Adenosine Triphospate

Wow, thats a pretty big undertaking for career mode when the tech tree isn't fully unlocked! To be honest, I don't deem these really necessary (nor really exciting in my opinion, except for all the rendezvous with refuelling ships) and really just overcomplicates things if you're only going to the mun. By all means, if you find it fun to plant satellites and use ISRUs then go ahead, its just that I personally wouldn't, I'd stick to a more simple approach, like an ordinarily staged rocket. As for the lifter, its seems, ermm, big! If you want more dV, don't be afraid to just build taller, just as long as it has a TWR more than 1 (this could make it harder to land, although I'd just add more parachutes and let it gently tip over). Having four mammoths seems more than necessary for whatever payload that large size fairing could hold. I'd recommend perhaps just using one mammoth which saves weight. If you really need more power, strap some (like maybe six kickbacks) to the side and just stage them off. They're pretty cheap, so no big loss. However, I don't recommend keeping the lifter stage in orbit once its done its job! Once the payload is delivered, just de-orbit and land it. I can't imagine how annoying it would be to have to do orbital manoeuvres with a mammoth. The payload (mothership I think in this case) should have its own engine to do low dV manoeuvres in orbit, perhaps a spark or twitch as you mentioned. Don't lug around that enormous mammoth longer than you need to! I understand that you want to recover the entire lifter, however, you may want to consider going back to good old staging? Its far more efficient, so overall you'll need less parts and fuel, as you don't carry those heavy lower stage rockets, which you may only need to use one of (instead of four) if you decide to stage. You'll also have a smaller ship in orbit, so its easier to control Yes, it will cost more, but sometimes the reduced stress is worth the extra kredits.

Well, it really depends on how the player decides to play the game: The casual, 'KSP on the side' kind of player The player who doesn't want to get into orbital mechanics and astrophysics. You can't blame them, really, it takes a lot of time to fully understand KSP in terms of optimal rocket design and the science behind flying a capsule propelled by controlled explosions. They just want to play a game, not study for a PhD, and frankly it can be simply not worth the effort to look up the hours of tutorials necessary to even become 'efficient' at playing KSP. The dedicated, slightly nerdy KSP player I think most of us fall under this category, since you've viewed the official forum, which is more than what most KSP players do. If you look up tutorials and learn from designs of youtubers to optimise efficiency, or sub to Scott Manley, etc, then although it takes a long time, you will eventually end up 'mastering' KSP, maybe not to the extent of crazy people like Bradley Whistance, but enough to understand all the concepts in KSP, including how to save dV, etc. That said, its perfectly possible to play KSP casually, not looking up any tutorials, however, its unlikely to get anyone very far in the long run, perhaps into orbit with a literal hundreds of tons of spaceship just to give Jeb a view of Kerbin. And thats fine, getting into orbit is quite hard to get your head around, its just that some people would rather spend their time on other games, and some of us geek out on KSP

The top comment on the video shares the same concerns you have, and I imagine everyone else does not want to start a science save from scratch just to use the DLC to its full potential! In the replies of this comment, I believe that Shadowzone has explained a method of doing so. I haven't got the DLC so I can't try it out yet, but it looks like it involves a bit of tinkering so do backup! Last thing you want is the files being corrupted

Unless there's a flameout, engines release particles at exact intervals. Basically what @KerikBalm said, because you're covering more distance in a given time, the particles are released further apart. When you are moving slower, the particles are released closer together as you have covered less distance. For example, this (badly designed - its just one of my random screenshots) ship is going at 297 m/s. Say if the particles are released 5 times a second, that means that the 5 particles will be spread across the 297m it has covered, (a particle every 59m) so spaced out like you can see. If the ship was moving slower, like 10m/s, the 5 particles would be spaced out over 10m, (a particle every 2m) and so it would appear to have more smoke. The RAPIER engines on the ship is a lot clearer than Wheelsey exhaust, however, the point is the same. This doesn't effect actual gameplay in any way, nor reflects the status of the engines (except if there is no exhaust, which tends to imply no thrust ).

