Spricigo

of topic: there is a config somewhere to change that distance?

@goldenpsp go without saying that every mod out there that relied on KIS/KAS will most likely be updated to use the stock inventory. Heck, even the plan for KIS/KAS itself go along those line. So, that is not the point. The idea in OP is pretty much "make OSE stock" Something that couldn't be done without some form of "make KIS/KAS stock", but now that the last update solved it, "make OSE stock" seems like a very natural next step. (making Konstruction Docking Ports stock seem very reasonable also)

Aside from the discussion about what is sensible and what is OP, I really would prefer to have those things as perks not tied to the level or profession. The same way some kerbals just are badS, other may be natural leaders and scavengers.

So, now that KIS is stock, make OSE stock? Well, I was under the impression that EVA would remain mod territory but now I really don't see* why not make extraplanetary constructions a whole into the stock game. *well, aside from all the work.

Updates breaking mods is nothing new, players with modded installs often delay the update to make sure the modmakers had time to adapt. If anything, that time is just KIS (and maybe a few other mods) that is affected. And there is quite a lot for the modmaker (a guy working in his spare time) ensure that KIS will play nice. It takes time. Remove KIS for now if you want, but check again after a while because a KIS update may solve all the current issues. In any case, even assuming that KIS will not get any update, sooner or later someone will make a mod with new containers and other stuff that uses the inventory system, and we will get more option to play with (no doubt some player already wrote Module Manager patches or messed with the configs)

Trying to redo the mission the same way over and over will probably just get you more frustrated. Either get some breathing and then come back to see if there is something else you are missing or just go for a different plan. My take at it is: the game is cheating you, cheat it back. rendezvous with the with the wreck don't EVA return with the rescue craft without the stranded kerbal go back to he tacking station, find the wreck and hit the fly button (green rocket) make a quick save (hold F5) open the debug toolbar (ALT+F12 on windows) find [set position] under [cheats] and use it to move the wreck to the surface If it put the craft inside the ground just load the quick save (F9), increase the value in [altitude] and try again. Hopefully, it only happens with contracts generated before the update as @Superfluous J suggest. But at the very least it allow to progress in your game untilyou get a definitive solution.

Yes, there is a few edge case where one can do a major screw-up, maybe because of inexperience or maybe because of overconfidence (and that is why I also got near bankrupt at least once) but it almost requires a dedicated effort.

I think your example it's not ideal. The Dynawing don't need wheels to take off, the fuselage have 50m/s impact tolerance, engines 20m/s, wings 15m/s. Most of it can survive a rough parachute landing. NO, it's not the most elegant way to face a problem but it get the job done. Kinda like the Moar Booster/Fuel some people often add to not bother with efficiency.

@HvP is spot on. The modmaker already stated in the KIS thread that his intention is to adapt the mod to play along with the new inventory system while maintaining features of the mod not present in the stock game. However it will take some time (people having lives and all) to figure out if and how it can be done.

Nothing much to add to @VoidSquid explanation. The same goes for form posts, videos tutorials and guides out there, take in account how old the thing is. Some have aged pretty well, but other turned in complete nonsense.

NOT an argument, just @bewing opinion. And he even stated that they are lucrative in the early game. Seem that for some reason you took it as an statement that tourism contract shouldn't be done when that is simple not the case. Then you asked people to "present their case" and as result people talked even more about their opinion. [snip] That IS a matter of play style. Using the terms loosely: some people enjoy play KSP "efficiently" some people enjoy doing it "poorly". It may be your goal to 'beat the game' but that don't means it the goal to anyone else. [snip] Not at all, I took an actual example from my modded game. I have a bunch of mods since the day I first installed KSP and I previously stated that one of the reasons I didn't want to get in details is because the mods you use will shift the balance in some way (might I add: a lot). If you prefer to keep your game stock, that is a self-imposed limitation that don't change anything about what is realistic. Case in point, "realism" mods like life support and part failures make it harsher but those are also self-imposed limitations. In any case, modding is not only allowed, but supported by the games developers. The idea that is "not supposed to be that way" holds no water whatsoever. [snip] Your game your preferences, your opinions... nothing of this affect my game, nor the other way around. If is competition that ou want, go to the challenge sub-forum and take one that interest you, if it is just a "hard" game just take the option that make it so for you. [snip] So, just take what we are saying with a grain of salt and move on. In particular, don't give much important to what I said, not even I did. Sticking to that subject will just trigger my hyperfocus and you will not be able to keep up.

Well, it's a simplified version of how it was done in real life Bonus point if you have a parachuting kerbal alongside. But you may also consider putting parachutes in the shuttle itself if you are no so confident in your skills. Your question being a bit vaguely about "a shuttle" limits our advice to more generic principles, basically what people already said in previous post. If you can provide us with more info, maybe a screenshot of the craft in question we may be able to suggest a narrower approaching trajectory. Mostly, it is a matter of slowing down enough to not overheat or overshot, and not to much so you don't reach the destination. Takes practice to get that balance correct.

Oh My Jeb!!

