18Watt

Yeah, don't go to that website. We have removed the link in the original post, and thank you for pointing that out to us. Otherwise, what @JadeOfMaar said is the best advice. Good luck!

I'm an all-knowing, all-seeing mod, who (thinks he) knows everything. So I know you @NotKerbol. Kinda. 9.5/10.

Drove a rover around Minmus. More screenshots here:

For those of you wondering if it's possible to do a circumnavigation in KSP2: Yep, it is! It's very painful right now, but it is doable. Here's a run I did around Minmus. Starting out: More shots from the drive: More screenshots from the drive: But wait, there's more! (screenshots) Here's a shot of Bill, who just drove all the way around Minmus. He's ready to go home. There is enough fuel in the lander to get back to Kerbin. Sadly, the lander does not have any seats, nor does it have any parachutes. Bill is out of luck for the moment.

You will likely get a lot of responses telling you you're not doing it right. But if it works for you...

This also worked wonders for me. I highly recommend this approach. I never saw an advantage to the slanted nose-cones. However, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist! I tried them and did not see any improvement, but your boat is much different than mine. So if you are seeing an improvement with the slanted nose cones, stick, with them.. I've used aero control surfaces for trim also. They (sometimes) work extremely well. One problem is controlling them. For trimming at certain speeds, you probably don't want them tied to any primary controls. I've had luck pairing trim controls with action groups (to move them up/down). Certain speed / thrust combinations may require different amounts of up/down force. Being able to move the trim surfaces independently of other control groups was handy, in my experience. Again, I never had luck with that, but it 'looks' like it should work better. I am NOT an expert here, just passing on what worked for me. If your experimentation finds solutions, you should use them! First, awesome idea! Second, yeah, high-speed runs at night are risky. But you can always hire more Kerbals, right? Yup. I wish the BG props were available in KSP2.. Keep at it! Enjoying watching your boat/rover/speed machine evolve!

Good luck! I've had a lot of fun with propellers on Eve, they work great, but require a lot of trial and error. The only times I've ever managed to recover a crew from Eve was using the BG propellers. In my case, I used the propellers to do a vertical launch. I was able to climb straight up to above 15 km using only propellers. If you get frustrated with the big design, start smaller and gradually make the thing bigger as you get a grip on how aero works on Eve.

Two comments: First, add more of them. Eve is brutal on landing gear, whatever you think you need, you probably need twice as many. Second, if you're not already doing this- You'll get better results if you mount all landing gears to the center fuselage. Then you can use the offset tool to move them where you want them. But the game is much happier if the landing gears are initially mounted to the center fuselage. You probably have enough thrust, but the only way to know for sure is to test it. Propellers work amazingly well on Eve. I found it in KSP2 Gameplay Questions. It's all good! I'm assuming you aren't offended that I moved it then.

Moved to KSP1 Gameplay Questions, it'll make more sense here..

Here's my Primary Level entry. Bill needed to get to Minmus really fast. As in, under 3 hours from launch to the surface. The engineers said, "No problem." Bill managed to safely reach the surface of Minmus in 2 hours, 32 minutes, 11 seconds. Screenshots: Decided to go fast, because I had really enjoyed doing a KSP1 challenge by @physius a few months ago. Here's a link to that challenge: My best time in KSP1 was just a little under 2 hours, but that isn't even close to the time some other players achieved.

A screenshot of the ship upright in the water, during daylight, would be helpful. The higher you mount the engines, the greater the pitch moment will be, which will try to force your boat to pitch forward. Getting boats to float correctly in the water is not easy. I have used had good luck with using a little fuel (or ore) as ballast, moving the mass forward or aft as needed to trim the balance. However my best results are always when I manage to get the center of thrust (COT) as close to being inline with the center of mass (COM) as possible. The only real limitation you have is that the propeller blades can never touch the water- they'll be destroyed if that happens. Otherwise, do everything you can to get the engines as close to the water as possible. Using the shortest propeller blades helps greatly. (You'll just need more of them..) I have not tried using batteries as the hull. In general it is helpful to have as few hull sections as possible. The game looks at each battery as a separate hull section, which might give undesired results. Another problem with those high-mounted engines is you are going to have additional forces when you try to turn the boat. The boat will try to roll outboard of the turn, which will cause the front outboard pontoon to 'dig in' and produce more drag, which will progressively make things worse- eventually the boat will flip. Again, mounting the engines as low as possible will reduce that as well. Good luck!

Actually, I just stumbles across this: It's under KSP2 Technical Support. There's also a Mac thread in there too.

Here's my Jeb Level entry, was shooting for high elevations if possible. I didn't find any high terrain. Highest I found was 1568 m. Launch Landings:

I have not personally encountered this issue. However I perform docking slightly differently. With both vessels, I target the other vessel, then set SAS on each to lock to the target. That way they both are pointing directly at each other. Doing this, I have been able to switch between vessels multiple times, with the SAS still set as I intended. This was in the most recent version of KSP2 (0.1.2 ?). I have not tried this with basic SAS mode (hold a random attitude), or any of the other modes, such as one ship holds Normal and the other ship holds Anti-Normal. If that sounds like how you are docking, perhaps try having each vessel target the other, and then hold target lock on each vessel. See if that works as a potential workaround for the issue you are experiencing. Good luck!

