Qumefox

No.. One thing a lot of people forget is that KSP is a game, above all else. Lots of people clamor for more realism, such as little things like this. The result of which, even though people don't realise it, is that every time it happens, KSP becomes less of a game and more of a sim. While sim buffs love it, the general population who plays KSP as a game.. doesn't. Though on the OP's statement.. I see nothing wrong with RTG's. They're a real technology. The other option if you still refuse to use them, is to just add more batteries. Though solar power drops off the farther you get from the sun. If you send stuff out to jool that has any significant power draw, they're really useful.

I actually wonder if they will ever implement 'correct' drag modeling.. As in your above example.. if they did, that ship would probably disintegrate fairly soon after launch due to drag.. The more I think about it, the less i'd like it. If they did, it'd make the game much more like a simulator than 'playing with legos full of rocket fuel'.. The sim buffs might love it, but It'd likely end up not being liked by the population in general.. Would be an instant end to humongous launches and ships etc..

I don't know how many I lost. nor do I care.. Not really sure why everything has to be a 'competition'.. It's like people on facebook etc who just friend everyone so they can have a high number... What's the point? How many posts you have, or what rep you have.. doesn't mean squat here. or most other places.. You'll actually be a lot better thought of here if you have 100 useful posts, instead 1000 pointless posts that do nothing but take up DB space and don't contribute anything to anyone.

It should matter a lot.. Right now drag is calculated by each part having a fixed drag variable.. it doesn't matter where the parts are, they have the same amount of drag. When switching to a more correct model that actually calculates drag based on exposed surface area in the direction of travel, you'll find terminal velocity will end up being MUCH lower for an asparagus staged rocket than it is for a long pointy one due to all the added drag from the vastly increased surface area.

You just discovered a difference between KSP and reality.. In KSP, wider is actually better than longer, due to the current aerodynamic modelling (or lack there of). It's better to add(and drop as they are expended) radial boosters/stages than it is to build a really tall rocket currently. Now far in the future when we get better aerodynamic modelling, and wider rockets actually get punished with higher drag, that might change. but currently.. Asparagus staging is about the only way to go.

Kerbal engineer redux and protractor. Beyond that, i've managed everything i've attempted with stock parts so far. So no real need for other mods.

You can actually forgo the landing legs on that design and increase your delta-V pool considerably. When dealing with ultra light craft, every little little bit of weight savings has considerable effects on delta-V.

I personally think they were nerfed a bit too hard myself. Yes they were OP before, but for most part, they aren't even an option now for the vast majority of builds.

no wipe needed. Just give it time, so long as you actually look at the dates, the old stuff will eventually settle to the bottom if people don't bump it.

Most versions up to 13.3 (where it split between demo/paid versions) are in this thread. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/24858-Old-versions-of-KSP-%28some-versions-still-wanted%21%29 However, it's unlikely you'll find anyone willing to just post versions after 13.3, since those were paid versions.. even if they're old now.

The initial confusion was due to people taking Squad's initial generalized statement of all future *updates* being free to actually mean ALL future *content* would be free. I believe initially, they meant that all *patches* to KSP would be free. Meaning as they added features and content to the core game, people who had purchased KSP would get said updates free of charge until the core game was completely finished. I personally didn't expect this statement to cover expansion content created *AFTER* KSP was finished, but a lot of people did apparently, plus people misinterpreted Harvester's thinking out loud to mean future patches to the core KSP would be paid DLC as well.. which didn't help matters. So to smooth things over, the devs have stated that everyone who has bought KSP before the end of april, will get all future expansions for free as well.

Well. This much is obvious. You either understand where i'm coming from with this, or you don't. You apparently don't. Which means continuing this discussion would be about as fruitful as a discussion on religion or politics.. Where both sides are eager to talk, but neither will listen. So i'm out.

What boulder? I see jool and laythe in the sky in the first pic, but that's it.

He was gloating because I haven't managed it yet.. Got plenty of stuff ON eve.. Getting off it again and back without resorting to cheater parts/cfg file editing is another matter. I know it's possible. I've seen it done. But I haven't personally managed it yet. I also don't understand how people like that can even legitimately feel like they actually accomplished something, when all they did was avoid the challenge all together. It's like being in a foot race, sitting in a lawn chair at the start/finish line for the whole thing, then getting an award for being last place, and actually being proud of that award... I just don't get the mentality... Probably a bad analogy since KSP isn't a competition, however my point is I don't get how people can brag about and be proud of stuff, when they put zero effort into doing it.

I think there are likely multiple boulders now, and since ike is a fixed target relative to duna, being tidally locked and geostationary, I think the duna boulder is probably on a perpetual free return orbit between the two of them.

This. I have a friend who plays KSP pretty much exclusively using cheater parts (literally. He edits part .cfg's) and relies exclusively on mechjeb's autopilot. I really don't give a crap if that's how he enjoys playing or not, but when he starts bragging to me about things like landing on eve and getting back, when I know he only accomplished it with near unlimited fuel and ultra high thrust engines, (I have the .craft file. with unedited .cfg's the thing won't even make it to LKO) and him pushing a button and sitting back and watching as it flew itself there and back.. Well, it just makes me want to smack him.

