MR L A

What for? Kind of makes sense if you're in physics range but in that case switching vessels with the '[' or ']' key is probably going to be just at fast and less annoying when action groups end up out of sync. Out of physics range... honestly cannot think of a scenario where this would be useful.

Well that isn't Moho's fault... that's just long burns and hot parts that can happen absolutely anywhere in the system. The challenge of Moho is just a very small SOI, high inclination and distance.

Not really... I've only ever sent probes without radiators to Moho. The challenge is getting there because of its very high dV cost and is incredibly difficult to return from for the same reason. So, basically Moho is a challenge because it has a small SOI and high dV requirements to get there... pretty much identical to a potato in orbit of Jool. Not that I'm against the idea - your reasoning just seems a bit off.

I disagree tbh. How it looks now is a mess and tagging alone doesn't fix that. The ideal solution would be both tags and subfolders but seeing as how Microsoft can't properly handle tagging/file search in windows, I have little hope that SQUAD can. Subfolders would be easier to implement imo, neater and less hassle to use (in terms of remembering exactly how you spelt your custom tag).

How long before someone brings this back to features implemented by mods? wait.. I'll be that guy. My pet peeves are that mods like KER, KAC, Chatterer and RealPlume are mods... honestly think the should be stock. KER because it provides a lot of information a successful mission needs. KAC because I have no idea how anyone can do multiple missions without it. Chatter because KSP is ridiculously quiet without it and RealPlume because once you've used those engine fx you NEVER want to go back. True pet peeves though other than loading time... honestly idk. All the bugs are usually entertaining to some degree... apart from landing on moons where your craft just randomly starts wobbling about after landing and falls over.. that really grinds my gears after the 26th time. Edit: No I've got it! Craft save file system... can't create branches or subfolders withing sph/vab sections... hate having a list of all files rather than being able to have families of rockets grouped together. e.g. 1.25m family subfolder that contains all the 1.25m designs rather than alphabetical order Please fix this SQUAD.. I'd literally pay for this feature as its own DLC because I want it so bad.

This should probably be moved seeing as it isn't KSP specific... No where in the article does it say that CURRENT games will be retrofitted with micro-transaction content. The article only suggests that all new games T2 will have micro-transactions... nothing else

The mission was supposed to be rescuing a Kerbal on an elliptical orbit around Kerbin... by the time I launched they'd been kicked out of the Kerbin SOI by the Mun. I'd only unlocked 1.25m parts at this time so a solar rescue wasn't going to be easy.

Doesn't sound like a particularly efficient ascent at all. Best ascents keep AP constantly about 45 seconds away and going through the atmosphere for that amount of time, even if it is thin at that stage, is costly. Here's a great thread on the topic - Wrong. The average gaming PC (average also placing it as midrange) still has 8gb. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

I can use a keyboard properly you condescending oaf. I'm perfectly aware that to play KSP we don't need analogue input and nor did I say anywhere that I or anybody else did. I'm saying analogue control for flight is better. There's a reason people with an interest in flight use analogue controls and it isn't because then need to "learn how to properly use a keyboard".

That isn't what I mean by fine movement. A press of the key still has maximum effect in that given direction, caps lock just reduces what the 'maximum' is. Also, toggling caps repeatedly during flight is extremely... crap. It's not even a valid point when someone wants fine pitch control but full roll. Aside from that, I wasn't specifically applying this to KSP. You asked why anyone would "play PC with noobsticks" - I answered; because they aren't "noobsticks" depending on what you're actually playing or even trying to do within KSP. Also, if you think WASD works plenty well for atmospheric flight, I'm pretty sure you're not a flight sim guy lol

because analogue controllers are FAR superior for fine movements required in flying/driving games. WASD simply doesn't cut it (unless you buy that analogue keyboard that can tell how hard you press the keys). Yes, M+K is a lot better for FPS games and a "pro" wouldn't dream of playing CS:GO with a 360 controller, but by the same token, a professional driver/pilot wouldn't dream of playing a racing game/flight sim using WASD.

I have a 360 controller and adaptor for PC... do I need to do anything special to get it working with KSP? I'd quite like to have a go at flying with it

Ven's Stock Revamp is always nice if you want to try nicer looking stock parts PLUS have some gaps plugged with new ones. Also, make it a challenge for yourself and do unmanned before manned (mod) and other SETI mods Could try something like Galileo's planet pack if you want a harder game and new lands to explore (though you need a patch for SETI) Other than that, I assumed you already use KAC, KER and SCANSat?