True, Kerbin's orbit around Kerbol means that the launch time shifts slightly as the position around the sun changes, but the maths to figure it out isn't too hard, although, as you said, its still more than enough to put most people off (myself included) running the numbers. Personally, I would just eyeball the exact moment it passes beneath the orbit (preferably in the day, not always possible) and launch, even if the target is in the completely wrong place. Once in orbit, I'd fiddle with / and / if necessary, and rendezvous normally. The inaccuracies with eyeballing is pretty slim in this case (compared to interplanetary manoeuvres) and changing the inclination only really costs in the tens of m/s. My bad ascent profile wastes a lot more than that

haha that video's so cursed!! It makes sense now, all the times my rover/docked spacecraft kept wobbling and destroying itself it must be because of autostrut, not what I had assumed to be unconventional clipping.

Thanks for interesting analogy and comments @klesh. Yeah, I agree, I could have been less rant-y in the post, after all, if it does bother me so much, I don't have to see it, as you said. Ultimately it doesn't really effect me in the long term, only perhaps my sanity satisfaction in the forum. I see where you are coming from, after all, we are not game designers so we don't have to think EVERYTHING through logistically rather, we should provide a more vague area of improvement. However, I don't really see that as the case. In the car dealer case, the consumer doesn't know how to reduce piston friction in the engine or the best type of coolant. All the consumer sees is the mileage and fuel expenditure, among other things. Gaming is a little more complex than that. In some ways, we collectively have a better understanding of the game itself than the developers, as we collectively cover the different play styles and know what needs fixing/changing as we've experienced it on a day to day level. The fact that we play it for entertainment is probably the reason why some of us know KSP it inside out. A good proportion of drivers probably don't know how a combustion engine works. Therefore we should be able to provide justified reasoning to add certain features based on personal experience. One FPS I play is literally community driven, most new content is designed, coded and uploaded by the community to the workshop, all the developers do is choose the most voted for and design thematic updates, as well as tweak the names to make them more witty. Yes, stock KSP should be completely playable by itself without mods which enhance quality of life (and other things). Mods only serve to provide different play styles such as ultra-realism. Unfortunately, that means that console players miss out on that route

Fine, I agree. In hindsight, red probably wasn't a good colour, changed it to blue. Yes, thats right, its a game suggestion forum. I've commented on how suggestions can be made more meaningful, that is, by having suggestions on how it would benefit the game itself, how it would wither introduce a new concept or extend on existing ones. Okay, you could (derogatorily) call it a 'moan', but overall, it states on how to improve the quality of suggestions in this forum, and voices my opinions (yeah I admit a bit self righteously) on DLCs and mods. What? The 'fun' argument is invalid here. Yes, we play KSP have fun, but that doesn't mean that in can't be improved. How does asking for a better quality of suggestions inhibit anyone's ability to enjoy the game? Could you be like @klesh or @RatchetinSpace and provide meaningful comments please? Improvement Definition By the way, my long topic doesn't affect your GPU, because that deals with graphics, not text. Graphics processing unit Nor does it affect your hard disk drive directly, unless you've saved it into a word processor (I am honoured if you have ) Secondary Storage

