Nemoricus

A Science Lab Jr Jr, for space probes. Exposing petri dishes to the harsh environment of space for science! A Science Lab Sr, for the big rockets. No, you are not allowed to go swimming or fishing in the tank, that's for the experiments.

I'd prefer to see it integrated into a general science control panel for the ship rather than be yet another part to drag around. It would be nice to have a menu that you could open up, and it would show you the current biome and allow you operate all of your experiments from it. Except EVA, but that's a special case. However, a part that you can use to create an in-game biome map, like how ISA lets you make a height map, would be nice to have.

A big part of the science in the early game is related to the biomes on Kerbin and the Mun. However, there is no easy way to determine which biome you're in, like "Splashed down at Kerbin's Shores" or "Low orbit over the Mun's Poles", short of rightclicking on a part that's biome sensitive and asking for a report. This rapidly gets very tedious, as I learned while trying to get EVA reports from a polar orbit around the Mun. Now, a lot of the biomes are easy to spot, like Kerbin's Waters and the big craters on the Mun, but some, like Kerbin's Shores, are very much blink and you missed it. What I propose is that there be some readout, possibly in a collapsible Science menu, that tells you something like "You are now in X biome, at Y altitude." This would make it much easier to tell where one science situation ends and another begins, which is especially important for the small, narrowly defined biomes. Additionally, it would nice to be able to generate an in-game biome map that can tell you which biome is which when moused over. Does anybody have anything to add, change, or criticize about this?

A databank part that let you store the results of multiple experiments would be nice...

A camera part would be really neat to have, especially on the automated probes. It would make them much more like their real life counterparts, since taking pictures is one reason we send probes out.

From the standpoint of an experienced player, science as it currently is presents little difficulty, but I don't think that's so much of a problem as the fact that it's too difficult for a new player. First off, the KSC menu isn't very clear, since it's not immediately apparent what each building does and why you should go to each. There's no mouseover text that tells you what the buildings do, and so you can miss the fact that there's an R&D building at all. Having some mouseover text would alleviate this problem. Second, the means of getting science is unclear. There's nothing that tells a new player that recovering their vessel will get them science, for example. Also, there's nothing that tells you how to recover a vessel. Going to the tracking station isn't something that new players will know, and it's possible for them to miss the button that lets them do so in the flight scene. A tutorial would help with this one. Third, the right click interface method of doing science is nonintuitive and a little finicky. That you can right click on a part at all isn't immediately apparent, but it's also a bad interface, since you have to right click on every single experiment in order to run them. There should be a dedicated button for science in the UI, which lets you see all of the experiments you have on the vessel and lets you perform them from this one place. This would also be easier for a new player to use. Another issue I have, even as an experienced player, is that the lines where one biome changes to another are very, very unclear. Somewhere in the UI should be something that tells you whether you're in orbit over water/grasslands/shores or are in too high an orbit to notice the biomes. Perhaps a little picture in the one of the corners that shows you the situation? Now, while I have a lot of issues with science as currently implemented, I think that it's an important step for KSP. It gives some progression to the game, and it's nice to be able to pick and choose which parts I want to use and which I don't. It keeps my VAB nice and uncluttered.

Here you go: http://www.twitch.tv/ksptv

I'm just going to float the idea that time can be a very valuable resource in the game, perhaps by linking some forms of income to it. Sure, you might be able to time warp for so many days to finish a research item, but if you don't keep performing missions, your superiors will slash your budget. However, this may only be appropriate for higher difficulty versions of career mode.

Gilly if at all possible. An Eve lander is one of the only things I haven't done in this game, and the ability to draw resources from that moon would make it much easier.

I tend to sit down and run some delta-v calculations before building rockets for interplanetary missions. It tends to work quite well for me, especially with Kerbal Flight Engineer to show the delta-v of my designs.

Kerbin's gravity is approximately 1 g, likely to make things a little more intuitive and familiar for players. Bounce Ginalf: You're quite welcome.

I never claimed that flying without these mods was inherently imprecise. However, the mods do allow for a degree of planning and instantaneous feedback that makes it easier to be precise. Again, it's the difference between building a sand castle with a ruler and without. Using the ruler allows you to get to a desired degree of precision more readily, but with enough time, patience, and skill, eyeballing it can do so as well. I can and have done interplanetary missions without them, and even managed a rescue. What they do allow me to do, though, is to spend less time guessing at the details of a maneuver, and spend more of it doing what I enjoy in this game: building and flying rockets. And using the mods as I do, they won't do my flying for me, leaving me as the one to figure out when and how to burn. And since it most certainly won't build my rocket for me, I feel that using them provides the right level and kind of challenge for me.

