Vanamonde

Moved to suggestins/discussions.

Moved to how-to, with a suggestion. Open one of the pre-made flags and immediately save it with a new name. Then edit your copy as you like. It should never leave the proper folder and should stay the same format. I've made a couple of flags this way. If it still doesn't work, then I believe you have a bug of some sort to report.

Other parts will do that, too. Including solid steel girders.

I can't find a citation at the moment, but yes, the plan has always been that the stats of Kerbals will affect their performance as they operate the ships. (This is why there is no autopilot in the stock game; eventually, the Kerbals will be the pilots.)

Okay then. (And, hello. )

I've grabbed discarded boosters, Kerbals on EVA, and another test ship, and it all worked. Like docking, though, you have to be going pretty slow so that it doesn't bounce off. Have you tried it around 0.1-0.2m/s?

parameciumkid, I had parts break off of a probe that splashed down at around 6m/s. Nothing exploded, but they snapped off and floated next to the probe. :/

Merged into your other thread on this game.

But post it here in gameplay questions, the proper spot for construction tips. (Moved.)

Yes, it's intentional, and it's been in the game since .23 or so. (Also, moved to gameplay questions.)

As always, we ask that folks talk about the subject of the thread and not each other's personalities. Dial back the anger, okay guys?

Please leave the subject of Russian dash cams for another time, and return to discussing asteroids. Thank you.

Sounds like a gameplay question, so moved. Might end up being a bug report, but it's too early to tell without pics and more information.

This suggestion moved to Suggestions.

Docking ports have uses other than base construction. It's also handy to build motherships which can deploy sub-ships, and to build re-useable cargo ships to which different cargoes can be docked. I just happen to have some examples here.

To change my direction of thrust on a 2100 ton asteroid, I plotted the maneuver, un-clawed my ship and turned toward the maneuver marker, and then RCSed around to re-claw through the COM.

It doesn't take anything fancy to make them, either. I just do mine in MS Paint.

Soora666, the ship exchange is primarily for exchanging ships. You can add some craft files for others to download your ship, or we could move this to Mission Reports. Which would you prefer?

If you have a problem with something another member has posted, please simply hit the 'report' button on that post and let the moderators deal with it. Do not respond angrily yourself and get into an argument, because that's unpleasant for everyone else to have to read.

They have to make the basic features work before they can introduce advanced complication upon them. However, that has already started, with strictures such as career mode*, and the upcoming contracts, economics, and reputations systems. All of these ask players to keep performing the same kinds of flight feats, but to do so within constraints such as a limited selection of parts and finite funding. *Yes, I know they've said that the aim of the tech tree system is guided introduction of parts for learning, but this doesn't mean that you're required to follow it that way. Plenty of us are finding career mode to be the interesting design challenge of performing advanced missions with limited parts.

Not only *is* there a forum help sub-forum, but this thread now occupies it.

This suggestion for .24 moved to the suggestions sub-forum.

Moved, as per request.

I get what is being said about the simplification of construction brought by the larger parts, but the same things were being said when we got the larger parts with the orange tank and Mainsail. Players did then what they're going to do now; use just as many of the larger parts to make even bigger things.

Isn't that the KSP moto: "Pointless, useless, and needlessly large... "? (As opposed to smaller, faster, cheaper, or whatever that is.)