Wetzelrad

I have mixed feelings. It's pretty handy when you have a bunch of items in one category to adjust. You can pick out four parachutes or four decouplers in a row. Especially nice if they're hidden under a shroud or something. I think I would be on board with it if it loaded instantly and was easy to scroll through. I don't use it, but have you tried the Merge button? Go to load your construct but click Merge instead of Load.

Assuming you're talking about KSP2, try this guide: The thread you're referencing was a KSP1 thread. For KSP1 you could either try editing a save or using the debug menu. Enter the debug menu, go to cheats, set orbit, and set your vessel to orbit the Mun. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Debug_Toolbar

I'm not sure that's accurate. Even without manuever planning and trajectory prediction, burning directly to a SOI encounter should be possible with good timing and good aim. Especially so if you aim for a big target like Jool. Alternatively, if it's true that this bug, for instance in Duna's case, causes trajectory projections to be off by exactly 180 degrees, then it should be possible to create a manuever and rotate it 180 degrees around Duna to get the desired result. Anyway, practically speaking, you're right. Doing a correction burn is always a good idea. Option 1 will be much cheaper, for certain. Although it might be nice to check exactly how much. In the trip planner, Duna Intercept represents the tiny amount of added dV it takes to go from exiting Kerbin's SOI to intersecting Duna's SOI. That number would be much higher in orbit around the sun, as I think we all can attest. This makes more sense than option 2, but I wouldn't expect the savings to be dramatic.

I had the same problem on Dres. Even after multiple take-offs it would not take my vehicle out of the "landed" state. Fortunately the dV cost to change orbits is not huge at Dres, so I was still able to make rendezvous. Visually match your orientation with the target orbit. Get your Pe and Ap up close to target orbit. Time warp until you know you're about to be at your closest separation. Switch the speedometer over to Target mode. As you approach closest separation, you should see on the navwheel that the Antitarget marker is near the Retrograde marker. You want to make small adjustments to keep it there. Warp forward while repeating step 5 until you're within spitting distance.

The other thing with fairings is that you can build it apart from the rest of the vehicle, then attach it.

Same bug here. The camera defaults to Auto, but for some reason Auto is now stuck on Orbital. This is a bad camera setting for launch.

Instead of that, I select the root part and rotate once with W or S.

Basically, yes. If you purchase the "direct download" edition of KSP2 from the PD website, it appears under the "game downloads" page for your profile. There you can select between the 0.1.0, 0.1.1, or 0.1.2 versions. Note that it is Windows only, meaning there is no version designed for Linux or Mac. As for the OP, there is no way to download patches that I'm aware of. I wish there was.

Trouble with rovers is that they use the same keys as reaction wheels. WASD. One change you can make is to right click your reaction wheels (including probe cores) and switch them to "SAS Only" mode. With that, WASD should no longer cause it to tip. That might be a separate issue. Post a picture if it's still doing this.

Actually I don't know how it works. But here's a couple more screenshots of the same phenomena. If you split the engines into two stages, you get what appears to be an accurate dV estimation.

Yes, however. His plane is around 9tons, so the 0.5ton Terrier won't have such a dramatic impact. Try it for yourself. My impression is that any scenario in which more than one engine is clustered breaks the displayed dV estimates.

At least in Kerbal physics, that is intended behavior. Take note of the barometer to the right of the navwheel. By 3000 meters, the pressure has dropped by approximately 1/6 of the meter. You can even see it moving as you snake up and down. No, something else is going on there... I was able to recreate your design and several others that show bad math on the dV calculator. Two Terriers should always have better dV than one Dart, but they simply don't. Someone who understands the math will have to check that out.

This was creepy when I read it and even more creepy when it appeared in my game. To make matters worse, I just identified him as Tim C! Although judging by your picture, it's not always the same kerbal. I will note that once he has appeared in game, he seems to stick around. He followed me to the launchpad and all the way up into orbit, and he was there every time I switched vessels. Under 20km altitude, he doesn't appear to experience gravity. Above 20km, he accelerates up away from the planet. After a certain distance he respawns next to me, which suggests he is stuck inside the physx bubble. And if I time warp, he adopts a quantum super-position. He stopped haunting me when I restarted the game. More threads here:

As I entered Duna atmosphere this shot composed itself.

