Greenfire32

I have a fundamental disagreement with this.

If your orbit is circularized really well, it doesn't matter a whole lot (but a little bit) where you burn since you'll mostly be at the same altitude and speed the entire time, but if your orbit is only roughly circular or completely oblong, then you'll want to burn at Pe. The reason for this is that you'll be traveling the fastest at your lowest point in the orbit (the closer you are to a body, the faster you move). So if you burn at that point, you'll affect your Ap with far greater efficiency. ^ That is a super hilariously condensed lesson on what is known as the "Oberth" effect that you can read more about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect This is really only used for transfer burns between two bodies and since Nerva engines are usually used for inter-planetary burns, the result is that you'll end up sitting in a slowly increasing orbit for days and weeks because Nerva's thrust is so low that you often times won't reach escape velocity on 1, 2, 3, or maybe even 4 burns at Pe unless you bring a ton of them which...eh I'll just use LF engines at that point.

Unfortunately, that laptop just isn't going to be able to run much. Especially since it's originally from the days of *shudder* Windows 8... The best thing you can do (not just for KSP, but for yourself in general) is save up and upgrade away from a laptop to a proper desktop (or at the very least, a better laptop if desktops aren't an option for you). You can get a decent desktop for around $500 that should be fine for anything you need, though if it were me I'd save up about $1,500 and get as close to top-of-the-line as you can because future-proofing yourself will save you head and heart ache in the long run. I know people like to think that only hardcore gamers will ever need a beefy rig (and they're right of course), but think of it this way: if all you want to play is KSP and nothing else, then you'll never need to upgrade ever again if you get the highest quality build that you can reasonably afford. I know this is absolutely what you don't want to hear, but with those specs you're going to be falling behind on just about everything, gaming and otherwise. Honestly, the best thing for you is a complete upgrade to a totally new machine. In the meantime, you can live through other's playthroughs to satisfy the KSP itch or you can try KSP on console, though I hear that the console version has its own issues. Again, I know that's not what you want to hear, but I think buying a whole new machine is 100% what needs to happen. Sorry, bud.

It's obviously liquid Schwartz.

Looking for part-time kerbonaught. Must have basic motor skills and ability to verbally communicate distress. Experience preferred, but not required. Position is one-size-fits-all and is open until launched. Benefits include: advancing the forefront of Kerbalkind, seeing beautiful new vistas, and extended vacation in exotic locations (circumstances depending).

All valid points and no offense taken. Pilot-error is definitely a factor that can make or break a good ship design. Getting better at the game will absolutely 100% increase your odds of success in any given mission. However, not all of us have those skills or desire those skills. I myself am a fairly good pilot (haven't lost a single Kerbal ever, been playing since 2011-2012), but I'm no Poe Dameron either.

If it means out-of-the-box plug-n-play and official support, they absolutely would and have done. Take Making History for example...

It's not a bad idea at all, but it does usually lead down a specific path. At first, you'll have the lander in orbit (lets say of the Mun) and you'll use it as you're intending to. Problem is, you'll need to pack extra fuel. Enough so that it can both land, ascend, reach orbit, and dock with the "transfer" craft. This becomes an issue if you burn too much fuel on the transfer craft and have to dip into the lander's reserves, because remember, the transfer craft also needs enough fuel to get there, dock, and get back. So then, in response to that problem, you might come up with a self sufficient lander than can gather ore to refine into fuel. That's not a bad idea either. But then you'll need something to actually refine it, so now your lander in orbit becomes a refinery station in orbit with a lander. Still no big deal, but now your lander becomes a bit bigger and a bit heavier and bit harder to maneuver to and from the surface. Also, instead of docking to a lander in orbit with the transfer craft, now you're docking to an entire station. So then in response to that problem, you might just end up taking the easiest route and come up with a small, light lander that you can take with you on each mission. No busing back and forth, no ISRU, just flag and splash down. There's nothing wrong with playing the game the way you've outlined, but it almost always ends up the way I've described

I understand where this comes from, but if Squad actually adopted this approach, we'd have stopped updating KSP around version .18 Just because something currently exists as a mod, doesn't mean it shouldn't become stock (or I guess since KSP is doing DLC now...). In fact, I would argue that based on how popular a mod is, it should show Squad just how much it NEEDS to be stock or DLC. Mods aren't supported throughout the entire life of a game. Mods change developers all the time and sometimes that's enough to kill it. KSP, however, gets support until the devs themselves close the doors. Mods are not a reliable way to play the game. They can greatly enhance a game, but they aren't guaranteed to always be around. This is why KSP still has players in 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. For them, the game has effectively stopped updating because mods they rely on to enjoy KSP can't or won't update alongside KSP. This is why Squad would do the community a great service by taking the highly popular and sought out mods, and make them available to everyone in an official capacity. People want KIS/KAS a whole lot. And it makes sense for engineers to be able to...engineer, so why not make it actually part of the game? Now in this specific instance, since what the OP is suggesting changes the entire flow of KSP so much so that it would effectively be a completely different game, I'd say it would be better off as a mod and NOT made stock or DLC. But to just dismiss something because "already a mod" isn't really the best approach. These things often need to be looked at case-by-case.

