Person012345

Not really applicable. Rome II is very different (read: worse) than rome I. You can't really carry concepts like "take slaves" over.

If it's a long term space station it doesn't matter. Someone showed, iirc, that recovery vs transmission only matters on an experiment by experiment basis. You won't -lose- any science by transmitting all the data, it'll just take more experiments to get it all.

Edit: Double post. Damn internet.

Yeah, what they said above. Btw, if they followed this "logical progression" for 75 more updates from 0.25 they would release version 0.100 not 1.0.

If you recover a craft you will get the science back (pods store EVA and crew reports and samples whilst the science objects store their own data I think) from the bit you recovered. If you intend to transmit your data take plenty of batteries or some form of electricity generation.

Also "bottom heavy" wouldn't do anything.

Stop exploiting the game mechanics, problem solved. I managed not to land on minmus in 3 flights and so can you.

Wat. Anyway, manned pods should come first. Otherwise there's no reason to ever put a kerbal in danger at all. It feels pointless that way. I want to have to work to make sure that no more kerbals have to risk their lives for the program, not have it handed to me on a silver platter. Although it's fairly easy to make sure kerbals don't die even without probe cores, there is still some risk.

As has been said it's a work in progress. Missions, money and so on will come later.

For what it's worth rendezvous-ing and docking by eye, without the wonders of the navball, does sound hard.

Purely on tidal locking it happens because gravity acts on each body to deform it, which then causes the gravity to pull more strongly on these distortions. It will speed up a non-rotating satellite and slow down a quickly rotating one "automatically". The same effect is happening to the earth right now from the moon (although IIRC we will only tidally lock to it long after the sun expands to engulf us all anyway so it's irrelevant). That brings me on to the next point, that this process takes millions or billions of years as far as I'm aware, giving the satellite plenty of orbits to complete in an unlocked state. Edit: Wait, what do you mean by "satellite"? Artificial or like a moon? I was assuming you mean a natural satellite.

The launch window thing isn't strictly necessary. If you target an object you get closest approach markers for it. So circularize the ship at the same altitude as the target, target the, er, target, and adjust a maneuver node with a prograde burn simulation until the approach markers align reasonably close.

It's not that hard. Use your instruments. The navball will switch to target mode when you get close to a target object. This will show you your prograde and retrograde relative to that object and tell you how fast you're going. It'll also tell you which direction the object is in. burn retro until you "stop" relative to it (0 m/s on the navball), burn towards it until you are going at a reasonable speed, stopping and adjusting when necessary. When you get real close use your rcs the same way. Also your method of matching up orbits seems convoluted since maneuver nodes exist. I can pretty much go up, get an intercept within 1 orbit, then go straight in to it and dock without any difficulties. Edit: Hold up maybe I can whip up some kind of video tutorial of my own. Double edit: KSP decided to crash so eh. >> Plus it'll take ages to up.

It'll probably be less stable than a drunk Reliant Robin.

As said it already does this, so I'm not sure if this has anything to do with what he's talking about instead: For me, when I get an encounter with say, the mun on the way out of kerbin, this causes my "closest approach" markers for the target planet to disappear (even if very little about the resulting solar orbit has changed). It's a giant PITA and would mean that I would not be able to use gravity assists if I wanted so I figure it might have some relevance to what he's trying to get at maybe. I should note that I have to do more testing to make sure it isn't just pulling my inclination too far out of whack, although the inclination tolerances for closest approach markers seem very weak.

Otherwise you can use maneuver nodes and targetting to essentially rendevous with a point 120 degrees from the previous satellite.

Just to make sure, you don't have any fuel lines that split, then eventually lead back together do you? Because IIRC the game doesn't understand those at all.

Except it doesn't blend in, that's the point. It stands out specifically because we're so used to having it in default windows and we expect it to change when we open a game or program that has a certain style that is separate from microsoft window's style. It's quite jarring actually. You're trying to be immersed and then all of a sudden you have this plain pointer that is absolutely associated with computing and windows pop up. I guess that's what it comes down to - it's immersion breaking if you aren't thinking about the game as a computer application.

Don't blame other people when they take what you say, even if it's a misunderstanding. And as we've already said, the tech tree is not designed to exist in a vacuum. If your only point is that the tech tree, alone and without the rest of the career mode, won't be some great amazing new feature for the experienced player then woop de do what were you actually expecting. Hell if it's actually difficult for an experienced player in a situation where you have unlimited funds they've probably balanced it incredibly poorly in the grand scheme of things.

Processor: AMD FX-4170 Quad-Core Processor (4 CPUs), ~4.2GHz Memory: 8192MB RAM Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 2TB HDD, idk what type.

The loading times seem to be kind of ridiculous now which is half the problem for me.

I agree. I sometimes notice it floating around and it's annoying bland. When I see it I momentarily feel like I'm just doing an essay in word or something. It feels so out of place. That being said it's a minor graphical issue, it's not exactly high priority.

So we agree, career mode isn't for you. Right, because it's a tutorial. Yeah, ok. We're so craaazy, taking what you say at face value.

Instead of having your pod attached to a decoupler, or direct to the vessel you could have the pod attached using docking ports. Then give it it's own minimal propulsion system just to de-orbit it. Recover. Send a new one up and dock it to the lander, and it's good to go. Of course I have no idea if this is feasible for your design I just thought it might be kind of cool to do - have a replaceable command pod so that you can recover it and just launch up a new pod with new crew when you want to make a new mission using it. Though it's unlikely that you will actually -need- maximum science output. If you want to do it for efficiency though.

As I already said, I'm not saying it's definitely not a tutorial. I will have to test it myself first. But there's no reason to claim the entire thing is a tutorial from that. He says that the early nodes are to introduce the concepts and the tech tree as a whole is "leaning on the easy side to a hardcore player". This doesn't imply a tutorial from beginning to end.