic rocket science) are a little off. I'd recommend Scott Manley, he has some extremely useful videos for beginners (even if some forum members do seem to have a problem with him for some reason). There have been a fair few updates since these were posted but the majority of it is still relevant. There are also videos from the likes of Matt Lowne, Hazzard-ish, ShadowZone and many, many others that you will find useful, inspiring and down-right entertaining Happy exploding!

Do NDA's ever expire? Would be interesting to know what happened even like a decade down the line.

This image made me wonder, is it possible to target another vessel for landing (instead of the launch pad) with MJ?

Yeah, I'm aware of most of what you said :( I'm not somebody that is ignorant of the legalities of game development... but I just think its a very long, complicated sin that for whatever reason Porkjet's parts weren't made stock (I'd probably be happy with somebody else having a pass at them, as long as its consistent). It does seem strange that, presuming it is a legal thing, that they can release the paid-for work for free, but not include it in the game. Unless that somehow infringes on PJ's art being used to turn a profit... It is tremendously annoying that it's the customer that ends up suffering though. Anyway, what was this thread about again? Oh yes! Nicer parts please! huh, I remember this kind of thread used to generate complaints about what art style to use or some people saying the inconsistency was "very kerbal" - thankfully, this no longer matters. They could implement the version thingy and have the current style as an option (or default).

This is one thing that really annoys me about KSP. I'm not somebody that things the game is missing a particular feature set like life-support or should have mods x,y and z as stock (Chatterer, ScanSat and KER if anyone asks me), but I do wish we had better game artwork. The MH parts were nicely done, but the white textures aren't even the same shade of white as other parts in the game . Things just don't match, and the worst part is, they're only out by a shade or two so they just look odd together more than anything else. Porkjet's parts were beautiful and I honestly think it is a sin that they weren't released as part of the game rather than an optional download. I used to use the mod, but honestly I don't really like playing with part mods, especially mods of essential components.

same, but for me its because high speed aircraft sometimes develop an SAS induced oscillation

You sure that's not an in atmosphere dV?

As a player of Stellaris I find this comment hilarious!

DLC can be hugely profitable... especially parts packs. Little development cost involved compared to making a whole new game

lol no. Squad is just looking to hire more devs. They've done this many times before - staff are always entering and leaving the company. The chances of this being KSP 2.0 are virtually zero - they're still working on the original game and there simply hasn't been enough time to warrant a second game this early. If they are developing another game, it sure as hell won't be KSP 2.0

Ohhhh, I forgot about these!

I've always been tempted but daunted by this mod, though I guess it's simply more to learn - just like when I first played KSP and didn't know a damned thing about orbital mechanics. Though I'm not surprised it eventually got kicked out, afaik no Lagrange point is indefinitely stable w/o "station keeping" - having said that, I'm not sure how long we could expect something to remain stable for: 24 years could be either comparatively long or comparatively short

Well written and well thought out. I agree with pretty much everything you've said, though I'm always hesitant when somebody mentions MP - though here your intention is perfectly clear i.e. not somebody else screaming "where is it!?/this game needs it!" and I agree that there are solutions, especially with invite only games and cooperative timewarp requests between players (though tbh, I think it would just be fun to fly around kerbin with a friend instead of switching vessels mid-air... so lonely). Also, slightly worried about how they would implement life support into the game. I've tried the two popular mods for it and I don't like how either of them work particularly if I'm honest. But I do agree with considering it as a needed (though optional in-game) feature of a space program game. This is news to me - when, why and how was this change made? Career late-game balance does need to be changed... though there is a good mod for this that makes science much more labour intensive. Can't remember its name currently. But if we're honest, career mode is often criticised as somewhat lacking for numerous reasons. Sometimes I understand this, other times I don't - I ALWAYS play career mode unless I'm testing some funky new design with parts I haven't unlocked yet; I find it much more entertaining than sandbox... but then again, I am the kind of guy to play with reverts off, respawns off, purchase of unlocked parts etc

Is... is that true or a joke?