Luckless

I tend to start turning over fairly low, just a few degrees at a time, as I find it tends to be more controllable and accurate for me. If I don't start my horizontal push fairly early to build up speed and instead wait till I'm very well clear of the bulk of atmospheric drag before I start, then I have a far harder time hitting my target orbits.

You do know there are options that don't involve single stage to orbit concepts, right? There aren't many mission profiles where a space plane or shuttle works better than a standard cargo/crew pod stuck on top of a rocket. They might not look flashy, but they sure get the job done.

Forget what I paid for it, but it wasn't much. Since then I have purchased the game half a dozen times or more at whatever the current price was when I gifted it to a friend.

I do not deny that it is a fun and interesting challenge, I just see the entire concept of the shuttle as a main launch vehicle to be a highly flawed waste of time and money (real world or in game) when the vast majority of the missions run with them would be far easier and done in a more cost effective manner with more traditional launch vehicle styles. Also, overcoming the technical hurdles that are artificially imposed by the game (gimbal, thrust balance, etc) isn't exceptionally interesting. I might have more interest in the game if we had more control over a proper flight computer that could auto-correct things like variable thrust between engines to account for the centre of mass shifting around during launch while the primary fuel tank is being emptied.

I've toyed with them a few times, but gave up on them in favour of far more sensible designs and projects. It wasn't even a great idea in the real world, and was only useful for a handful of its missions, so why bother with it in a game that doesn't even provide the parts and tools to do one effectively? What advantage does such a design offer over other options that don't involve dragging giant wings up into an environment without an atmosphere where they're really just a larger target for stuff to hit?

Personally I dislike parts mods due to their tendency to massively increase load times, and therefore I avoid them at all costs. Stock parts are enough to have fun with, so if I'm modding the game I'm doing it to add features and controls, not just 'more parts'.

I don't know why someone would want to go into space with such an inefficient hair style...

Awesome to see projects like this taking off. I will be doing something similar, but my goal will be to build something that is fairly flexible and fully custom. (Including joystick, quad-throttle with secondary adjustments, pedals, pneumatic force feedback on everything, etc.) Something that is reasonably flexible and can be used for KSP, Star Citizen, flight combat sims, etc. Still not sure what I want to do for read out panels however. They might just become fully software and stuck on a second monitor/laptop. Python, with PySide and Qt can make for a VERY slick GUI that is quick and easy to throw together.

The popularity of base 10 is as much a fluke as it is practical. From what I remember of my history of mathematics, base 12 and 20 were actually more common before the spread of base 10 took off. Base 60 was also rather popular in rather early periods, and to this day some of its traits carry over and are used. (Ever think about why 60 is used so much in time rather than a more logical 100?) Sure, matching the number of fingers/thumbs we have made it easier to teach which helped its popularity, but honestly base 12 or base 16 make a whole lot more sense when it comes to actual practicality due to the number of awkward fractions base 10 leaves you with.

My first job working with an aerospace company was Because I played video games. I frequently played online games with a group of engineers and would join in discussions about projects with them. This eventually became an interview, and a job offer in the middle of a public match. Be professional. The Original poster seems to be applying for an undergrad position, not a researcher. Make a list of the deficiencies in the simulation, and notes on what ways they will impact the results from a more precise sim or real life. Frankly knowing what is wrong with your simulation is something many researchers overlook and take for granted.

Is this not a multi-burn mission? It was my understanding that for each assist there were 2-3 adjustment burns to correct flight path to hit their gravity assist target time-position. You can still do very similar things in KSP, the numbers just fudge a little more, but they're technically easier to calculate due to the two-body physics.

Good craft design and good input hardware make flying like that a whole lot easier. I can't do that in KSP, but I've done similar manoeuvres in VTOL/helicopter based sims.

Building two stations: 1. Fuel/staging station in LKO which has the main purpose of holding extra fuel to be transferred out to the main station. 2. Science Station/Lander Service Depot. To be assembled around Mun as it is used to conduct missions for more science, before upgrading parts and moving it around the solar system in support of stealing all the science. About half way through my main construction mission, and the Mun station is running out of fuel. No problem! The LKO station's goal is to collect fuel from smaller easy to control tankers so fewer missions have to be run between Kerbin and the Mun, and limits the parts count at the main station. A stage planning mistake left a few drop tanks skimming atmo when I had expected them to actually drop out of orbit. Only half a dozen tanks and space is big. Nothing to worry about eh? The 'fuel truck' probe mission however proved otherwise. A probe with a large fuel tank that was designed to be nearly empty by the time it reached LKO for top up at the station before continuing on to the Mun found a chunk of it in a glorious surprise! No fuel truck? No problem! I had a small probe on the LKO station for use in moving bits around as needed. Plus I had a modular tank up there that was acting as extra storage space. While this solution would take far longer burn time to do the mission, and make docking far more annoying than the planned design, it would still get the job done. Move stuff around, top up tanks, line up transfer... And Off we go! In a horribly long burn that places me on an intercept that would sling shot me out of the local system if I didn't correct at the far end. Not a worry, I've done it lots of times before, possibly not the most fuel efficient route in, but acceptable. Time warp ahead till I get to my desired second burn point and.... The probe doesn't respond.... Wait, there are no solar panels on this probe, just batteries, and the tank is just a tank and docking port... And I don't have enough fuel at the science station to send its tug out to intercept reliably... So I shot a nice large fuel tank out into space. We'll say it is for a later mission.

