Wjolcz

Oh, nice! And it's only 71 parts! I'll be using a fleet of these to assemble my interplanetary vessels if you don't mind. Can that fairing be replaced with a normal nose cone without any penalty?

A Mad Max-like game with KSP's editor. Build a car, pick the engine and the fuel, spawn somewhere on a big desert (or even a whole deserted planet), drive around, find bases and forts, upgrade your stuff encounter or avoid other people. Or maybe we should wait for the multiplayer (whenever that happens) and the ability to lock certain parts and just mod it the way we want it. I start to think any game with KSP's editor would make it at least 50% cooler and fun.

Can I have a request? A small electric duct fan/propeller please? Like the one on Airbus E-fan perhaps?

Aaaaaaaand I've just installed the mod. Never going back to space. My career save is doomed.

Yeah, OK. I've taken a look at his SSTOs. Let's omit the fact that some of them are VTOLs and have nothing to do with the runway for now. The first problem I see: the OP doesn't seem to use any kind of information display mod, like KER or MechJeb. If you're trying to brute force your way up don't cry there's something wrong with the game (OK, the game doesn't have any dV indicator yet, but it's the runway we're talking about here). We can also assume overbuilt, overweight, overengineered spaceplanes are a part of "playstyle" and blame the game design that it doesn't allow for that. Pick your answer. The second problem I see (and I was right in my previous post): the gear placement. Making planes take-off is like pushing a lever. You want the pivot point to be roughly in the middle if you want to rise one end by pushing the other. Don't cry about not being able to take off if you don't do that. A longer runway won't help in this case. To sum up: the OP DOES HAVE issues with CoM/wheel placement.

It should be optional. Didn't say that in the OP because I thought it was obvious given the way science is collected in KSP. And yeah, the science grind is bad. But it's the problem with the core idea and design decisions of science points.

I have a feeling this discussion would have been long over if the OP provided us with a picture of CoM and landing gear placement on his spaceplane.

I've had this thought for a while now, but I don't think I've seen something like this here before. The idea is having widgets whenever a more complicated action is performed. Let's take the experiments as an example: the player does the goo container observation and transfers it to the lab. A widgets pops out with a 2D representation of the goo and lab equipment. Now it's possible to literally "poke" the goo in different ways and throw other stuff at it to see how it reacts. Same for engine modifications. I'm not a big fan of engineers buffing engines by just sitting in the vessel, but maybe there should be a way to modify them in-flight? The engineer goes EVA, get's closer to the engine and is now able to modify it by adding and/or replacing certain modules and plumbing by messing around within the boundries of that 2D engine scheme widget. Same for repairing wheels, solar panels and radiators.

To be honest, the whole experience thing always bothered me. The stars should represent the number of missions/time spent in space, not give some special powers. An engineer should always be able to operate ISRU no matter if he/she is a rookie or a pro. What kind of agency sends untrained astronauts into space? I don't hate the idea though. What I think could be better instead is this "Boss/Commander" class kerbal having the ability to manage a base/station he is in more efficiently. Kind of like the engineers do now with ISRU. For example: if a station is in orbit of Laythe and it has solar panels, probe cores and batteries the Commander should be able reroute all the power to the batteries to save EC and the more crew he has the more EC they are able to store for future use, or something like that. Or balance it's CoM to match it's CoT, or maybe even change the way antennae work (lower bandwidth, but less EC per bit/mit/whatever it's called). But not mess with the fuel that way. No kerbal should be able to buff engine's Isp.

No. Never. Solar stations in this game are pointless.

I don't even earn money directly in my career mode. What brings me most reputation (thus money) is a simple suborbital rocket with a single command pod for tourists.

KER. Any other mod is not as important as having necessary information about how the vessel is going to perform. Otherwise it's just a rocket evolution simulator. Except it takes a lot more time and it's the player wasting their time trying to build something flyable.

More engines make the plane more efficent? What? I really need to see what you're trying to fly. I agree about a second runway.

I already have a bunch of mods that more or less simulate the reputation-based career. Still need one that turns the strategies into program with a bunch of reasonablr goals, but I'm enjoying it so far.

I really like the real plume mod. FIXING THE MESS The station designers screwed up (me) so someone had to fix it (also me). The lady engineer present in the pictures took a docking port and attached it to the local space station. But before it took place she ran out of fuel. RCS manouvers involved. However unlucky, the mission was a success. She came in, glued the pieces together, went back. It's completely offset but who cares? I do. But I'm not fixing that. The station will get deorbited and replaced by something new eventually. Right now I have some tourists wanting to go there. After their cash is in my pocket I'm making a new one.

yusssssssssss

Well, my point isn't really the "junkyard vs shiny looks" discussion. The message I tried to convey here is rather "keep things simple to save more dev time and work whenever there's a need for new parts, developers". A good example of simplicity and yet great artwork are the T3 buildings in KSP. @bac9 did an outstanding job making sure everything is simple and matches everything else (by keeping the looks more or less neutral). The stairs of tier 3 buildings are a great example of that. If anyone's wondering what I'm talking about he/she should take a closer look at tier 3 KSC and the tutorial thing he left (and which was never even looked at by the devs, it seems). It looks like @Porkjet tried to do just that too, but unfortunately didn't have enough time to finish the project. They both had clear visions of how this game should look like and I would really like to see it happen, but recalling the past I'm rather pessimistic. So yeah, just keep it as simple as possible, @SQUAD, to avoid the mistakes of the past (AKA "The Barn"). But it will all end up in a "junk vs shiny looks" discussion anyway. So by that logic I guess the I-beams aren't meant to be used as landing gear at all? It doesn't say on the wiki they should be used that way. Oh, thank God there's someone who told me how to use all these parts properly! I'll PM you the next time I need a piece of advice when I'm confused about a particular part. Have some rep for being helpful. Man, I'll never use the HH for launching these poor kerbals again.

UPDATE: I killed another pilot. And I like how that influences my career playthrough. Here's why: Killing a crew member means a reputation hit. Since funds are based on the reputation each month it means every time a mishap happens I have to consider setbacks involved. For example: If I get 800k every month then it's not enough to upgrade the R&D to the 3rd level (that's my current goal). I kill a pilot and now it's only 600k per month. It means I have to spend more time rising my rep and waiting for the funds to accumulate. If I hit the 550 science points node wall and I want to keep researching stuff I have two options: do high rep missions (to get to the 2.6mil funds) or do new stuff (World's Firsts). Or both, since they both rise reputation. In my head it simulates this whole "A disaster happened and a crew member died, but look! I also did something nobody has done before! PLZ DON'T CUT MY FUNDING ;_;". So I guess getting to the goal funding level can be considered a bit grindy (especially when someone is rather reckless), but at the same time it's easier to lose the game than it is in stock. And it really makes you think about kerbals (since killing them has such a big impact on your gameplay and how fast you progress) unlike it is in stock. I think I'm repeating myself but I just can't argue against how much better than stock this is.

Probably. But I like the simplicity of the one I use. It's very easy to clearly identify what is in which branch in HPTT.

Is there anything like that? I don't recall seeing such a mod anywhere. It would be great if the probe body had very weak reaction wheels. Perfect for nanosats.

I think a nice way to solve this would be having a surface attachable probe part. Just a simple computer/chip part with some sort of indication where the front is. Would be great for nanosats.

Yes.

So basically Kerbin moves too slow for it's orbit?

I'm not talking about HH only. Who said so?

When?