Sethnizzle

I think it is more than likely the Infinite Improbability Drive.

If you want to know, a crash dump folder is created within the main game directory every time it crashes, I believe. That might tell you the exact reason for that particular crash.

Unless you are able to construct ships with docking ports already placed in between two parts, you look at it as you're building. Sure an arrow wouldn't hurt but this really is a non issue. You might make this mistake once, but you'll never make it again.

So I've decided to put this discussion to bed. My tests put me away from the launch pad power supply. What I found is that without a probe body you can not get down to zero power. And with any kind of manned command part you can always open the panels even without going EVA. But as mentioned with just a probe body you are unable to retract panels, unless you have an EVA'd Kerbal close enough to do it. http://imgur.com/a/Oz6Go

There is though, the texture is different on each side...

Yep, the Graphotron 2000 is what you are thinking of. I haven't used it but it looks neat. I have used the Telemachus – Telemetry and Flight Control in the Web Browser on my laptop while I play KSP on my desktop a little bit and that mod is awesome. You might be able to find the information you are looking for with it however you might have trouble configuring it depending on your home network and level of familiarity with networking.

No reason you couldn't also do that with the Steam version as it doesn't require Steam to play. The only real difference between the two versions are which servers you are getting your updates from.

.21 is working great for me. No it was not. The old SAS part added additional torque and would use that torque to try and stabilize the craft, mainly stopping rotation. The old ASAS would do the same thing but used control surfaces and RCS instead of torque, so it was more effective at stabilizing the craft through pitch, yaw, and roll. But it would never hold your heading. If you disagree get in an orbit and point prograde and toggle the SAS/ASAS on, you will notice that your ship will rotate and within half an orbit or so and you will be pointing retrograde. Proof. I find the new SAS/ASAS to be fantastic.

Ok, well you're still ignoring the first part of my comment. I like to think of them being that size. "You pray to your Jesus, I'll pray to the baby Jesus cause I like him the best." lol.

Don't ignore the first half of my comment, if the Kerbals were the size of a sackboy (roughly 3-4 inches tall) then the rocket wouldn't be that big. lol.

The only difference is that Steam handles the updating instead of the updater program Squad has developed. And the Steam version has trading cards. Thats it. There is no DRM and you can mod just the same. Full Disclosure: I started with a Steam version (back in April I believe) so I was never in the situation of having to transfer. Would have bought it earlier but was waiting for either the full release/review, or for it to be put on a service I trusted (ie. Steam).

I like to think of Kerbals as being the size of a Sackboy, so I would take the Kerbal and put in a hamster cage, complete with exercise wheel and that cool tubing that you can have go everywhere, and then hang the rocket from my ceiling with fishing line.

Here is my first attempt at a Mun rover.

I like the suggestion too. I currently just move all the things I don't want to stage in a stage above my final stage to avoid accidently setting the off.

Same here. Until they add an official rover testing facility (crosses fingers) they need to keep as much interesting terrain around the KSC as possible.

If it does auto update you can go into Properties > betas > and select previous - previous stable release and you can down grade. Then go into your Steam Common folder and copy the KSP directory to somewhere else and you can then have that version forever as KSP doesn't require Steam to play. Then change your settings back, so you always have the latest version, and then can keep as many version copies as you want. If you wanted you could then add the shortcut for that version into Steam and then change the name (within steam) to reflect which version it is. viola.

You don't need more cores. You seem to be hung up on that idea. But like everyone else said the best way is to increase the frame rate in ksp is to increase the clock speed per core. I ran into the same problem as you where I built an awesome kethane mining and research base and when I was finished I was getting 10-11 fps. This was on a stock clocked i5 2500k (3.3ghz - 3.7 turbo). I overclocked it to 4.4ghz and saw my frame rate increase to 44-45 fps. This is also with every game setting maxed out (fall back shaders off for the texture bug).

Disclaimer: I've not done this yet, but I've seen some videos of people doing similar things for different purposes. For ships that are currently in flight, you can edit the persistent.sfs file (located in the saves folder). For saved craft you should be able to do the same thing, but edit the .craft file for each ship you are wanting to change. You should be able to open these files in any text editor. I use PSPad Editor but note pad should work. On the persistence file each ship is located in a VESSEL{} block. You'll want to find the PART{} children that correspond to each of the quantum struts and delete that entire PART{} block. The .craft file is the same, except the entire .craft file is the VESSEL{} block so you only need to locate the PART{} blocks. I'm nearly 99% positive this will fix your problem. That being said, create a copy of your persistence file and any craft files you edit and place those in a safe/temp location, like your desktop.

I've been thinking about this as well. My idea is to build a gantry crane using KAS so that I can more easily move the modules into position. Something similar to this but scaled down. http://img.directindustry.com/images_di/photo-g/rubber-tired-gantry-crane-64460-2259729.jpg

I'm confused at why you say you wouldn't be able to do the fuel lines correctly... Every time I do asparagus staging I just use symmetry to add my rockets. Then when I go to attach the fuel lines if the symmetry changes to whatever symmetry was used for the rockets when you hover the fuel line over a rocket, I just press "X" and it will set the symmetry for the fuel line back to x1. You're still adding the fuel lines one at a time, but it saves you time adding your rockets and makes sure all the rockets are symmetrical.

Edit: Shortly after posting this I remembered to recheck the wiki. So you can ignore my request for help. lol. Either way, Hello! I'm excited to be apart of the community! Hello, this my first post on the forums. I've been skimming around every now and then looking for tips and thought I would finally join the community. I have finally matured through the hilariously fun honeymoon stages of playing KSP through trial and error and am looking for a little guidance on rocket design. So I've downloaded the Kerbal Engineer Redux mod in hopes of building rockets in a more intelligent manner. The only problem now, is that I have little idea how to use the Engineer mod. I'm not sure what all the information it gives means, and how each piece of information relates to each other. I've gathered that delta-v is your ships ability to change velocity, all though I am unsure of all the aspects what that means, and more importantly, how do I determine how much I need. What I would really like to be able to do, is decide on a "mission", for example send a module to land on the Mun (or any celestial body). Then design the payload, and then use the information to be able to design a rocket that, barring any pilot error, should be guaranteed to get me off Kerbin and land my module on the Mun. So could anyone point me to a good tutorial that teaches you how to intelligently build rockets using the information provided in the Engineer mod/in game (information you can obtain with the science equipment for instance)? All the tutorials I have found so far on building rockets, just show you which parts you need in order to make it to orbit, or to the mun and so on. They don't really go into the properties of those parts to tell you why they work. Scott Manley should really do an in depth YouTube Engineering Redux tutorial to explain how to intelligently build rockets, yea? Thank you!