The roadmap doesn't promise very much for the Colony update. Note that "Resource Gathering" is listed under the much-later Exploration update, along with a depiction of ISRU. For this reason, we might anticipate that colony construction will not be limited by resource costs, and likewise that the vehicles built in them will be similarly unlimited. In other words, sandbox mode continues. Under Colonies, the first bullet point is merely "Colony Parts". Only a few parts would be required to technically fulfill this promise. Maybe habitation, power generation and storage, structural parts, an in-gravity VAB and an orbital VAB, plus launchpads. Most of this work should already be finished, considering the footage we've seen. A new interface to assemble these parts will also be required. The second bullet point is "Orbital Vehicle Construction". Obviously this will require an interface similar to the VAB but bigger and with more parts. Plenty of work to be done there. More importantly, the game will need to be able to handle extremely large vessels with high part counts. Guesses can be made as to what else it might include. Colonies probably ought to have their own kerbal populations, which might entail unique systems and mechanics. Additional parts like greenhouses might be required. If the decision is made to include resource management from the get-go, which looks unlikely to me, then the update will also have to include trade routes and resource storage. In total I think the Colonies update should drop within one year, but players should not expect it to be fully-featured until later on.

It doesn't have to be "tightly bound". In KSP1, there are difficulty sliders for reentry heating and comm range. You can set them to 0 or 100, which frees you to build vehicles without heat shields or antennae. This makes these features effectively optional, and I doubt anyone took serious issue with that. They are still important features that integrate with other systems. Many other features can also be toggled on or off, without even getting into cheats and mods. There's no reason life support can't be the same. Perhaps you're imagining something much more complex than I am. I'm not sure what it could be that would not ultimately boil down to added weight and EC consumption. Lack of imagination on my part. Maybe requiring living modules to be directly connected? I do wonder whether KSP2 will include difficulty options at all.

I'm having the same problem. When I go to build at the XL size, I want something that can put out more thrust than the Mammoth, but most of the competitive engines are simply too wide to use in symmetry. If I try to fit even three Mainsails on the XL engine plate, they either intersect at the nozzles, or they intersect with the plate itself. Flipping the engine plate upsidedown gives room for 3x or 4x Mainsails without looking too bad. Mostly I'm stuck using Vectors, which look incredibly small compared to the XL tanks. I think we either need narrow versions of existing engines or to wait for new engines.

Personally I'm in favor of a single-resource life support system with parts to store and generate it. As a career option. I also favor death for kerbals lacking life support. Anything less would be a cop out. Why? Because the difficulty level falls off a cliff once you go interplanetary. Even when you make mistakes, there's often no penalty since you can simply fast forward to an opportune transfer window, or go through a month of aerobrake manuevers, or send a rescue mission five years later. It's much too forgiving for experienced players, although I wouldn't wish to force life support on new players. There is also potential to push the player into more interesting flight plans. Probably everyone reading this is used to waiting for the ideal planetary phase angle to perform an interplanetary burn. I doubt whether a real-life trip to and from Mars would do the same, because, if I'm not mistaken, it would more than double the trip's length. If implemented well, LS would encourage the player to sometimes use something other than the ideal hohmann transfer. And what of multiplayer? Nate has indicated that incorporating multiplayer with all new and existing features is on the back of his mind. This may be his reason for leaning away from the implementation of LS. It would be a serious annoyance to fly a long mission to meet up with another player, get into a near orbit, only to realize that he is (now) playing 35 years in the future while you only brought enough snacks to last 25 years.

I went with the simplest design I could manage. Got lucky with a relatively flat landing zone on my first try. I have to say this nose cone is quite handy. I can see myself using it a lot. Next time I visit Duna I will have to bring a rover, or something with wings. It's nice. You can hear faint music on approach, then a great orchestral swell as you enter the atmosphere or low orbit, and another more relaxed track once you're on the ground.

Same for me. I couldn't get Steam to open the game. Opened it with wine instead and it runs well. Smooth framerate most of the time. My biggest bugs are no terrain on Kerbin and other visual things. Must be specific to AMD. In spite of that, it's playable, and both the Mun and Duna have working terrain. My other problem is that alt-tab breaks focus on the game. It stops accepting mouse and keyboard commands after that. I was caught off guard too. The website purchasing process ought to have a little warning that there is no Linux version.