zarakon

Mun anomaly status: - Two of the arches are normal - One arch is straddling the edge of a crater, so one end is normal and the other end is floating - Monolith near the south pole is floating above a deep glitched hole (about 3km above the bottom of the hole) - Monolith near the north pole is underground at the center of another deep glitched hole - Other monolith is underground, and the surrounding terrain is normal - Neil Armstrong memorial is normal - Crashed saucer is normal Summary: All three monoliths have issues, but everything else is pretty much fine

http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=ksp#q=%22kerbal+space+program%22&cmpt=q

Probably just started a new save file

All three of the monoliths have issues. - The one I posted earlier, floating above the giant hole - Another one is under the ground at the bottom of a similar giant hole. - The third one is under the ground, but with otherwise normal terrain around it. The other five anomalies are normal though.

I would really like to have the old avionics nosecone behavior back for planes

Ok, finally explored all anomaly sites at the Mun two of the arches are normal one arch is straddling the edge of a crater, so one end is normal and the other end is floating one monolith is floating above a deep glitched hole (about 3km above the bottom of the hole) one monolith is underground at the center of another deep glitched hole one monolith is underground, and the surrounding terrain is normal neil armstrong memorial is normal crashed saucer is normal

Mun Monolith in a small crater just south of the equator is just barely underground

You need to make sure to: 1. Dock with a port of the same size (medium) 2. Right click your plane's docking port and choose "control from here" 3. Right click the station's docking port and choose "set as target" That should get your navball markers set up right

That's the kind of plane that could fly beautifully with the old avionics package Flying small planes kind of sucks now, in comparison

Rather than building larger and larger lifters, you can also try doing it in multiple launches. In one launch, put your base payload into orbit. In another launch, put a craft in orbit that will get your payload into Mun orbit Of course, that requires you to learn rendezvous and docking, but at least that's a different direction to go in

I found two of the arches. One was normal, and the other side had one end floating in the space above a new crater. One of the munoliths though was floating above the center of a 4km deep, 1km radius glitchy hole in the ground. It was a real pain to find

that one is -82.2063 : 102.9305 on http://www.kerbalmaps.com/ i haven't checked out all of them yet

After a fairly long search filled with a lander failure, a couple of landing failures, and eventually resorting to infinite EVA fuel... I eventually found this monolith near the south pole: It's floating inside a giant hole, 3-4km deep with 1km radius. It's about 3km up from the very center of the hole. You have to be looking toward the lighted side of the hole to spot it. I probably should turn off terrain scatters when looking for these things...

I've been going around planting flags at all the Mun anomalies, partly because I haven't found them all before, and partly to prepare for an attempt at this challenge. Turns out a maximum score of 500 is impossible! This monolith was a royal pain to find, because it's suspended in the air above the center of a giant pit, 3-4km deep and 1km in radius! So unless you manage to land ON the monolith with your lander, it's impossible to land within 1km of this one

I do really miss the old avionics for planes. It did a much better job of keeping small agile planes under control

It's cool, but I feel like IVA views for the Mk2 and Mk3 cockpits should have been higher priority, as those would actually be functional for flying planes

Official integration of more plugins, such as http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/38285-0-20-x-Subassembly-Manager and http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/38768-0-21-Editor-Extensions-v0-5-24-July-%28EdTools-Editor-Tools-replacement Improved aerodynamics Tweakable parts in editor (changing fuel tank ratios, changing default states of things like engine gimbals) EVA strut placement! Add IVA models for the Mk2 and Mk3 cockpits Achievements! I normally don't really care about achievements in other games, but I think they could work quite well in KSP to add some sort of built-in objectives without making progress too structured

Technically none, I guess. I crashed a couple planes, but always just used the revert to SPH option I actually did do a rescue mission though, which I rarely ever did before. I had a 3-man Mun lander with no parachute or docking ports. I got it back into Kerbin orbit, then launched an empty rescue ship for them to EVA to. Jeb was the last one out, and before he went EVA he turned on the engines of the lander to de-orbit it. He had a bit of a rough ride getting out of there, but he made it

I really like that I can change heading without toggling it off/on, but I do have a few issues. 1. Like others here have said, it just doesn't try hard enough to maintain heading. Even when I have plenty of control authority, it just doesn't use enough of it. 2. It doesn't work as well as it should with analog controls. For example, let's say I have a plane that tends to pitch upward, and it requires 20% pitch-down control to stay level. If I leave the controls alone, it stays level. If I input a 5% upward pitch, instead of pitching up gently at 5% it jumps straight to 25%, because the 20% pitch-down correction just goes away completely. It would be more ideal if it summed together the analog input and the control required to maintain course. So if I input 5% up, it should change from 20% down to 15% down. This would also solve the issue where I try to input 5% down, and the plane actually ends up pitching upward because the control changes from 20% down to just 5% down. If they were summed, my 5% down input would result in a 25% total pitch down control, and a 5% actual pitch down. 3. The selection of parts is lacking. We have a medium reaction wheel, a medium SAS+reaction wheel, and a large SAS-only. Why isn't there a medium SAS-only part, or large reaction wheel parts, or anything probe-sized? A large reaction wheel would be the most-needed, since it's generally large craft that need extra torque

Really, the guideline is for people to just make sure that their challenge is possible before posting it, so that we get less stupid things like "get to orbit with only ion engines" or "construct a ring around Kerbin". Yours is clearly possible, so it's not really an issue, IMO

Any status on fixing the struts and fuel lines problems?

Excellent! Thank you much

A large reaction wheel would be nice too, since large rockets are where they would be needed most

No parts are allowed to break off, but does that include intentional staging or drop-tanks?

What is the point of anything in this game? Making cool things like planetary bases IS the point