James M

Yeah but do you do that for 30 minutes? Not unless you're waiting for your science to finish baking in the Mobile Processing Lab. lol

Step one) Create command pod Mk1 Step two) Create like 500 modular girders stacked end to end on top of pod Step three) Create another command pod Mk1 on top of stack Step four) Launch Step five) Transfer Kerbal from bottom to top Step six) Enjoy space while it lasts!

Maneuver nodes, contracts (For career modes of course), and trip planning, are all things I'd say make up a good chunk of the game play. I guess my question is, how much time do we generally spend managing our flights vs the amount of time we actually spend flying them? Diablo isn't a management game because you only spend maybe 20% of game time in the inventory screen. The Witcher isn't a relationship sim because you only spend a small chunk of game time actually sitting there speaking to npcs. You get what I'm saying? The amount of time spend managing things properly in ksp actually rivals the amount of time we spend straight up flying our crafts. In fact I'd argue most of our time is spend constructing rockets, time warping and maneuver planning if anything.

1 Polar orbit satellite for survey scanner and kerbnet to use in search of a good landing location. Once found, I'd use the link provided earlier to get a keostationary probe above the location along with perhaps a probe or two in Tundra/Kolniya orbits for higher altitude work later on. With just those satellite positioned where they are, you should have no issue doing what you need. Just remember to get a satellite in or near a stationary orbit above wherever you plan to land so you won't have an issue reaching Kerbin again when needed. That's what I'd recommend.

Planning a trip to Jool? You're gonna need satellites to communicate, even in sandbox. So that means one trip for a satellite batch and another for your main objective. Unless of course you just plan on packing your entire trip, all things included in one launch. Or you could just ship a single/few/bunch of kerbals with no way to interchange data back to KSC. Totally fine, plenty of people do it all the time Poor guys. Regardless, each time you decide to go somewhere, you have to decide HOW to do it, and thus manage your rockets' designs and flight paths. That's also not including where you'll be landing if at all and whether you'll be doing In-Situ Resource gathering operations. The point is, whether you like it or not, at some point in KSP you'll be managing something if not many things. To say KSP is not a management game is to be blind to the fact that no matter what you do, you'll always have to plan ahead. This isn't Call of Duty. This isn't Forza. This is KSP lol.

Unfortunately the asteroid just blows up like any ol' generic rocket once it hits the surface. Pretty anti-climatic but that's actually because it happens so often xD Asteroids hilariously hit Kerbin all the time, but everything is just peachy over at the KSC.

Sorry not done here. I've read quite a few of the posts here and you are clearly one of the few outright refusing to purchase the game for something as simple as the absurdity of the devs daring to include a feature in a game that very well could be optional for the reason of, "it could cause technical issues and other people might just warp past it thus making it pointless". I do not misinterpret nor disregard your opinion of the matter. There are plenty of other issues driving people to forgo buying the game. This is but one of the minor ones. Regarding each of your points there; 1) My time matters to me too. But when I eventually build up my Adventure Mode to the point I have six separate missions going on at the same time, is a construction timer going to seriously impact my experience playing the game? No. I'll just go do something else in the mean time. We won't be spending the entire game in the first phase of development of our space program. Eventually we'll move past that and we won't even regard the timers as an issue there. Sure that doesn't solve the "problem" (If that's how you choose to see it) of them being there in the first place. But this is why difficulty options are a thing. Not just in KSP either. A whole plethora of games from Doom to Minecraft have them so a player can choose how they want to experience their gameplay. Yours inevitably will be different from mine and that's OKAY. 2) I read it the first time. I still think it's ridiculous. Don't players sometimes send devs whole game files including game settings like these to help diagnose major issues? If the devs see that each player who has the issues has this setting turned off, wouldn't it be a good indicator of the issue? Worth further investigation? Me thinks so. 3) It's always better to have more content and more options. "Unwanted features" don't really exist. Not as far as I can tell. Someone somewhere is going to want something. It's just a matter of finding out what the majority of those people want. Unfortunately the devs are too focused developing their game right now to ask us what we do or don't want in KSP2.

And I respectfully disagree. Mods are great and all but why not give the player more control over what they want out of the stock game? Personally I dislike mods and have never used them. That's just me. I can't be asked to install something on my computer that someone else made. I'm just paranoid like that I guess Personally I see the value in both including and not including construction times in KSP, and as such have to ask. Where's the harm in letting the player choose for themselves if that's something the devs can offer? I personally wouldn't care either way if it was in my game, but I'd rather at least have the option there for me to just click it on or off, than for me to have to go download someone else's stuff to do the same thing. (No offense to the modding community out there.) Of course the argument could be made about every mod out there and why it isn't in the stock game, but of course then that debate would never end soo... here we are. The real question is, is it worth the developer's time to make the thing in the first place? Construction timers? Eh. I'd rather them develop something else more interesting. But if they feel it's going to make the game better, then why not let them? As long as it's optional, why bother make a fuss about it? Furthermore, bugs are gonna happen. We don't like em. It's why they squash em. To say something shouldn't be included in a game because it could cause more bugs is just... what. why? Seriously. Nothing would ever be coded then. No game. No programs. Nothing.

