JoeSchmuckatelli

Yep - that's a problem Also - changing names does not actually change the names of vessels. They revert.

I like the cut of your jib, Sailor. No thinking small for you!

That is a kind offer! I'm going to take what you wrote above and go play with it. I'm one of those guys who really don't start learning until I get my hands on stuff - so it's actually better for me to make mistakes and learn from them than to watch someone who really knows what they are doing. It's like when I was learning carpentry - I had this guy who was an amazing woodworker who could spend an hour telling me what right looks like - but until I got my hands on the piece and tools I couldn't feel what right was. While this involves some waste - I learn faster through failure than by striving for perfection! Yeah - I need to do the math rather than guesstimate! This is a Yaaarg moment. Can't tell you how often I've been frustrated by the SRBs and not known what was going on. Never realized it was this sensitive. I just plop them into what looks like alignment. Will also play around with this to figure best practices! So I've flown a variation of this profile ever since I learned about gravity turns. Never knew that what I was doing wasn't a gravity turn! So yeah I kind of do enjoy it b/c I'm generally on the edge of flipping the rocket (success often requires failure and revert) Okay - so talk me through this? . Let's say I built a sane rocket... What does that single pitch over look like?

Okay... All this stuff is starting to seep in. And it's - this shiz is hard. Now I'm seeing why NASA stuff takes years. So there is really one window per year per planet for the most efficient transfers. ... It's been so long since I have played KSP that I've clearly forgotten much of what I learned back then! Thing is - I was wondering if the difference was a wash given that either way you have to burn 970 (or whatever) to get the escape and then refine. But now I see that there is a magnitude to the refinement - and the second method was a gamification just short of using an orbit editor hack. Yeah you can do it in the game, but you would not do it IRL.

Nice!

I'd have the Andor team redo everything with Hayden Christiansen in it and totally rethink the one with the kid. Although they need to elevate Darth Maul. The last three did not bother me so much. Rey and Kylo Ren were a fine story. Just a retelling of the original story arc with better visuals and no heart.

I can't remember the woman who was his fellow crewmember...

So - for a duffer like me; doing method 1 is better because it's more efficient and will let me retain more fuel to do work once I get there... But 2 is okay if you're overbuilt and just goofing around? I really appreciate it. Full disclosure: I just finished a contract job and don't go back to work until after Spring Break, so I've been playing a lot yesterday and today. I kind of feel like the Forum's ADD kid atm. Just can't stop posting bugs and asking questions!

That's a concern I did not have back when they announced EA. I figured Sandbox would have some proofing and balance work to do (nothing this bad)... but then Science would introduce a revamped (and hopefully interesting system) with a part of the new progression system. Prior to that a WHOLE LOT of us got into a bunch of lengthy discussions and suggestions for revamping Science to make it interesting, relevant to science-interested-new-players and relevant to the game, without being 'crew report on Minmus to unlock aircraft engines). But they have been SILENT on what Science is going to be. Clearly their excitement is reserved for Colonies and etc... but I'm still crossing fingers for Science to be worthwhile. ... But... Yeah.

Pretty much what the title says. I had four identical ships in orbit around Kerbin - sending them out to seed the planets with CommSats. Each was named (Something Random) - 1, -2, -3, -4. After each escape burn, I went to the Tracking Station to rename the ship with a reference to the destination so I could keep track of which was going where. By the time I was on the third ship - which I renamed before doing the burn - when I looked at my MN, I saw the ship was going to burn into Kerbin before it got to the node. Went to Flight mode and found SAS off, the ship in 45% thrust and spinning wildly (plus exhausting fuel). Managed to get it back into an orbit - dumping more fuel - but this should never have happened. It's basically the same thing as 'Pressing M while in the VAB'. Fun fact: after all that. My ships are STILL called "Something Random -1", "Something Random -2", etc. Finally - this really disappoints me, but I've mentioned it elsewhere. Leaving a ship for any reason sets it back into a 'dead stick' status. I first noticed this trying to deploy satellites - and reported this Here. Probes and separated ships should not be 'dead stick' (SAS off, no controls applied) just because the player separated them, stopped looking at them, or went and did something else.

I can accept it as a DLC. Presuming they get the core stuff working as intended and the Roadmap underway. Science is likely make-or-break for me. I'm hoping for some nice changes and having a progression system again will make it a game - not just a Sandbox.

