Causeless

In my opinion they would look better just as extended stock tanks.

At the left is the edge of the page... you look right. That\'s incredibly ironic, you joked about him looking the wrong way when you actually got muddled up.

Scroll down. The analog axis are there.

If HarvesteR gives permission (he probably will, considering this is free), you should add the vanilla parts. If he adds any new parts or edits any in the paid release, it may get a bit tricky though, and you probably couldn\'t add the new paid parts. Well, unless this became official and required your account, via some check with this official website.

Hey, I know this is a bit of a bump, but for anyone wondering how to land without mods, and without wings (which really unbalance the craft), then instead of putting the RCS tanks and thrusters below the capsule, place them on top, and pop a parachute on top of that. I\'m surprised no-one thought of this before.

It would be kinda difficult, considering that all ships can be different. However, I once managed to make a ship that auto-orbited, back at 0.9, using a purely-timing based script I made. I don\'t have it anymore, though, because I use a different computer now, and I decided not to port the hard drive over (it was almost full and had lots of useless stuff in it).

Ah, right, I understand now; I\'ve managed mockups, where I land and half of my ship explodes, but nothing really successful. The main problem is how big everything needs to be, which make handling a bit hard.

Edit: Oh, common! Why the lack of answers? At least tell me what\'s wrong with it... Well, every single non-explosive mun landing EVER has been a power landing... there is no atmosphere, thus parachutes cannot work, and thus the only way to land is with some sort of power.

*puts booster cannons in orbit* *watches as they malfunction midway through flight, heading directly towards Kerbopolis, a major city*

It\'s still easy... weightlessnessis achieved when you are freely under the influence of gravity. Thus, being in a simple free-fall achieves it. In fact, as just having your engines off is weightlessness, no matter what direction you are travelling. As long as the ground isn\'t in the way, and you aren\'t applying thrust, you are weightless. Oh, the reason I say 'weightless' is because zero-g is impossible. Zero-g implies zero gravity; that is, no gravity at all. However, because gravity still exists everywhere in the universe, it\'s impossible to not be under the influence of it, even if it\'s only in minuscule amounts. In ksp, zero-g is technically possible however, due to rounding numbers when the number is incredibly small.

Not entirely true. The game used floating origin, which means the ship never goes far away enough form the origin to break things. I\'m not sure if any fail-safe is in place for the planet\'s distance.

It\'s a bug in 0.12 x1, fixed now. I can easily do it, just time warp though kerbin, and even though it says the speed goes down, it doesn\'t actually go off rails.

Probably not, those are easy. And technically, even before takeoff you are in a solar orbit.

Hey, Nova, you should only add gimballing to the weaker engines, so that people are encouraged to use winglets in the atmosphere with their powerful launch vehicles.

General Discussion: The new /b/. :

The next step? Escape Velocity with just 2 Liquid Fuel Tanks. It might just be possible... use both techniques at once - careful change of throttle, and horizontal burn.

I\'m working hard at getting those posts. One of them came from here! ;p

You should change all the weights so that you get lowered gravity, like on the moon.

Firstly, Metric is more exact - you never really need to say that a number is *approximately* this or that, and also the difference is that you can find out what a decameter is once, with little need to put effort into remembering, while with imperial you have to remember lots of values which are all crazy with little relation to each other. Also, Aliv3, stop acting like you have control over this! We aren\'t arguing over you or your suggestion whatsoever, we are just debating about Metric and Imperial. So, no offence but learn that we can talk about what we want, we aren\'t obliged to talk about your suggestion.

So? No one else was posting about anything! But seriously, 0.12 should be badass. I was just thinking about it, and it kinda just struck me only know. We are getting a moon. A MOON. Let that run through your head, then realise how major that is, it\'s what.everyone has wanted since the beginning of development. Heh. Also dryerlint, I can\'t... But seriously, stfu about it, we all know metric is better, and that\'s FINAL. (I kid I kid don\'t get butthurt...)

Said like a true Kerbal, .

Uhm, nowhere near that much work needs to be done. Physics can stay the same, all he needs to do is change what is shown on the UI, just converting the values and symbols on the HUD, but the back-end of the game needs no modification whatsoever.

It\'s not as easy as that. Here in the UK, it\'s taken around 40 years to get where we are with metric, yet we are still a long way off. EDIT: Also, Aliv, we aren\'t saying you had a bad idea - it\'s a good idea, we are just kinda arguing about which one is best, and also kinda which should be default in a way. It should eventually be added though, as an option.

Yeah, I live in the UK so I\'m a bit used to it, but it is quite odd - the reason I imagine it hasn\'t been changed is because such a sudden change would be a major surprise - if I had my way, I would have a slow change - for example, standardize all the speeds to km (so instead of 70 mph, convert to km/h and round up to nearest 10) and then add this next to all the mph values on signs, push to make speedometers show km as the main value, etc, and slowly convert. The reason it is the way it is, is just to stop old people complaining! ;P Also hobbified, get back to your hole and realise that metric makes sense... 100 cm in a metre, 1000 metres in a km... Imperial is a random assortment of measurements. It\'s like inches are based off whoever thought of Imperial up\'s guys penis size, yards are this guys wanted size, miles are from some guys definition of 'over there' and feet are some bulgarian kings shoe size or something. NONE of it makes sense. Oh and Epsilion, Nova said '5000 something', as in, around 5000. SO he\'s not technically wrong!

I love how you act as if meters (metric) are the odd one out, when in fact feet (imperial) are... Almost EVERYWHERE uses meters, essentially, except America... Scientists, even in America, use metric because it makes so much more sense. Imperial is pretty much just random scribbles as if everyone made their own measurement for each object, so they have little relation to each other. Metric makes sense because everything scales right.