RCS is still useful for attitude control on REALLY large craft where timings are critical. And for low delta-v changes in space where it's useful to be able to traverse the craft on any axis without changing it's orientation (i.e. docking). Beyond those two scenarios, RCS is pretty much a waste of mass.

When trying to figure out what to do with the 3 relatively useless 'test' craft I ended up in 100km lko from the other night's testing, I decided I might as well practice orbital rendezvous. Took a few hours, but I finally got all three into a parking orbit within 50m of each other heh.. With no mechjeb Matching the third ship to the other two, took considerably less time than than matching the second ship to the first. I didn't think I did to bad, considering these things have zero RCS on them. Also. I disagree. For one. I wouldn't use RCS on that lander.. I'd dump it to save the weight, and go with the T45 with the vector thrust on it. For me, light craft just don't need RCS.. Like you said, the pod reaction wheel is perfectly capable of handling attitude control. Yes the T45 is heavier and has a lower TWR, but a lander with no RCS will be easier to cancel lateral motion with a gimballing engine than it will with a fixed motor. And you'll get MUCH higher delta-v without that heavy RCS tank, regardless of what engine is used. Also. I might be alone in this camp, but looks don't really mean squat to me.. If i'm trying to do something, it's function over form.. always. I also have little interest in recreating any 'real' spacecraft. My typical playstyle is to try to get the job done using as few parts as possible and have it be fairly reliable.. I.E.. not have to deal with it randomly exploding 5 times for ever one good launch.

Yeah I expect aerospikes to change at some point. that or the LV-T30's to be improved somehow. I'm sure aerospikes not wanting to attach to tricouplers is intentional to reduce their usability for engine clusters, to try and give the LV-T30 a reason to actually be used. As it stands now.. you can stick an aerospike on one of the .3 mass engine housings, and get more thrust, better Isp, and still be able to stick them anywhere a LV-T30 can go... Actually more places, since you can stick the engine housings directly to the sides of things. All for only a .05 mass penalty. Right now, at least from a performance standpoint for engine clusters. There's zero use for the LV-T30. About the only situation the T30 is superior, is when you need a single engine, and need it stacked in a vertical stage, and don't need thrust vectoring. As far as the testing. I knew changing to aerospikes was going to help. I was actually kind of surprised it didn't help more than it did. And on the SRB staging changes helping.. It was really just an experiment. I wasn't sure if it'd help or hurt.. After thinking about it. I think the reason firing them all at the beginning helps is due to the total delta-v added by them being relatively the same as the original staggered firing at the relatively low altitudes it happens, and most of the benefit actually comes from being able to lose more mass earlier in the flight when dumping them all at once, as opposed to two just being dead weight for the first stage.

Yes. Yes we do. And? I honestly don't care if other people use mechjeb or not. I don't, and I don't like being told it's needed. Also, craft that are stated to /require/ mechjeb to even get in orbit, likely aren't very optimised or reliable designs. And 40t is plenty to get to Duna and back.

This probably belongs in the spacecraft exchange instead of general discussion.

You'll most likely find that mission sitting on the pad ready to relaunch when you restart. :/

I played totally stock for a long time, and made it to mun, minmus, eve, and duna. Then finally added protractor and kerbal engineer redux to reduce the math/random guessing needed to deal with interplanetary transfers. I don't really agree with autopilots, but to be honest, I in general don't care how people play their own game. What generally annoys me the most about it isn't the autopilot itself, but more the 'Why should I learn to do it when there's something that does it for me?' attitude that's prevalent in the current generation. The only other mod I have is pretty silly. The left for dead Cadillac rover/capsule.. stumbled on it here http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/24141-From-a-Linkerlb-67 and it's now my rescue craft of choice (Seats 5 in style!) It also required tosh's carts, but I haven't done anything with those otherwise. In general I try to stick with stock parts, most of the other mods i've tried in the past have made the game significantly easier, which isn't why I play. Using stock parts presents a challenge, which I like.

Stick your shuttle on the end of a normal rocket, instead of hanging it off the side. 'space shuttle emulation' builds are ridiculously hard to do in KSP for two reasons.. The real shuttle's main engines have gimbal ranges of almost 11 degrees, where as the largest gimbal range of a stock part in KSP is only 2.5 degrees I believe. Plus they're canted outwards. This high gimbal range lets the real shuttle, and droptank, tilt, and keep the center of thrust in line with the center of mass. The only way to accomplish this in KSP is to edit part cfg files, and fly manually. ASAS isn't capable of flying like this, and mechjeb isn't smart enough to either. give me a min and i'll whip up a MS paint drawing of what i'm talking about. Here we go.. (ignore the SRB's, they're gone by this stage of flight) As shown here, after the SRB's detach, the shuttle actually flies at an angle relative to it's direction of motion, which keeps the center of mass inline with the center of thrust, and by the time the SRB's are dumped, the shuttle is high enough that atmospheric drag isn't an extreme issue and the high engine gimbal range is able to adjust for it. Like I said, neither ASAS or mechjeb are capable of flying a craft in this kind of offset inclination currently. It can only be done manually at the moment. [ATTACH=CONFIG]34911[/ATTACH]

I don't use mechjeb. It's not installed, and never will be. Plus that looks like way more than is needed to get to duna, land, and get back.