If you are on a PC and mouse hover over the underlined terms, a definition should pop up. They did that with several terms in the forums, if you see a term or acronym underlined in a post there is a good chance it can be mouse-hovered over to produce a definition. I have not figured out how to make that work on a touch-screen mobile device, such as an iPad. Glad you are getting better results!

The problem seems to be the COM is too far aft, or the COL is too far forward. One suggestion for having less mass it the back: Does that small shuttle really need 2 engines? I suspect a single engine would be more than adequate. In fact, just for doing orbital maneuvers and a de-orbit burn, a single small engine would be more than adequate. That would help reduce the mass in the rear of the plane. Another suggestion is either move the wings aft, or add control surfaces at the very back of the plane, which would move the COL aft. Finally, one reason your COL is so far forward is because the MK2 cockpits and fuselages produce some lift themselves. That isn't the end of the world, and can usually be compensated for by reducing engine mass at the back, and adding wing area at the back. If you are not using the COM and COL display tools in the VAB, those are very helpful in evaluating how changes you make affect the relationship between those two values.

Aha! I thought it was just me doing something incorrectly. Thank you for the workaround option! I will have to try that, I'm curious if that also solves another problem I'm seeing when I switch back with 'M'. In addition to being zoomed all the way in to the vessel, the camera angle also resets to an angle which is unhelpful. So I'm having to zoom out and drag the camera angle back to where I want it.

Well this is an interesting thread. Here's my take. The scientific community taught me for roughly 40 years of my life that there are 9 planets, and Pluto is one of them. Then one day they decide that for the 40 years they told me Pluto was a planet, they were stone cold wrong the entire time! Does Pluto still exist? Yes it does. Is it still orbiting our Sun? Yes it is. Do I really care what some egghead decided the definition of a planet is? No, I do not. I memorized 9 planets when I was a kid, possibly before I memorized all 25 letters of the alphabet. Oh, you thought there were 26 letters? Silly you! Turns out the letter 'M' is not really a letter after all! It's a 'letteroid-like-substance', not really a full letter at all. Yes, we still spell words with 'M', but we no longer consider 'M' to be a full letter. You should probably change your keyboards as soon as possible.

Folks, here's a reminder from the Moderation Team: Please be polite, especially when referring to or responding to another user. Not everyone has the same opinion, and that is OK here. However, insulting or bashing another user because they do not share your opinion is NOT OK.

Another fantastic mission report, congratulations to @damerell, who just completed a Vall circumnavigation! And yes, you only have Laythe and Eeloo left!

Every time I go over a jump with a rover that Waylon Jennings song plays in my head. "Just two good old boys..." Every single time.

That's a good question! I've noticed several Linux users valiantly trying to get the game working as well. I've also seen several users trying to make KSP2 run on Macs (under Parallels, I think?).

You are, of course, welcome to believe whatever you want. My experience with leading edge vortices relates to devices on the leading edge of wings, which are intended to produce vortices. We also call them BLEs, or Boundary Layer Energizers. They are simply bits of metal projected into the airstream along the leading edge of a wing, intended to add energy (induce some turbulence) to the airflow over the wing. They do not produce lift in any way, the benefit is that they keep the airflow over the top of the wing at high angles of attack more energetic, and thus delay flow separation. The vortices do not produce any lift. Howver, another way to look at those devices is that they delay the loss of lift at low airspeeds and high angles of attack. So they allow the wing to continue to produce adequate lift in more adverse conditions than would occur without them. So in a way, I suppose you could say they benefit lift. I would not say they generate lift, but rather delay the loss of lift, or perhaps expand the envelope in which the wing can generate adequate lift. I am not familiar with FAR at all, other than having been impressed with the attention to detail the mod has striven for- for over 10 years now, I think. I suspect (but do not know for certain) that FAR does not model or take into account Boundary Layer Energizers, which I could also call leading-edge vortex generators. Or perhaps I'm still misunderstanding the exact device or principle you are referring to. Misunderstandings are common these days in forums, and a frequent cause of flame wars. I hope I'm not starting one now.. Edit to add: I'm dubious of the overall effects of BLEs, or leading-edge vortex generators. This is from my personal experience with them. In theory, the shape of them is critical, and they should not be sanded or polished or smoothed out. In reality, the crews that come to clean the plane and polish the shiny bits don't really care about the BLEs, and run the polishers right over the BLEs. So we end up with smooth BLEs, which probably don't do nearly as much as the engineers intended. The result? The plane still flies just fine, I can detect no difference at all.

Just because there is a wikipedia page on something does not make it a real thing.