Could just use a mod that reduces science income and stop science mining lol. For example I use a mod that reduces science and I do not allow the Science Jr component on manned lander missions

I can guarantee the response you will get to this is something along the lines of "we all have different ideas about what should and shouldn't be in the stock game - some people think a feature like this should be stock, some people think its completely unnecessary - and seeing as there are mods available to fill the gap, just use them" IMO some flight computer system would be cool... but I imagine it would be a hell of a learning curve on top of a game that already seems ridiculously hard until you know what you're doing. Do we really need a flight computer though? Sure, it would be cool to sit back and watch something land on another planet automatically or deploy antenna and solar panels at a specific orbital height but doesn't that mean you're just doing less work and watching the computer play for you?

This kinda makes me wish the flatter-bottom look was chosen for the MK3 parts as stock...

They actually do... there's a patch for it somewhere that worked really well.

Hi everyone, I've just had a cursory look on the forums and could find no information on the matter, but does anyone know if the Mexico based members of the SQUAD dev team okay? Some pretty horrendous footage coming out of the country and I'm concerned for everyone caught in the disaster. Thanks and good luck to everyone Edit: turns out the most recent earthquake has been tagged onto the last earthquake thread. Also, thread should probably be moved to The Lounge thank you please moderators

sort of annoys me that solar panels are still viable here =/

I had a VERY similar problem with a mk3 shuttle I was using... the solution was to land extremely fast with an extremely low vertical speed. Which takes a huge amount of piloting skills and using a LOT of runway. Pretty much how the real shuttle landed as you described. You just need a steeper re-entry profile or use jets so you aren't actually gliding

Guessing KSP thinks the additional step is the best path available.. you could test this out by quick-saving (optional step - I prefer not to delete craft in career mode.. not realistic imo), deleting that other relay thing and then seeing if the probe at Duna still has a connection. It probably shouldn't in this situation, or a weaker one if it does. If the signal is better, then that's beyond my expertise I'm afraid =/

yes I'd answer this yes and no tbh. I haven't read all the comments so pardon me if I'm repeating someone else, but KSP drag is too high for your use case yes, but the answer is no in terms of drag being deliberately high as a game balancing measure. I felt like I had to state this, not trying to be a doorKnob

That's right, a friend. Incredible, I know! But the reason this fact concerns you wonderful users on the KSP forums is not because someone with a few thousand hours on this game alone is managing to maintain some semblance of a social life. No, it's because this friend has expressed some interest in KSP. I've done some cursory explaining of the physics of the game and the building block style of construction. However, I feel that a video might (read definitely) do more justice than any verbal description I can give So, I was wondering what THE best video of the world of KSP is... I'm looking for something that shows off the myriad of construction possibilities, from rockets and SSTOs to those than insist on truck driving, ship building and diving to the depths in Bathyspheres. I'm looking for something that shows off the glorious multi-hundred part, over-engineered monstrosities that cripple computers to something that shows off the beauty in simplicity, the thrill of just barely completing that mission with adequate dV. Perhaps most importantly, it needs to be entertaining - on a personal note, I remember some videos by Robbaz really made me LOL in my KSP early days (perhaps before purchase) as well as the oft mentioned Scott Manley, who influenced my decision to buy the game. I think what KSP needs, with required permissions ofc (cough fair use cough), is a brief-ish, highly entertaining super-cut of many youtuber's exploits in the world of KSP, if there isn't one already (linky please). I would endeavour to make such a video myself, but, unfortunately I have none of the required the skills, time, patience or editing software =/ So, my fellow KSPers, hit me with those links or if someone feels up to it, make the compilation they think would be an ideal glimpse into KSP Thank you and goodnight!

That was MJ? Blooming heck! This is a good description of a good turn I was looking at your peri height compared to your apo and thought it looked way off =/

Well, I use rocket/shuttle family names like the following "Balthasar LS1-3" - 1.25m designs, one through three, each increasing in capability. "Centurion LS1-4" - 2.5m designs, one through three or four, again increasing in capability, "Delta Series" - a collection of shuttles and TSTO spaceplanes also given individual names like "Delta Series - 'Genesis'". Other assorted things are often given something like the following "Module - CM Daytona" (command module) or "Probe - Sentinel". For new craft, experimental or ones that overlap with other designs I use the "Gen2 -" prefix sometimes if they are a modified or experimental version of an existing vehicle I may use something like "BLSX" which would be Balthasar Launch System X. A planned launch of a Centurion LS2 with the third probe to the Duna system would probably be saved as "A1-CLS2-D3" A1 < next planned launch, followed by A2 etc if I have a few planned. CLS2 < Centurion Launch System 2, the vehicle used. D3 < Duna 3, or third mission to Duna.