Spricigo

Nameless?

Same for adults.

Seems you already solve the problem. But in a 'brute force' approach, so I suppose you may still be interested in what exactly happened and a reliable way to avoiding it infuture. SO: CoM not in centerline (look at torque values given by KER) Almost certainly the culprit is the payload, try to make it as symmetrical as possible. Don't be ashamed to use the offset tool. Also, if possible, use fairing to avoid asymmetric aeroforces.

Sometimes a nice and fun game is just a nice fun game.

I'm not saying you should adopt the idea, but it offer a way to solve your problem. You craft may not be able to 1.get in orbit; 2.rendezvous with your station; 3.delivery the payload; 4.land back in Kerbin. But it may be able to 1; deploy a cheap tug that does 2 and 3; 4.

For small stuff is pretty easy to just point the main engine in the desired direction and burn briefly (weak engines, thrust limit and low throttle for precision). As the scale increases it soon became unbearable.

In this case the 'missing' feature is not [insert mods here], is support to mods (and craft/save sharing) for console users.

Like [set orbit] from the debug menu( [MOD]+F12 )?

And I hope it stays 'inacurate' . We don't need months long burns.

If you mean some 'target TWR' I don't have it. Instead I adjust the gravity turn, more powerful rockets start the turn earlier. Also I don't evaluate efficiency by deltaV to orbit but rather l consider how much funds and time cost to put the payload in orbit

First: why do you slashed fluid density? It is one of the factors. (You certainly had been told, and maybe even tell it yourself, that at higher altitudes there is less air and thus less drag.) Second: Thrust is really one factor but so many others makes a bit problematic to konw what the "end result will be.

Actually no. Drag depends on velocity, exposed area and fluid density. @Kaname there is no mystery, the stronger and bigger craft carry more to orbit. Unfortunately that 'extra' is the dead weigth you had on it.

I think "straight up" was an unfortunate choice of words. As long you have enough upward moment to not fall back into atmosphere before circularization, keep your focus on building up horizontal velocity. In some sense that last step to orbit is a race against gravity. Let's be clear there. For a given target deltaV, it defends on two factors. Isp and mass fraction. Nervs have a clear advantage in Isp and chemical have a clear advance in mass. So "what engine consume more fuel?" is yet another of those questions to be replied with "depends".

I really don't get what you mean by 'refuelling parts'. May you elaborate it a bit?

And for then I also suggest mods. Each player will have his own opinion about how this balance should swing, often contradictory wishes about what should be done to the tree. This is also something that don't have the same appeal for all players. Lets take for example: My opinion: Nuclear Propulsion is a dead-end node with two requirements that only unlock a single part. The NV-N is a weak and heavy vacuum engine which diminish the advantage of the great Isp. A lesser issue is the inexistent of LF only adapters and less granularity of LF only tanks capacity. This all sum up to: Nervs are niche engines that cost 300 science to unlock. It results to being the last thing I unlock for 300 science, at least once it was the last thing I unlocked in the entire tech tree.

Condonlences. Unfortunately, even considering that some player can't use mods, often the more viable solution for a missing feature is provide it with mods.

Stock tech tree is a good tech tree for stock. There is good mod option for player tht want a different option.

What is the design goal? what you want to do with the craft? Crafts are tools, they are made to perform certains tasks. You may notice that tools for different task are very different, just compare a hammer, a screwdriver and a plier. Same goes for craft: a heavy lifter to LKO will be a lot different from a long range science gathering probe. What makes the tool (craft) good for one task may make it terrible for different task. Your craft seems to be intended to do "everything" and, as result ended up being good to nothing. I think you really need to rething the objetives and narrow it down to something that you can optimize the craft to do. (e.g. cargo lifter OR tourist bus OR long range exploration) Also, 4 cylindrified MP tanks clipped in the rearmost fuselage.

I wish that and a windtunnel tool where the player could adjust windspeed and direction of airflow. Unfortunately I don't forsee it hapening anytime soon. In any case my experience is easier to balance CoD/CoM when CoM is closer to midle of the craft.

Anything that would create the need for a mod to remove the feature should stay as a mod that provides the feature. Better explained by what would be added: Stock game would integrate only mods that are pure 'quality of life' improvements or 'fixes' for an existing issue. The kind of stuff that is "already better than stock" and "no-one would complain" In some other cases we have one or more mod options for a feature but still enough room for another 'take at it'. If modders don't show interest in doing so the devs may step in, adding the feature in some way no mod did before.

By how the discussion developed, maybe not your preference . In any case Bon Voyage to have the truck trip happening in background intead of watching the autopilot.

Those you mentioned are challenge badges. Go to the Challenge and Mission Ideas subforum, find one that interest you and earn the right to use the badge. Then go to your signature settings and include the badge. Being user generated content, badges can be 'awarded' for other reasons (e.g. I had seen bug hunters using "bug exterminator " badge). And while I wrote that !!@Cpt Kerbalkrunch just earned the "forum ninja" badge.

Even without an important save to keep that is the hardest decision to me. Hard to evaluate when the improvements of the update will overcome the tested and true functionality of the stable version.

Ok some words more: You may take a look in the Elcano Challenge for some ideas. The 'default' challenge is the circumnavigation of Kerbin, but people often went around other celestial bodies too. I suggest Waypoint Manager to help with the routing and Kaptain's Log for logging . If landing the rover is difficult for you consider to build it in situ with Ground Construction ot ExtraPlanetary Launchpads (KIS/KAS if you dont mind building without editor tools) There are a few other mods I suppose may help but I don't have enough experience to tell for sure. The main concern with the rover itself is stability. A wide base and low center of mass makes it less likely to be flpped by the interactions with the ground; mass helps to keep* velocity (speed and direction of movement); Moment of Inertia helps to keep* angular speed. Probecore(or pilot) with good SAS and strong reaction wheels are useful, as is an engineer able to fix wheels(or doing repairs with KIS/KAS) on board. Up to you if that will also be a science gathering mission, in that case you will cross many biomes (bring a scientist). I see no practical reason to build a base (except if you use to build the rover). But it may help to make the backstory interesting. *Either keep moving if you are already moving (e.g. hill climbing) or avoid moving if you didn't started to move yet (keep orientation)

As pointed out is a recurring request. And by now the argument pro and against it are also 'recurring'. Personally I have no interest in a multiplayer mod except for some curiosity on how some issues would be dealt with.