Vanamonde

Alright, since this has come up, here's my feeling on the matter. 1) I am already quite carefully with the symmetry of my construction, so if it requires more care than I'm already putting into this to prevent a bit of rotation, then it's too finicky to bother with. 2) Rotation around the long axis is a minor nuisance which doesn't change where the rocket is headed, and only affects how long and in which combination one applies the WASD keys. 3) Most importantly, most of the time the orientation of the needed maneuvers will not neatly line up with the control axes, and the sooner a new pilot learns to adjust to that the better off he/she will be. And since the ship I posted is intended to be a trainer, it's just part of flying practice. In short, if it's hard to entirely eliminate, doesn't matter, and is good practice anyway, I don't consider a small degree of long-axis rotation a problem.

Well, I was going to post in this thread, but then Rage097 killed it.

For me, the TW series went off the rails with Rome 1. They sped up the action to the point that the only way to maintain situational awareness was to pause the game every few seconds to make sure that, for example, no cavalry had zipped around your flank and was chewing up your archers. The tactical AI was actually pretty good in Shogun, but got stupider with every new game in the series. But the thing that really killed the series for me was the unit AI and pathfinding, which was flat-out awful. When you gave an order to a group of units, there was only about a 60% chance that they'd all actually do what you told them to do. Infantry would get confused and march to the wrong place on the field, archers would shoot at whatever the snot target they felt like shooting at (which was a problem because it could cause nasty friendly fire casualties), and cavalry would charge an enemy unit, hit it, and then stop and just stand there until you gave them more orders. I got so mad once that I wrote out a list of just the *major* bugs and gliches of RTW, and it was 1.5 pages long. And they never did fix most of those even in Medieval II, which was when I gave up on what was left of the series because they started requiring that Steam nonsense. In my 22 years of PC gaming, I have seen no other game series that started off so well and had so much potential become so thoroughly and absolutely ruined.

ALL ships with side-mounted tanks want to spin on launch. That's KSP rather than my ship.

Instructions on how to get to the moons, and a downloadable example ship to try it with: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/25029-A-moon-rocket-for-newbies

It's the medium-sized landing legs. They've always been squirrely.

I'm going to prognosticate that most people will agree that smashing your ship straight into the ground at 216km/h is inadvisable.

Major impacts are bad for anything. Adding parts to absorb damage ruins your fuel efficiency and gives the ship more momentum during an impact anyway. Why not just, you know, don't hit as hard?

You can do the deltaV math to keep things from getting out of hand during construction, but practice never perfectly matches the math. So I approach efficiency by making a design intentionally a bit bigger than it needs to be, test it, and then pare down the design wherever testing reveals a surplus. But there's another approach. Make the whole ship reuseable, so that it doesn't matter how much it originally costs because you can just keep refuelling it and using it for mission after mission, like this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/48610-My-roundtrip-ships-for-download.

Making an aircraft that flies decently.

Okay, but where are Berkshire and Hathaway?

Massive rockets are more prone to spinning, so it's probably not the SAS causing the rotation. Is the control part properly aligned (is the whole navball blue while sitting on the pad)? Pics would help diagnose the problem.

Sometimes I like to build things for people, just as a project. So this improbable-looking launch vehicle will get your station hub as high as you want it to go. Craft file: http://www./download/hdaup3gxxqos74b/X_Ship.craft I had to take some liberties with your design, for reasons such as making sure nothing blocked the door, but I tried to keep it as close to your pics as I could. Hope it works for you.

I wrote up an explanation of the navball in the tutorials section: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/30238-How-to-Read-the-Navball

It sounds like your speed at that altitude is so low that you're cancelling it out and whizzing past it in an instant. Try little on/off bursts of the engine, or even just RCS instead of a main engine burn.

Tank, docking port, engine, then run a fuel line from the tank to the engine itself.

For those who missed my previous threads and posts, here's some advertizing for my ships: An earlier version of the Mk91 delivering 8 rovers to the Duna/Ike system, Early Mk91 arrives at Dres, for the first manned landing there. Mk91c arriving at Eve, on a mission which included some rovers. An IP-8 arrives at Eeloo, and lands the first explorers on the most distant planet. IP-8 aerobraking at Jool for an arrival at Tylo. IP-8 reaches Moho, and deploys a small station and stuff.

There can be a minor swing, but they hold course during a burn. As a note of caution, though, the new SAS system does not tolerate unbalanced loads well, which is why you'll see that all the side-mounted cargo consists of pairs of identical sub-vehicles. This thread is a continuation of a discussion from another thread, though in retrospect I don't know why I assumed people would know that. But as I explain in the other thread, the Mk91 has made roundtrips to Dres, Eve twice, and Duna 3 times, and the IP-8 has been to and come back from Tylo, Moho, and Eeloo twice. Each trip was not just the ship itself, but a delivery of 50 to 85 tons of payload. The craft files I posted include nothing but the ships themselves, since the idea of a reuseable delivery mothership is that you can pile on whatever you want for the objectives of your mission. As these examples show, that includes satellites, rover delivery sub-vehicles, and station components. I do have lander designs that I use myself, but they're not ready to be offered to other players because I don't like to post anything until it's as perfect as I can make it, and I haven't tested them thoroughly in 21 (with the new SAS parts, I mean).

So there were some requests for craft files, but I posted mine http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/48610-My-roundtrip-ships-for-download and there's been no response. Did folks not notice the new thread, or is it just that no one cares?

There will be more tutorials as development of the game continues, but for now you must/are free to set your own goals. If by "playing together" you mean multiplayer, there is no stock method, and Squad have said that they do not intend to implement one. (Multiplayer is, by the way, a topic that leads to fruitless arguments and so is a subject the moderators would like us to avoid.)

Hello. I am old here. I joined long ago. I *know* there are lots of new things to learn.

To transfer fuel, right click on one tank, then hold alt while right clicking on another tank. Buttons will appear on each tank for "in" and "out."

If you offer your craft files through Mediafire, it tells you how many times the file gets downloaded.

This is why it's important to test things as you build them, step by step. It never ceases to amaze me how many people fly all the way to Mun or even a planet before realizing that their landing legs don't extend past their engines. Though it's not as if I've never made this kind of mistake. Doors seem especially picky, and things that don't appear to be anywhere near them can still block access.

Yes, but it's hard to see. It's most evident, for some reason, on tires and light fixtures, where you might see shimmering patches of parallel lines.