Hannu2

I do not believe that Unity does not allow axial tilt of simple spherical object. All 3D engines can rotate objects around arbitrary axes. If it can be done with spacecrafts it can also be done with planets. It is just coordinate transformations, simple mathematical tricks which is already used in KSP. Even Squad have never blamed Unity to every problem. Many things players think are Unity's restrictions are intended choices. Squad have done huge work to make basic spaceflight possible without all mathematical data but still keeping some sense of reality. I am sure that it is economically very good decision, but unfortunately they have loved little too much in their oversimple philosophy. They should at least allow mods to do axial tilts as they have done with data displays (MechJeb, KER) or aerodynamics (FAR).

This is true. Typically LS is just that you put few parts on ship and little larger fuel tanks and launcher. But errors and failures is what makes things interesting. For example it is possible to cut 10-20 % from travel time with relatively low increase of DV. But I if plan to use that and then use too much fuel at target, for example for landings, or error in KSP's trajectory prediction guides me to wrong return orbit I send resource ship. Some of my most interesting missions have been light emergency supply ships to ships on interplanetary trajectories. They must have more than 10 km/s dv and ability to make rendezvous on solar orbits. Also forgetting life supplies of Minmus crafts have lead to interesting abort and rescue operations.

That would be great. Unoftrunately, it has been suggested millions of times but Squad has declined to do it. In my opinion it is the worst and most annoying deficiency in this game. It is so essential thing in real space activities and it would be very easy to implement in software. Even if it is not suitable to numberless celestial mechanics of Squad they could allow mods to do it.

Atmosphere of Eve has changed from previous versions. Now ascent is easy and descent is nightmare. I am in same phase as you, developing manned Eve lander. However, I do not want to see how others have solved the problem. This kind of technical difficulties are best what KSP can give. I have tried couple of shapes of an ascent device. All of them achieve easily orbit, even from low altitude, if I hyperedit them to the surface. But all of them flips during reentry. It seems difficult to find a good weight distribution for both, ascent and descent.

It you are interested in physical possibility, your system have probably many problems. Celestial bodies affect to each other and many configurations are unstable. For example, there are no other stable orbits (in geological timescales) around Earth than Moon's. Probably also Ike would destroy small Mars' moons and maybe other moon systems would be unstable too. As far as I know there can not be large body in asteroid belt. Jupiter would have prevented its formation. It is very difficult to predict stability of N-body systems during billions of years. Your system is very interesting for gaming and entertaining purposes. If it were possible and real, it would be scientifically more interesting than our real system. However, then we would be used to it.

In my opinion it is ridiculously overpowered for normal rockets in my playstyle. It destroys all fun for example Eve ascents. It may be expensive compared to other engines, but if I do not play some supergrindy ultrahardmode I have millions of extra money when I unlock Vector and price means practically nothing. I could say same thing about other large 3.75 m engines. There is not actual need for these in the game. I can make very easily rocket for any purpose, just put few huge tanks and engines and fly it on orbit. It was more fun before when single launch Eve rocked had about 1000 parts and 700 of them was struts. It took hours to develop monsters and about 20 minutes to fly them to orbit.

It seems that you have already sent goo data from high above Kerbin. When you make first transmission percentage is 25 % or 30 %. First transmission gives practically every points which are possible to get with transmission.

KSP can have some cartoonish elements, but it should be qualitatively as realistic simulator as practically possible. I like (after trying RSS) that the small solar system is a good idea and Kerbals and their somewhat risky attitude are funnier that humans, but I play KSP because I like space technology and physics. I want to make crafts which could be possible now or in near future in real world. Complex and multistaged expeditions with tight dv and supplies tolerances to planets, simple stations or very basic resource utilization projects instead of single stage to everywhere -spaceplanes or huge self-sustained colonization projects. It is important that I have to make similar plans and decisions than real space programs (but of course in supersimplified and entertaining style). I want to have very limited dv and other resources and make nearly optimal transfers. I want also to make mistakes and recover from them, sometimes fatal and sometimes not fatal but I can not achieve objectives of missions. Too overpowered parts and too easy physics (for example aerodynamics) would be like car racing game in which I do not have to brake before curves or shooting game in which I can walk, see and shoot through the walls but enemies can not. It would not be fun, just stupid and boring.

Squad is a small developing team. They do not have resources of large game companies. It seems also that KSP has become more complicated and more popular than they expected. Tools they selected at beginning are not very well suitable for project of this size but they do not have resources to program a new engine and port everything to it. In spite of that I would say that quality of KSP is on the same level which is typical for popular products of large companies. They can also been buggy and unfinished before first updates.

I planned and tried a new manned Eve craft in sandbox mode. I have not been on Eve since 0.something but now I am going to visit there. It seems that everything has changed. Now ascent is trivial, thanks to ridiculously overpowered Vectors and new aerodynamics. I succeeded at a first try with a good marginal. But descent seems to be nightmare now. My craft turns always sideways at 55-40 km and explodes.

Is it possible to include apses of transfer orbit and transfer angle as shown in Alexmoon's calculator. They are great help when I try to get correct Moho transfer. It would also be nice to have orbital parameters of optimal inclined parking orbit, needed prograde dv and true anomaly of ejection burn. Thanks for the great mod. It helps much to calculate transfers in KSP instead of other program or www-page.

If you have 1000 separate ships you should calculate interactions between them. It would be more complicated than calculating one 1000 part ship. In both cases you have to calculate motions of every parts. Connections are just assumptions of interactions between bodies from physical point of view. If parts are connected joint is modeled with simple spring type joint and there is no need for complicated collision detection. Detection of collisions is at least as hard to parallelize than calculation of forces between connected parts. Of course. But it would be more fun. You could deny almost all development in world with that argument. I think that there would also be a limit. Probably most people would not make massive constructions of tens of thousands of parts even if it would be possible. Most people would begin to want more action stuff instead of insane engineering monuments.

Thank you. It worked. However, there was a nasty side effect. It changed all stock fuel only tanks in every flying craft to fuel/oxidizer tanks. I had to edit .sfs file to get things corrected. Fortunately I had only 2 such cratfs.