MRab2

For getting the rover height bang on I used air/space plane undercarriage directly underneath the docking ports. This sets the height nicely as the deployed height is a constant. Once docked, just retract the undercarriage.

Strawman argument. Who's to say an FTL system will work within a solar system OR be nearly as fast as you suggest. Even in sandbox mode this can still be made challenging. Just for laughs let's assume the FTL drive component (which doesn't work within a gravity well and requires a 200 tonne fusion reactor to operate) alone weighs in a 400 tonnes and then tell me FTL sucks all the challenge out of the game. Also, isn't the POINT of a space program is that space travel becomes EASIER the more experience you gain? Shouldn't flights to Duna and Jool eventually become trivial?

That was the starting point, but that technique doesn't scale too well. Try it on a launch vehicle 10 times the mass of the one shown in your pic.

Well, it's been a rocky road But we got there in the end I had to nurse it into orbit, flicking the main shuttle engine on and off as it kept trying to overbalance and because I watching that the orbit was highly eccentric (325km AP - 72km PE) and would need to mount a rescue mission as there's no fuel left onboard. But it's up there. The addition of two radial engines at the top of the main fuel tank helped to keep it stable after the boosters separated, and you need to remember to shut off the jet engines. Oh, and the shuttle itself is unbalanced but is OK as long as you're careful with the throttle. I'm sure that had I been paying attention I could get it to a 100km circular orbit and have enough fuel left to de-orbit and land, but frankly I'd rather pull it to pieces and start again. However, if you want the ship file PM me your email address and I'll fire it over. Oh, you'll notice I've added Mechjeb. It's a must imho for this thing to fly.

OK, got it up to the point where the boosters separate (about 16,000m), but you've got to feather the shuttle engines most of the way up. I've had to add another fuel tank, stick a motor on the bottom of the main tank and add another booster, but at separation the main fuel tank and shuttle immediately begin tumbling. And it's still iffy on dV - Mechjeb is saying 4350m/s but Mechjeb is usually a tad conservative. Not beaten yet

Yes and no. This is true if we're talking about elements, but if we're talking about compounds then we're talking a completely different can of worms.

You maniac! But in essence I agree with everything you said.

I think you'll have to be a lot more careful in career mode - those rockets that are blowing up with your Kerbals on board will be expensive. Personally, I'm hoping for a simulator mode.

I didn't saying anything *had* to be done. I was offering a scenario where the game would have traveling to other solar systems without an FTL drive. I personally think it SHOULD have other systems at the launch date. A universe with ONE solar system seems a bit of a missed opportunity imho. If other solar systems existed then you've got a mechanic for deep space observation i.e. you don't get to see what's round the other stars you have to build orbital telescopes, do spectral analysis to determine planet atmospheres etc etc.

Nice. Keep em coming

Yes. By *launch* I was referring to the launch of the game. Does that help?

Have been watching this thread with considerable interest, but have a request; more pics please Looking forward to the video.

It's called a slingshot maneuver. It's done all the time in RL. By passing close to a celestial body some of its orbital velocity (I think that's the term) is transferred to you. In the case of the Mun that's a maximum of 542.5m/s of extra speed for free. I expect Sling-shotting to feature more in the game once it's more developed - once the current planning flight paths on-the-fly is replaced.

It seems to me the naysayers are really worrying about nothing. FTL breaks the game? Only if it’s done badly, if it’s done well then that’s another thing. Let’s assume for the moment that FTL comes in after launch and that at launch Kerbol is part of a trinery star system – so you’ve got three full solar systems to explore all at sub-light speeds. Now, let’s assume the FTL propulsion system is big, heavy, expensive, needs lots of power and doesn’t work within a gravity well. You’re talking something that’ll have to be built in orbit may weigh hundreds of tonnes (before you add anything that supports a crew or exploration hardware), will need a power supply in the high Mw range (itself weighing hundreds of tonnes – solar panels ain’t going to cut it) and has to be accelerated up to >4000m/s (and importantly accelerated back down again – 8k dV minimum in the tanks before it breaks orbit). It’s probably going to need a Daedulus style drive, which will weight hundreds more tonnes. You may ALSO need a chemical rocket system as well to function as an RCS system as well as fuel reserves for the probes you’ll be taking with you. Then add on habitation modules – including an artificial gravity ring, exploration equipment and supplies (I’m assuming there’ll be consumables in the future – so maybe hydroponics as well) and you could end up with something weighing in at over 1500-2000 tonnes – bigger than anything that’s in-game just now that I know of (my biggest ship in orbit “The Lagfest†is around 250 tonnes fully kitted) and HUGELY expensive - you'll need to have a mature space program with efficient infrastructure to tackle this puppy. Anyone who points out the Daedulus style propulsion system will be OP can pick up the bill for the hundreds of micro-nukes it’ll need as fuel. Now, why would anyone want to keep this most daunting design challenge that culminates in the most in-depth exploration mission OUT of the game? Because the physics hasn't been proven? Really?

Just an fyi. NASA is funding an ftl propulsion experiment right now. The warp drive may be here sooner than we expected.

I don't know what TKS_R2 is referring to. I got the Kosmos space station pack, but it's not one of the parts in the list.

I'm missing Kosmos_VA_RRV_gyro - which isn't part of the Kosmos pack. Where did you get it from?

Post the save file somewhere. I'll have a look at it.

I would think in real life you'd be able to ease a spaceship into a ring (matching orbits etc) and survive. The stuff that makes up the ring is in an orbit. If, on the other hand you tried to fly through the rings at a heavily inclined orbit then death is assured. For ease of game mechanics I'd say either make them insubstantial or certain death. I favour the latter.

Actually no, the definition of moralising is; "Comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority." Which you ARE doing. I present Exhibit A: Jack Wolfe earlier "Lack of a "Duh, let's shoot people up for funsies, mentality sets KSP apart." Clearly you're showing a contempt for games with a combative component and thus implying there's something "wrong" with them and therefor arguably moralising. Do you avoid all games with combat or just with war?

You are correct. I would suggest the rings be done as a visual effect. You *could* put a collision mesh on the whole thing OR you could treat it like a band of astmosphere so you get re-entry effects as you pass through. When heat damage is brought it passing through the rings would result in a spectacular fiery death which imho is close enough to reality with minimal physics and rendering. Our asteroid belt has millions of asteroids (they're actually still finding them) but are, in general, quite a surprising distance apart. 11 spacecraft has traversed the belt so far, and all without incident - no dodging, blasting or flying out of the mouths of giant space worms required.

As if the moral superiority wasn't bad enough, now someone has to be patronizing? Are you imagining that your dislike of war games stems from deeper understanding of war? Consider this, since the end of World War 2 in the western world more people die each year due to vehicle accidents than warfare - does that make racing games, especially those that encourage people to drive irresponsibly (Grand Theft Auto, Driver etc), somehow morally reprehensible, that what we should have are games that simulate driving within the speed limit and adhering to the rules of the road? How about building a crappy rocket with three Kerbals aboard that explodes 10 seconds after launch - is the player to be condemned for not testing the rocket in an unmanned state before recklessly endangering the lives of those Kerbals? Personally, if people don't want to shoot at stuff that's fine but enough of the assuming that gives you the moral high ground or that people wanting weapons in the game is the result of naivety or immaturity.

There's some lunging for the moral high ground going on here

Uh-huh. Spoken like someone's who's not tried it. Imagine trying to get an intercept on a target that's actively avoiding it. Now take your spacecraft and imagine having to add defensive components - armour, magazines, weapons and think about the level of complexity that adds.

No "sane" species would ever evolve intelligence.