I mostly use mods that extend the game's information display. MechJeb, Protractor, and Flight Engineer all provide information that I have no access to otherwise. I don't need any of it by any means, since I've landed on Ike without using any of them. However, having them takes out a lot of what's to me frustrating eyeballing, and they give me tools that allow me to put a great deal of knowledge about orbital mechanics to work. The only autopilots I use on a regular basis are MechJeb's attitude controls, and that only because I don't have the information to do it well otherwise. A standout here is the orbit normal autopilots, which are absolutely critical for making accurate plane changes. I can and have eyeballed this, but I find that using the autopilots gives me more time to do what I enjoy, which is planning and executing maneuvers to get me to where I want to go. Bottom line? This is a sandbox game, and while some people might like building sand castles entirely by hand, I like having the rulers and protractors to make my constructions more precise. They won't do the job for me, but they help immensely.

No. However, I've seen a recommendation to time your burn so that you hit the angle when you're 2/3rds of the way down with the burn. Find the acceleration of your vessel and the delta-V required for the maneuver, and use that to find the time to burn correctly. EndlessWaves: Do you have confirmation for that?

Speaking of which, is there a way to disable that marker?

You can use the '[' and ']' keys to switch between close by vessels. (Off-topic, but where did you get the banner in your signature, I've been trying to find it for a while now.)

At present, it always points to: A second KSC

Okay, added.

Okay, I've added that one.

Both are already in there, and were in fact the first two I put in my list. Any others that might be useful?

I've found myself referring to a number of equations while playing KSP, and I thought I'd provide them in case others would find them useful as well. KSP's mass units are assumed to be kg, for clarity. a = semi-major axis, m ApR = Orbital radius at apoapsis, m delta-V = m/s, the total amount you can change your velocity by G = 6.674e-11, the gravitational constant g = 9.8 m/(s^2), the acceleration at Kerbin's surface Isp = specific impulse, the number of seconds the engine can hold itself up against Kerbin's surface gravity per kg of fuel. M = mass of planet/moon/sun m0 = Initial mass of a vessel, kg m1 = Mass of a vessel at stage burnout, kg PeR = Orbital radius at periapsis, m R = Orbital radius, altitude + planetary radius r = planetary radius TWR = Thrust to weight ratio. If greater than or equal to one, the vessel can support itself against the body's gravity, which is necessary for launches and landers. v = velocity, m/s delta-V = 9.8 * Isp * ln(m0/m1) For multiple stages, calculate the delta-V for each stage separately, where Isp is the specific impulse of that stage's engines, m0 is the mass at the start of the stage, and m1 is the mass at the end. Keep in mind that m0 is after all mass of the previous stage is ejected, and m1 is prior to the mass of the current stage being ejected. For stages with mixed Isp, the delta-V depends on the details of your setup. acceleration = total thrust/total vessel mass TWR = acceleration* R^2 / (G*M) Fuel consumption rate (kg/s) = Thrust / (Isp * g) a = (ApR + PeR) / 2, for closed orbits only Circular orbital velocity = sqrt(G*M/R) Escape velocity at R = sqrt(2*G*M/R) Velocity in an eccentric orbit = sqrt(G*M*((2/R) - (1/a)) Period = 2*pi*sqrt(a³/(G*M)) Target Angle = 180 degrees / (semimajor axis of target orbit/semimajor axis of transfer orbit)^(3/2) For circular target orbits, this is the angle that the target body will travel through in the time it takes the vessel to go from apoapsis to periapsis or vice versa. So, this is the angle that the target body needs to be from the transfer orbit's apoapsis or periapsis for the two to meet. For sufficiently low targets, this can go above 360 degrees, in which case the target will lap the vessel at least once before meeting. Subtract 360 as many times as necessary to get a number between 0 and 360, which gives you the angle the target body needs to away from the periapsis for your vessel to meet it. delta-V for inclination change = sqrt(2*(v^2)*(1-cos(itarget inclination - initial inclination)) Use this equation when you want to figure out how much delta-v you need to go from an equatorial orbit to a polar orbit, for example Thoughts, suggestions, and comments are welcome. If I've missed anything, let me know and I'll put it in here.

A point of pedantry: Fuel is what a rocket consumes to give energy to its propellant. Propellant, on the other hand, is what the rocket ejects to accelerate. In a chemical rocket, the two are synonymous, while on a NERVA style engine the fuel is the nuclear fission material while the propellant is something like hydrogen or water.

As far as I can tell, consumption is linearly proportional to throttle, yes. As for the second question, no, there is not. And there are actually some disadvantages to doing so, since a long, slow burn is less efficient at putting you on any given orbit than a fast, high power burn. That said, a lower throttle does give you more fine control over your acceleration.