1. I don't have the link handy - but there's a nicely colored image that shows the best alignment of the planets compared to Kerbin for each destination. The idea is you use the Tracking Station to warp until you get Kerbin in the approximate 'best' location with relation to your target planet and begin planning your transfer from there. You set the Maneuver Node on the appropriate side of Kerbin and pull your prograde marker until you get AP to touch the orbital path of the destination planet, and then fiddle with it, then run the escape burn. Once outside Kerbin's SOI, in Kerbolar orbit you do a plane change as needed and set up a mid course correction to get the intercept. 2. The other one I've seen is to just get an escape trajectory in the appropriate direction (in line with Kerbin's prograde for the outer planets, retrograde of Kerbin for the inner). You're not going for a full burn to the destination planet's distance from Kerbol - just an escape from Kerbin's SOI and into a Kerbolar orbit. Once you're in a Kerbolar orbit, you set target, get your plane aligned and then place a maneuver node wherever, pull till AP is at the destination orbit line & then pull the node around your current orbit (with appropriate fiddling) until you find an intercept - then run that. I can see benefits to both; but what I don't know is what the ramifications are of choosing one or the other. Anyone know?

Heck of an adventure! That was a pure act of will, given the performance (cough!) of the TR-4s. Thanks for sharing! Edit - Why do posts merge when you don't want them to? ... Enjoy Regex's Long [EditedWord] Drive for a moment! ... I made a video showcasing gravity turns - forgot to turn up the throttle on my sustainer stage - and unexpectedly just flew to orbit under constant thrust. Never had that happen before. (Meaning, when I finally figured out that I could turn up the gas and got the AP where I wanted it... I already had a PE at a decent height.)

B is the brakes. Also the little hand symbol on the left of the screen. Sometimes with Rovers - if you get out... you have to put down landing legs to keep the rover from rolling away.

@Scarecrow71 @Streetwind Here's what I do with my OP rockets. Critiques welcome!

4 person private lobby hosted on one person's PC. CoOp or competing. 2 years.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/building-block-life-asteroid-ryugu Uracil, a component of RNA, was found in a sample collected by Japan’s Hayabusa2 spacecraft

I believe that you just described the interior of every tank.

I wish I had thought about that back when.

Interesting theory - but the video is from a reloaded save and after trying to revert to launch. This seems planned. Like a feature rather than a bug. What I don't get is 'Observer Can't Leave Active Vessel' bug. That happens with no rhyme or reason

Hm. I'll have to dig into that. Thus far I've been successful in never doing anything in Teams calls (hate video calls). But I'm having fun recording stuff so it will be interesting to see what the software will do!

I'm a complete Neanderthal at this! I start nosing at 50m/s and then keep feathering the D key to keep the dot in the white carrot on the edge of the prograde circle, which if I do it right keeps me on the edge of falling out of the sky. I rarely get to 45 by 4k but I am usually there between 6 and 8 by trying. Once past the 45 line I usually hit prograde hold and watch for 80 or 100 km depending on the altitude I want. I generally only reduce throttle if I know I'm over 1.2 TWR and that is for the SRB burn. (Love to hear a better way!)

Thanks! I'm guessing g0 is the gravity of the object (Kerbin)? I'll check it out when I get on again!

If long and skinny is the problem - start using some of the fat parts. Build your rocket in stages and save them under different names. I usually have a lander /rover / comm probe as the end stage. So then I need to build a stage to get that from orbit to the destination - basically fuel cans and Poodle or Labradoodle. The next part is pick a or b. A. Build a booster with a a TWR above 1, using something like the Mammoth and a pair of the big SRBs and hit the green button or B. Build a short sustainer stage to complete the orbit / give you a boost to your destination and then slap on a shorter booster (ditch a fuel can) than you built in A - still ending up with a TWR above 1. Profit Do try to stay away from multiple levels of SRBs, and work on gravity turns - like try to be close to 45 degrees by 4km... It works!

There is a real possibility that most of the bug reports are for Placebo purposes. The fact is that the game is uploading telemetry as you play, so they are getting real, actionable data every time you play - and aggregating that. But if you look at the Patch notes - there's an icon showing that several of the bugs were 'community identified'. So at least some of them are getting through; but what route? No one knows. I've posted here, and used the report function. I know that the CMs spend most of their time on Discord. So - whether any of it is being elevated, and what priority? We just don't know.