Rocket In My Pocket

Waypoint Manager should be working fine in the latest version as far as I know. As far as stock you can select the contract location in map view and "set as target" it will then appear on your Navball as a marker. While not as nice as the visual marker from Waypoint Manager, it works well enough to get the job done.

Put x4 physics warp on and hold shift?

Not to burst your bubble but there's a hard coded limit to how big something can get given that the physics engine cuts out about 2.5km from the currently controlled craft. Of course you could make it up of separate vessels sort of "floating" near each other but I'm not sure how well this will work out. The sheer number of parts involved is likely to turn even the most impressive computer into a slideshow. I like your ambition, but I think you've bitten off more than you or anyone else can chew. I don't think an actual Dyson sphere is possible in KSP (or in real life for that matter.) Maybe go for a Dyson "swarm" or "ring" instead?

I just tried it myself out of curiosity and it didn't remove it from the staging list. I'm going to poke around a bit more but at the moment I can't find anything obvious in the part.cfg files that governs whether a part is added to the staging list or not.

No in game way to do it that I know of. A quick look at some part.cfg files though leads me to believe that the line "Stage Offset" only appears in parts that get added to the staging menu. If you were to remove this line from the parachutes they would hopefully no longer be added to the staging list. However I haven't tested this and can make no guarantees. Furthermore this change would apply to all parachutes of that type unless you made your own version of the parachute sans staging and saved it. Which actually wouldn't be that hard really. Let me know how you make out.

I think one of the most important tips is that the direction your nose is pointing and/or thrusting is not the same as the direction you are actually moving. The prograde marker shows you where you are actually going, if you are thrusting prograde you are basically "pulling" that marker about, if you are thrusting retrograde you are "pushing" it. So as you are making your final rendezvous procedure, you want to make sure that prograde marker is directly over the target marker. This may require you to switch between a pushing/pulling mindset as you accelerate/de-accelerate. RCS comes in very handy for fine tuning the prograde marker over the target marker as it lets you directly translate it instead of pushing/pulling. It's sort of hard to explain but once it "clicks" with you, you'll get exactly what I'm talking about.

Apologies, my sarcasm detector must be on the fritz. I've explained why I feel the current tech tree is fine based on valid game play reasons. Since this is in fact a video game that's meant to be fun, enjoyable, and as easy to learn as possible, locking more "complex" parts that open up different game play avenues further down the tech tree makes sense to me. Does it make sense in a realistic, historical way? No, not really...but that's not what KSP is intended to be or even should be. (In my opinion.) If you're saying that thinking of the game as "LEGO rockets with wacky green men" hurts the game, you obviously want it to be more of a simulator I can only assume. Personally I feel like the mod you've mentioned more than covers this avenue for the advanced players who don't need the tech tree "baby sitting" their advancement. I'm not against your opinion, or your idea...I'm just not really for forcing it on new players. I feel there is a good reason SQUAD has designed the tech tree as they have, and that's really all I wanted to say about it. I'm going to refrain from posting anymore as I feel I'm derailing your thread into a personal argument between the two of us. Let's agree to disagree.

So are you saying it should or shouldn't be based on realistic historical space flight? I'm getting mixed signals here.

You mean treating it like it's a game?

I certainly see your point from a PR perspective. Sadly, that's never been SQUAD's strong point. I'm honestly not sure as a developer if it's better to stick your head in the sand and ignore or address it directly.

Load up one of the pre-made stock planes in sandbox mode and practice landing? I'm not sure what kind of advice you want besides that really? If you've played flight simulators before you should have a solid enough grasp of how to land a plane. (Step 1:Reduce throttle, Step 2: Reduce altitude, Step 3: Repeat steps 1 and 2 until your plane is on the ground.) KSP is about as easy as flying simulators get, I can't imagine you'll have any problems.

Are you confusing rover wheels with landing gear wheels? I've heard plenty of complaints about the latter, but few about the former. (Personally I haven't had any problems with either to be honest.) Besides the whole "gear blocked" thing which is mildly annoying (And already confirmed to be going away in 1.2) what exactly is wrong with the rover wheels in your opinion?

Yeah, sure it does, from a game play perspective. It's a cartooney video game about shooting little green men into space. Shouldn't you be encouraged to use aforementioned little green men from the beginning? Wanting to start unmanned is purely a historical thing, which you stated wasn't your intention. Not to mention that starting unmanned would require moving batteries and solar panels further down the tree as well. The tech tree is what guides the player through the baby steps, it's essentially a gated tutorial. We want to start new players out with the simplest, purest form of the game; which is strapping Kerbals into rockets and launching them. Then the rest of the games optional bits are slowly opened up, like rovers, airplanes, and unmanned probes.

Using way too many mods from the looks of it. You'd be better off asking this question in the modded game tech support forum, or better yet the relevant mod threads. Unless someone coincidentally has the exact same mod setup as you, it's going to be difficult to diagnose your problem.

It's already been fixed. Once, again @Claw comes to the rescue! Update 1.1.3a.1: Deprecated several modules (that have been incorporated into stock) Added a small fix for non-responsive kerbal EVA lights Added fix for fairings that was causing kerbals to get stuck on EVA and docking ports to break (becoming perma-stuck).

I have no problems with the current tech tree. This game is primarily about flying rockets into space, and the progression of the tech tree supports and encourages this. I'm not sure why everyone has a problem with ladders/wheels being medium tier? Considering you have to upgrade the Astronaut Center to level 2(75,000 Funds) just to go on EVA, and you need a level 2 R&D building(451,000 Funds) to do surface samples. You don't really need ladders for anything meaningful until you have both of these abilities. Likewise, you don't really need to be messing about with wheels until you are more proficient in the basics of the game, if you haven't even landed on the Mun yet, what possible need could you have for a proper rover? (Farming science at the KSC is easily accomplished with jet engines/landing gear.)

I spend most of my time trying to make things that you shouldn't be able to make with the parts given with varying degrees of success. The engineering challenges are probably my favorite part of KSP, I definitely spend more time in the VAB/SPH than I do actually flying missions or accomplishing anything. Most times I turn the game on, I rarely go further than the runway/launchpad.

As far as I understand you make an account, upload the mod, then publish the mod. Never used Curse personally, I prefer Github and/or Dropbox. Best of luck!

We've been doing orbital construction of ships in stock via docking ports/clamp-o-tron for a long time now. I see no problem with the current system, plus you can already build a construction yard in orbit with the current game mechanics. Allowing you to "magic" one into place would just be "cheaty" in my opinion. (Also, if that's all you want just get HyperEdit and teleport your ships.)

1. Could you explain exactly why you need a runway behind the mountains? What purpose does it serve? Why can't you just use the existing runway? 4. 500 lights? That's a bit over kill. For starters KSP will only display like...8 pixel lights at a time at max settings? For two, 500 of anything is going to kill your frame rate all on it's own. As far as HyperEdit goes, you get it here:

Are you going to back that up with any sort of evidence or argument?

Be forewarned. This thread is originally from 2013 and may contain some seriously out dated info.

Yeah... If you could stop quoting your own posts inside your own posts. That'd be just great. (I mean seriously...how do you even do that without an edit?)

Nothing like being 3/4 through a complicated mission and realizing you haven't saved once. Then it's do or die time!