How so? It would take effort for someone to actually place something at one, so anyone not trying for them isn't exactly going to notice much of an impact if any from one, and they would make placing a number of mission types possible that you can't really do without something that approximates them.

We fake everything else with gravity in the game. Fudging the numbers for L-Point orbits can work with a few hacks, and will be just as accurate as any other orbit we have in game currently.

I agree. More information and tools in the hands of the player is a good thing, and the information on how to use them. I would like to see tools added in game to help plan missions, including being able to 'simulate' advances ahead of the current game time so you can check things. Want to plan a trip somewhere using a gravity assist? Simulate time ahead, apply the tools, and check that stuff is actually where you think/want it to be. Gravity boosting off a planet only to find your target isn't where you estimated it was going to be by then.

I am a long time backer, and therefore apparently I get any expansions anyway, but I would still happily buy copies to gift to friends. Things like a dedicated colony builder/management system would make excellent DLC beyond the core game. Competing AI space-race program would be another interesting one. If they keep the DLC cheap but highly effective, $5 and under for major content, then I will be very happy. What I Don't want to see is 99 cents for a new space suit for the kerbals. I have no issues with very small content DLC that is present as "Patron Packs", that are up front a way for loyal customers to throw extra money at the company to further support future development or act as 'tips', and anything you as the customer get in return don't actually matter, but it really annoys me when developers offer exceptionally worthless content as if it is worth something to anyone.

I don't see the problem with sharing, but more a very minor problem with the VAB's UI while using it. So you have an "A1" engine that you unlock early on in the tech tree. Later on you unlock an 'upgrade' to it, the A1M2 engine now unlocks, and a radio button appears at the bottom of the A1's button in the VAB so you can pick between the M1 and M2 model. (If for whatever reason you wanted to go back and use the A1, such as designing crafts to share with a friend.) So now you keep moving forward with the A1M3, A1M4, A1M5, etc. All distinct engines in parts files, all reusing the same models, but displaying different data. Your super advanced and ultimately cool craft is harder to share as it means people have to level up more with you, but given time in a more stable finished product that isn't going to be much of a problem as lower skilled players eventually catch up.

Personally I would like to be able to set flags to groups. All flag groups are toggled off on load, and groups can be toggled on and off as the player wishes like other classes of objects. Why would you want to change a flags group? When you are trying to accurately land somewhere again it is helpful to have a marker, but also helpful to not have the five dozen other landing site markers you have on Mun showing and cluttering things up. Group them by mission type or whatever the player pleases. Creating new groups should be easy and flexible. Maybe even be able to have a flag be in multiple groups. The setting for it can be a popup window, and each flag group is a check box, just tick off each group you want it to appear in, if any groups a flag is part of are shown, then that flag is show even if it belongs to another group that is hidden.

Personally I view this logic as flawed and rather invalid. People can just edit the game files to give them whatever they want, and completely defeat the purpose of playing the game! So why should anyone even bother playing the game, or continue developing it for that matter. It would give reason to establish missions and keep them somewhere. Once you put them there you can run off and play with something else while it does its thing, and then you can come back to it later to 'harvest' the collected data.

Personally I would prefer having science experiments run over time. It would give a reason to actually maintain missions and offer more 'program management' to the game. Maybe a middle ground for game play is that your first 'one shot' science as it functions now will take 75% of the total value on its initial use. Anything more would then be acquired as part of on-going tests that you park at location and it can slowly tick away over time with diminishing returns for the rest of it.

Yes, docking isn't hard. Getting your craft within 500m of your target and getting relative speed down to a few m/s, that is the hard bit. If you are having issues docking then stop trying to dock, and just work on your rendezvous and brining your craft within docking range such that you can hold it there for awhile without shooting way past or falling way behind.

A step further: Mission badge generator, along with mission planner. Could be something as simple as a really basic editor that uses stock clipart, or make it even more complex with something like before you build and launch a ship you 'plan' your mission. Set your target locations and goals, include some calculators to help you figure out burns and such ahead of time, and then the system generates a flight badge based on where you are going and what you are taking with you.

So is anyone else doing custom controllers for games? Personally I'm planning to do custom ones at some point that can work well with Star Citizen and KSP.

I generally don't bother with parts mods. I find the extra load time on them isn't worth what they can offer in game. However I generally add tool and data mods. Kerbal Alarm Clock, functionality that needs to be stock. Docking Port alignment indicator, again should be stock, possibly a tech tree unlock. Kerbal Engineer or similar for better data readout. another thing that offers a lot of stuff that needs to be stock.