Couch merchandizing? hmmmm yes very comfy, but not great for gaming

Can we tune down the "suggestions" please? So before you type out a detailed explanation on why KSP needs a very specific, never before seen mechanic implemented immediately, could you please read the following? I am open to criticism; however, I would appreciate you take into account the following first. Squad needs to add this feature! Squad is not simply a secretary who notes down our every wish and complies it into a nice little spreadsheet for the next update. Suggesting rather wild additions to the game without any reasoning does not provoke new ideas nor benefits the community. If you're asking for black holes, for example (not that I've seen it anywhere...), how would Squad make, debug, test and more importantly add it to the game? What purpose would it serve? How would it interact with players to create balanced gameplay? How would it improve on aspects of the game without seeming like an out of the blue (out of the black?) addition? The problem is of course that by stating 'add black holes' this doesn't satisfy any of the criteria above. If it were added, everything would revolve around it (haha ), imagine the patch notes: 'Fixed symmetry bug; Added COM and COL indicators available during flight; Added all consuming object that literally ends the Kerbol system's existence'. If you say 'that's not how I intended a black hole to be added' that's my point exactly, you need to explain how a new feature would behave... etc. Unless you have justified why it would be a good feature (essentially the questions above) then you've just told the community to create another game entirely. Clouds, better terrain, good looking planets Equally, suggestions that have already been mentioned in the forum several times since the Stone Age don't need to be mentioned again! I'm aware that clouds would look great, and more things to do besides science, but if you haven't brought anything new to the table, there’s no point in listing a feature suggested to death already. It's great to discuss how certain new biomes could be added to existing celestial bodies, under 'Extend the campaign' for example, but not repetitive one sentence comments. "There's a mod for that" A cliché in this forum, however, this is because can be true! A lot of the suggestions in this forum exist in mods. Although, as many of you rightfully point out, many mods simply should be stock. Some sort of transfer window indicator is an example, as well as the recently added manoeuvre mode. This is because they tick the criteria mentioned earlier, they enhance the gameplay experience without disrupting the balance of the game itself, and would benefit all players in every circumstance. Unfortunately, there’s a murky area in which additions that do significantly change the balance and the gameplay itself have to be judged (usually subjectively) whether or not it should remain out of KSP as a mod, or added as the centrepiece of a major update. For example, real solar system or realism concerning life support and usable lifespans of parts are generally accepted to be too extreme for stock KSP, as they harm the casual nature of KSP which the vast majority of KSP players (particularly newer ones) appreciate, whilst balancing or adding parts, or realistic aerodynamics (By which I mean nosecones actually having an effect -and other essential properties such as lift- in early versions of KSP you would be better off without nosecones because drag was not calculated properly) is crucial in creating an environment that loosely teaches the real world physics without appearing to daunting and is fun to play. Mods should provide an alternative play style to the experienced players who need it, whilst stock has all the vital components to make the game enjoyable. The area in-between these two can fall under the category of DLCs. The mission builder is a good example, although a lot of the content within DLCs could easily be added to stock (the parts, like engine plates) and arguably should be. However, Squad is a company, it makes sense commercially to include better parts (wolfhound) as well as new features behind a paid extension. You can’t have everything, I guess.

Trying to land on Tylo with an SSTO. With nuclear engines. Realised that it was nowhere near possible even with ludicrous dV, (8000m/s, fully fuelled) just because of the TWR needed. Ended up being a SSTA with excessive dV, and a moderate TWR. Here's a newer version, docked around Minmus, a rather 'unconventional' design to say the least (the double fuselage box wing, not the sane looking fuel silo and smaller SSTO):

Are you using time warp? Even in the stock game, warping whilst moving can create all sorts of wobbles, jittering, flipping, shaking, blending... And not just to Kerbals on EVA, but whole planes in flight (resulting in stalling and even rapid disassembly), landed planes, rovers, anything with wheels, on any celestial body, low g or not. I would try a lower warp or just x1, and put a rock on the W and Shift keys

Its really just the air intake thats the problem. I've tried a similar design, and I encountered the same problem. I have no idea why one engine flames out but not the other, since they both feed from one intake. However, I do know that the air intake is simply not designed for speeds exceeding 400 m/s! I'd recommend 4 radial adjustable ramp intakes, or two (or one in the middle will be fine) shock cone intakes, however, these are not radially mountable so will require a design change. They have better performance for the speeds you're travelling at. EDIT: Just out of interest, is there any reason to have the canards mounted on the nose at a strange angle? Is it to balance the aerodynamics or just aesthetics?

The surface NavBall takes into account the Coriolis effect, that is, the rotation of the celestial body, so the velocity is relative to the surface itself. The orbital NavBall doesn't do this, instead its the velocity relative to the core. For example, on the launchpad on Kerbin, the orbital NavBall would display about 175 m/s, because thats the rotation of Kerbin, and surface NavBall would display 0 m/s. Bop and Gilly both have a very slow rotation, so it makes very little difference, whether using orbital or surface. Because both celestial bodies are very uneven with massive mountains relative to its size, the game may not have automatically switched between the two settings, due to the sheer height of the terrain. Additionally, this effect only really matters near the equator, as the apparent speed of the spin is greatest.

In almost all circumstances, no. In my experience, coming from Kerbin, an aerodynamically stable craft will be fine with no heatshield (do remember to retract antenna and panels though). Entering into an eccentric orbit from kerbin takes very little delta-v due to Kerbin being not very far in terms of orbit. A 25km periapsis is a good height. Coming from somewhere with a higher orbit (e.g Jool) means you will be coming in at a much faster speed, therefore more likely to overheat, but why would you do that? Sub-orbital re-entry is even more forgiving, just remember to use sufficient (read: a LOT of) parachutes to land, if you want to avoid suicide burns.