I'm about to commit a kerbal sin here, but I've never used the nerva engines because their thrust is just too low. In order to get any kind of decent push from them you need at least 2 (4+ preffered) and by then it gets hard to stick it onto an ascent vehicle and it's heavy and the weight vs economy cost is weird. I know, I know, efficiency and inter-planetary burns, I KNOW. I cant do it. I just cant sit in the same orbit burning at PE over and over and over and over until I FINALLY manage to reach escape velocity. Screw it. I'll just take 3,000,000,000 more tons fuel and use a "proper" rocket. At least that way I don't have to play 78938746D chess with maneuver nodes. 1 burn, 1 node with good 'ol liquid fuel engines. I said I KNOW, alright!

I mean, it's $15... Also, it's already partially free.

nvm you figured it out

Literally the most talked about thing ever, yes. Probably the smartest thing to do when it comes to this issue. This is a huge can of worms that almost never ends in happy people all around. Oh no...stop...before you open the can of worms.... oh god it's happening... noooooooooo

Remember when Matt Damon got stuck on Mars and Donald Glover saved him with a stapler, a pen and Jeff Daniels from Dumb and Dumber? Do that.

Technically no, but who's going to stop you? I am not a lawyer, and am not responsible for any legal action taken against you by Squad or Take-Two

Not 1.2, but I'm still on 1.3 until the dust from 1.4 settles. I don't like playing games that don't work. Especially if they worked just fine in the immediate past.

or at the very least a "hard mode" where you can't save/revert and a "normal mode" where you can.

In the aaaaaarrrrrrrmmmmsss of a gaaaaaammmmeeeeeerrrrr

you can enter the beta branch on steam, I think, to get access to previous versions. No idea about CKAN (I don't know if it always finds version-compatible mods or if it always finds most recently updated). Save games are easy, just copy the save from the folder before you update and move it over manually. Be warned though, if you update to 1.4, you'll find that some of your parts are being phased out and they'll be gone entirely in future versions. If you have ongoing missions with outdated parts, I'd wrap them up so you don't lose them altogether.

No matter how big or small a dev team is, this doesn't fly once the game is "officially released." We're only beta testers when the game is in "early access." After KSP hit the big 1.0 status marker and "launched," we stopped being "consumer-partners" and started being "consumers." We're no longer "play-testing," we're being pushed a broken product. Squad wanted to rush that 1.0 threshold before the game was really ready for it and...well this is what happens. I wish they'd stop pushing these arbitrary deadlines and just "do it right" rather than try to "do it quick." And the thing is, Squad has a track record of releasing an update only to follow up with two, or three, or eight hotfixes in the coming weeks and they don't address small things, they address huge things like wheels causing RUDs or orbits drifting into dark space for no reason. And I know that Squad isn't the exception to the rule when it comes to things like this. I see this happening more and more often and it's even bled into mediums other than gaming, so this isn't me griping about Squad in particular so much as it is me griping about how the entire industry has gotten more relaxed about what is acceptable and what isn't. Ever since post-launch updates have taken over the gaming industry, many (if not all) game developers have adopted the "sell first, fix later" approach with some even going so far as "sell first, fix...maybe? We've already got your money, so..." Maybe it's because I come from a time when games were finished before they were shipped and devs didn't have the option to just "fix it later." Had to wait longer, but also never had major bugs in major releases. Hell even some of the more well-known bugs still had to be actively sought out by the community. (Insert obligatory "get off my lawn!" here)

part of the reason why I spend 99% of my time on the Mun or Minmus and have only ever been to Duna once is because I have a severe respect for my Kerbals. I've been playing since before the mun was even in the game and I've never (yes, NEVER) lost a kerbal. Why? Because if I don't think I can bring them safely home, I don't send them. A Delta-V and TWR readout would greatly increase the amount of missions I'd be comfortable sending my little dudes on.

Correct. In order to stay away from the new EULA, you'd have to also remain on 1.3.1 I think a lot of people are just saying they won't get the DLC to avoid the new EULA because the DLC is being "bundle" released with 1.4. So by saying "not getting DLC" they really mean they're just not going to update. That's my plan anyway. I'm not going to update or download the DLC, even though its free for me, until I get a good feel for how T2 is going to treat KSP.

It's 1.4 and forward.

I'll be getting it for free, but because of the new EULA I will not be getting it right away. I don't agree to the terms, and thus I'll wait and see how T2 handles KSP's immediate future.

"WHAT GAMEPLAY INFORMATION DOES THE COMPANY COLLECT? When you use products or services on internet-capable hardware, the Company may receive information regarding your gameplay without any additional notice to you or actions taken by you. The Company will not receive personal information such as your name and address*, but may receive other information such as a console ID, gaming service ID, game achievements, game scores and performance, IP address, MAC address, or other device ID*, other console/device use information, or other information and statistics regarding your usage of the games. Information about gameplay may be collected while you are offline and transmitted to the Company when you next connect to the Internet whether or not you are currently logged into your Internet Connection from your console, handheld, mobile device, computer, or other gaming platform. The Company may combine the information with your personal information and use such information as set forth in this Privacy Policy whether or not you register for or use the Online Services. The Company may also monitor gameplay information by automated means to ensure that software and services are used in accordance with applicable policies, including the Terms of Service and the End User License agreement. The Company reserves the right to terminate your license if you violate these policies." (*This means that, yes, they can in fact get your name and address) ------------ lmao