Literally the solution to the entire issue. Beings as there's a divide among the player base as to what they want, it's probably best left as a difficulty option or a separate game mode. This way at least everyone gets what they want and it's a win-win.

Did you get it? @Little Kerbonaut!

I have no answer but I feel your pain. Used to play on console until I stopped for this very reason. It's so hard to play kerbal when your kerbal krafts keep kerbaling everywhere.

"When activated, it will scan for and display asteroids that are in the next-widest planetary orbit. For example, to scan for asteroids around the orbit of Kerbin, the SENTINEL must be placed in a solar orbit outside of the sphere of influence of Kerbin and at a lower semi-major axis (closer to the Sun) than Kerbin. The inclination, eccentricity, and longitude of ascending node also need to be close to matching the target planet." - KSPwiki So from what I can tell, if you want to find the most, space out a few sentinals between each set of planets. After each body (Say Kerbin), the next group of sentinals will need to match the orbit behaviors of the next body (So Duna then).

I dunno if this would work but it's what I'd try doing. Burn antinormal/normal from out of Kerbin's SOI and have the roid's trajectory pass through Kerbin's upper atmo. Then I'd launch a significantly smaller ship than your redirector equipped with like 8 airbrakes (Or more I dunno) and fly it out there and grab it's back end. Once you've gotten it in a highly elliptical orbit, you can then take a ship out there with more oomph and fuel and push it into a more desirable orbit from it's AP. Even if you have to launch a new ship specifically for this purpose, I think it'd still be worth it. Anyway, good luck out there and I hope you get it!

Wipe out any remaining life forms on any planet of your choosing?

You're doing the same thing as getting there but in reverse. When you're in Duna orbit and want to get back to kerbin, you have to remember that you're technically in a higher position around the sun than Kerbin is. As such, you're going slower and and will need to both descend closer to the sun and speed up to meet Kerbin as it passes under Duna's orbit. To do this, just wait until Kerbin is behind Duna by about 15/20 degrees or so and set up a maneuver and see how close you are to meeting Kerbin on the other side of the sun. Presumably it should be close enough and you should be able to adjust time and/or the maneuver to get close enough for an encounter. Forgot to say. When you want to raise your sol orbit, you'll need to accelerate with your maneuver node on the other side of the planet you're orbiting from the sol (Camera sees sol behind planet). When you want to lower it, you'll need to put the maneuver node on the side of the planet facing the sun. (Sol should be behind the camera as you're initially placing the node.) Hope this helps

Sounds like you've got the process down. What kind of trouble are you having with the booster landing?

1) Tall, balanced weight, and draggy parts at the bottom 2) Don't turn over so quickly so you are out of the innermost atmo pressures before hitting max q 3) Slow down? 4) Forgot this one. Don't use the russian pods without a fairing over them. They're ridiculously draggy for no reason.

I laughed when I saw this. Do we have to land the craft on gilly too?

Oh it's all good. I see what you're talking about though. That would be pretty pretty interesting I guess. I'm not very creative so I couldn't really visualize it until you said it like this.

How would you use this?

Very much yes.

I get why this is a cool idea, but I also have to say I imagine it would be quite difficult to program in a way that would both work and not make things worse than they already are. As of right now, and for the purposes of simplicity, once you put a fairing around something, it essentially eliminates it's drag value. By putting a hole in the fairing, you'd be re-applying all the drag values of all the objects inside the fairing. As a result, your craft would end up flying like it didn't have a fairing in the first place. This is unrealistic obviously. IRL I imagine this would be more like opening a cargo bay on a plane and causing quite a bit of turbulence during flight. In order to do what you're suggesting, the devs would have to restructure how drag actually functions in the game to be based on direction of travel, direction craft is facing, direction of both passive and active air particle movement, lifting bodies and all that mumbo jumbo fluid dynamics stuff I am 100% not experienced with. But I imagine, not only would it be really complex to program but I would be willing to bet the sheer amount of continuous processing necessary for this would probably slow the game down dramatically at worst and if it still somehow worked, would severely hinder flight stability at best. Feel free to criticize me here btw. I won't mind.

Omg yes. Landing legs in ksp1 is an absolute disaster. Procedural legs would be amazing.

Nobody said it yet, but only ore detectors in a polar orbit can show the ore overlay (Showing where ore is on the surface). If you ever plan on mining, you have to use one of these first to know you're landing in a desirable location and as stated before it's generally cheaper to do so with a probe so that's usually the route people take. Furthermore, you can keep it there forever and never have to worry about your kerbals getting bored/hungry in a pod lol Seriously though, the other nice thing about probes are that unlike kerbals they can use the KerbNet system. This will show things like elevation and biomes on the surface and allow you to make points of interest ON THE SURFACE ITSELF. I do this all the time to decide where to land my crafts! And the last golden nugget to piece it all together? Polar orbits pass over the entirety of the surface as the planet rotates underneath so by combining surface sanners and KerbNet all together, you can perfectly plan future missions! Satellites are so cool!

If the fine print does in fact say 53km - 54km orbit, then try accelerating to orbital speed really friggin fast as soon as you hit like 52km maybe then detach and really quickly click the test part function on the heat shield? Thats the only thing I can think of. Otherwise you may have to ditch that contract. Rip.