[snip] And while we are expected to be respectful with each other [snip] the ideas are just like the targets in a shooting range, there is absolutely no problem in poking holes in each other claims. [snip] Play whatever the way you feel is best for you, other players will disagree. And it takes no effort for me to try to explain what is my perceptive as an experienced player when someone asks me. It may be the case that I fail to convey the message in a way that is easily understood. If that seem to be the case, I will rather try to make it clearer than assume the other person is just trying to "win the discussion". [snip]

Not only that, it don't take all that much deltaV(and effort)* to get your periapsis into Kerbin's atmosphere. That aerobrake have no significant difference than areobraking from Minmus. *It may take quite a lot for a inexperienced(/impatient) player doing it in a inefficient way. But as you said, you learn the trick with practice. Since the effect to contracts offers turned out to be a more important for the OP. But getting in solar orbit or to the closer planets is just a bit more difficult than getting to Minmus (landing and, specially, coming back is a whole different story).

Again, all this discussion is moot. Funds are not scarce. KSP is not a MMO, not even a multiplayer game, and as such the game economy is very basic and lopsided. There are simple too many money faucets and too few money sinks. Take whatever contract you feel like and the advance alone can pay for the mission (not making any big efforts to be efficient), whatever is listed as 'rewards' have no where to go other than facilities upgrades and parts unlock but the limit of what can go there is very low. Take you example of a mission that yields 5m, a couple of those and all the facilities are maxed out and all parts are unlocked. From that point you just need to pick a contract once in a while( and that assuming you don't start to fund your space program from Research Rights Sell-Out or Mining In the Launchpad) So, you have that infrastructure that took considerable effort to build and part of it is somewhat obsolete but may still havesome use. On the other hand the approach @Superfluous J describes will add a few clicks to each mission . The only reason you regard your strategy as best is because you give no importance for the effort to build the infrastructure and adapt it later. That is why it don't really matter if contract's RoI is 8 or 88 and that is why people pick contracts based on how they want to expend their game time. Is a matter of preference and perspective. By the same token the next guy may decide to play in sandbox and skip career mode shenanigans altogether. AFAIK only asteroid/comet detection are limited. Max available 3/1, max active 1 for both. Off course, it may just be that I already forgot how much I messed with the configs. But yeah, who needs contracts anyways?

It means everything when the point being raised is that it prevent the part to be too convenient. Some "hassle" is there by design. In any case, that was jimmy's opinion. It may or may not be the reason the devs let it out of the action group. The only thing i said: you didn't make anyone less concerned about labs being too convenient.

Well, since you need to click quite a few times more in this thing to transmite all the science, his point stand. In any case, have you looked into mod options for this?

Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. I suppose a lot of us are curious about how one in particular will adapt to the new inventory system. Well, we need to wait a bit more

Maybe it is because I was already familiarized with the payload category when the cargo category was created, but I feel it is really only an issue in the portuguese translation. Also, I was so used to the english version that sounded more natural than my native tongue (portuguese) when became available. I'd rather suggest the alternative translation "remessas" for the cargo category since we are talking about closed packages and its countainers while the payload is more for "whatever I need a rocket for putting it in space".

Well...No, it's not a principle just a perk of those celestial bodies. Maybe it is a design choice and maybe that is because it make things easier for the player once he notices this perk. In any case, Answering your question, for most things in stock we are supposed to "learn by doing". We go out, try thing, fail many times and eventually stumble upon something that works. However, the in game orbit happens to follow real word physics laws. Laws old enough* to be in the "should learn at school" category rather than "recent scientific breakthrough" Of course, the phrase "solve for x" don't ring as "fun times are coming" for that many people. But there is quite a lot of useful information out there if you are willing to look at. If you are just looking for tools that makes the calculations for you, that is also available (some specific for KSP, some are generic enough to be abe to setup for KSP). In any case, if you ask there, we will try to provide a good answer for you. *We can't even say it is simple newtonian physics because it is older than Isaac Newton.

Some probecore (and the Avionics Hub) have increased Field of View in some situations (either landed/spashed /Flying low or in Atmospheric/Suborbital Fligth) . Having those values displayed in the editor's info window would be nice. Something like this: just make sense for me.

For Kebin system the HG-5(weakest relay antenna) will do. Just have enough to not run into line of sight issues.

Well, if you can't figure out a use by yourself you probably don't need it. If that is the case, leaving it alone or terminating is as good as anything . If you keep it they may eventually unlock contract to expand the stations, if you terminate the game don't need to keep track of it. Otherwise, the parts are functional, drill can get ore, labs can do research and so on. If your mods allow that , the can also be rearranged or recycled.

My usual advice to how to deal with large ships is: don't. Yes, it can be done, but at a certain point I feel is just simpler to send multiple crafts. In any case, for big ship is even more important to avoid weak joints. Give preference for Sr docking port; don'y use tiny parts for root if you are expecting to use autostrut-root; if for some reason you need to use smaller part mid-stack, put those inside a cargo/service bay for structural purposes ; be careful with autostrut root/heaviest since those parts may change. I don't know if struts can be placed with stock EVA construction, but there is the mod option EVA struts.