Vanamonde

Guys, if you think of something else you want to say right after posting, please just edit the post and add to it rather than submit multiple posts in a row. Sequential posting just forces others to click through more page-loads to read the same content.

Moved to gameplay questions. For precision landings, I like to set the camera looking past my ship at the target at about a 45 degree angle from the ground. From this vantage, it's easy to see if the ship is drifting. If low, throttle up. If high, turn retrograde and brake. Left/right are obvious. Though to make that easier, I rotate my ship so that left on the screen is left for steering as well.

Moved to gameplay. Please continue.

It seems that asteroids will be little moving objects. What are also little moving objects? Ships! Practice rendezvousing with ships at different inclinations, and I suspect the skills you hone will transfer over to asteroid captures. (Also, moved to gameplay questions.)

The third ship in the first post of this thread is a moon ship you can download. It's capable of roundtrips to the moons, and uses only parts from tiers 0-3.

Hello AbhChallenger, and welcome to the forum. I, for one, am not in a hurry for the game to be finished. I like that there are new things to do every few months.

Moved to the area for non-KSP stuff. (Interesting, though. Thanks for posting it. )

Once the release is out and you folks have had a chance to see and try the parts, feel free to start threads about them in the Suggestions forum. But since what you're seeing now may not even be the final version of aspects of a release that isn't finalized yet, please keep the discussion to this one thread for the moment. Thank you!

This looks like a job for Gameplay Questions! (Moved.)

AntiMatter001, tutorials on many subjects including docking can be found in the tutorials sub-forum, and there are mods of all sorts including shuttles on display here. Other folks might be able to give you more specific suggestions, but those are good places to start.

Why is everything turning into an angry argument lately? If y'all could discuss the topic and not each other's intelligence, that would be swell.

Some subjects have been discussed, suggested, and argued about until the sheer bulk of repetitive posting began to clog up the forum without ever resolving anything, and so those subjects were placed on the list of subjects not to suggest. Lagrange points and N-body gravity is, unfortunately, one of those subjects, so we'll be closing this thread now. Someone is working on a mod, however, which might be of interest.

The overheating bug *has* been fixed, and it is indeed as orange as the real shuttle's external tank. But thread moved to suggestions so the right people will see it.

Yeah, I'm 51. We're the generation who watched Apollo on live TV while we were in grade school. This stuff is as familiar to us as Miley Cyrus is to you punk kids.

Hello Sp33d3h. I also poke around the Kerbal Reddit sometimes, but this forum is more active. Anyway, welcome to the forum.

Knock off the insults, guys. Discussion the forum subject, not each other.

This is why I test every stage on the pad, or even in flight, before I add the next stage to the ship I'm building. Prevents no end of heartache.

Ever watched your probe slide down a hill on Gilly because the gravity isn't strong enough to stick the thing to the ground? Ever watch your Gilly lander cartwheel for a couple of minutes because your fallen Kerbal headbutted it off the ground while standing up?

Just as the simulation does not includes us having to load food supplies into the ships, so, it seems to me, the player clicking once on a science instrument to take a reading is a simplified simulation of the instrument collecting a mass of data. Think of it not as one click doing the whole job, but as one click telling the device when to begin performing its function. And if so, transmitting the result data of an experiment performed remotely should be less informative than bringing the experimental apparatus back for more intensive study, shouldn't it? That's my feeling on the subject, anyway.

Resource mining is an idea that has been shelved for the foreseeable future, and perhaps permanently, which is why the subject has been placed on the What Not to Suggest List. Sorry folks, but closing the thread now.

Duplicate thread closed.

Sandworm, I disagree with quite a few of your points. That is an odd statement, given that there are whole sub-forums for bug reports and development suggestions alone, in addition to the discussions all over the rest of the forum. The Squad guys do not often post here because they're busy making the game, but they're not ignoring the forum. This entire game is pre-release material. The game is in a continual state of revision. To give just a few examples off of the top of my head, they've replaced whole sets of engine and tank parts, introduced an additional model of rover wheels when the first set turned out to have deficiencies, a few of the worlds have received makeovers, the entire SAS system was thrown out and replaced, and so on. That was not the only reason. It's an oft-repeated misapprehension that subjects are only put on the What Not to Suggest list because Squad is adamantly against the idea. Most of the time, items are put on the WNTS list simply because the subjects tend to cause arguments, or have been so endlessly rehashed already that there's no point in cluttered up the forum with further repetitious discussion. Again, the whole game is still in development, and it's available on your hard drive right now. Get to commenting, praising, and criticizing already. You've reversed the cause/effect relationship between Squad's practices and the screaming. They used to be much more open, but were barraged with abuse if anything in the actual version release differed from what they had previously discussed. And again, the game is still pre-release, so we are ALL playtesters.

Unfortunately, whether it starts off pro- or anti-, discussions of Apollo deniers always seem to degenerate into arguments, which is why the forum has reluctantly instituted a rule against discussing conspiracy theories (2.2.f). Closing the thread now.

Just one player's opinion: the new parts look the way they do because they're intended to resemble real NASA parts, which are not festooned with extraneous details.

I thought I was the only one doing this! Somehow, I failed to notice that you started it a couple of months before I got the idea.