M5000

I've been here since early 2013, I believe is when I started. I can't remember exactly what version I started on, I think it was .18.something but here's some stuff I remember: -The demo was .13 when I joined -"Rovers" consisted of a fuel tank, some stuff to keep the electricity and control core alive, a rocket engine, and some landing gear strapped to the tank. -NovaPunch, Kethane, Bobcat Ent, MechJeb pre-2.0. -The shuttle and inline cockpit had no custom IVA just that blank plate thing. -KSP was not on Steam yet. -Other things. My forum profile says April of 2013, I believe I played a few months before I made a forum profile...I...Think.....Oh wait, reading above I forgot all about the great wipe of 2013...I don't know if I had to re-create an account or not..Hm..Curious.

This is probably my #1. I've been playing since..I think .18.0 (the demo when I started was .13, I remember that) and there has never been even a single time that my game has been unplayable due to something the devs did or a decision the team had made. The only time it's been unplayable is if I decide to try a mod and it ends up being way too OP, at which point I just remove it and continue with my life...

Very nice...Will be using that.

Gorgeous lifters you have there. Have any pics in-game? And did you use a special trick to make that picture or are you just good with Photoshop/GIMP/whatever? Edit: I see in-game pics. Do you have MORE in-game pics?

I do this as well, although with this save I've been creating rockets as there have been holes/need for them, but I used to make them all at the beginning. I typically name things like this: -Rockets and lifters are always named after stars. My heaviest rockets are the Betelgeuse series, these are the muscle of the fleet and can support massive payloads, the biggest being the Betelgeuse XXRM. The mid to heavy workhorses for lifting most medium to heavy payloads are the Canopus series, they are typically simple rockets but get the job done. Medium lifters are Vega series, Lights are Pollux, and manned-mission rated lifters (Basically ones outfitted with proper equipment to take care of a failure without damage to payload) are Procyon. -Rocket-Launched OTVs (non-spaceplanes) are named after sea creatures - The main OTV I use is named Nautilus and it has several variants on a base model. -Planes are usually birds or other things that fly, spaceplanes can be mythical creatures, flying or non flying, but do not have to be. -Probes and Satellites are usually some witty acronym, or whatever word sounds cool or something I make up. They're more or less random. -Stations are usually something-STAR, but this may change as I get more. Right now all I have is KerbSTAR which is Kerbin Station for Testing And Research. -Rovers are a land-based animal usually, name not necessarily being in English, for example one of my Eve rovers was named Tortuga. -Landers grab any old deity name -Bases sort of do the station thing, but also may be like a probe/satellite in that they're just kind of random.

Interesting little plane there.. Is it asymmetrical or is that just the picture? And if it is asymmetrical, was it intentionally so?

Shouldn't be anything special.. You have to tell the game which input you want to be what under the main menu's settings. I have an Extreme 3D Pro as well and my setup follows the typical flight stick controls (mostly): -Forward/Back axis - Pitch -Side/Side axis - Roll -Twist axis - Yaw -Throttle on the throttle slider -Hat switch is typically used to control camera but I don't think the game likes it that way, I usually bind the hat switch to docking planar translation controls then two other buttons to the up/down but that's not the best I've found. -Trigger might be good as staging or as a very frequently used action group -The rest are literally just buttons to do with as you want.

I..Don't see why it wouldn't? At least for KSP, not sure about E:D. When I want to use analog inputs, I use an Xbox 360 controller or a Logitech Extreme 3D Pro joystick. I'd be less concerned with compatibility and more concerned with build quality. ~10 bucks probably isn't going to be too great of a unit. I know from experience that cheaper controllers are (usually) never worth the price savings. I'd recommend going, if price has to be super low to go with something like this, assuming you don't need vibration: http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-940-000110-Gamepad-F310/dp/B003VAHYQY If you do, still think a wired XB360 controller is the best bet: http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Wired-Controller-Windows-Console/dp/B004QRKWLA/ Or for the same approximate price here's the Logitech Extreme 3D pro which is used by a lot of players of this game. (No vibration though) but is one of the best cheap joysticks out right now (if anyone has a better unit chime in). http://www.amazon.com/Extreme-3D-Pro-Joystick-Windows/dp/B00009OY9U/ Up to you to figure out what you need but personally I'd stay away from cheaper units like that. But to answer your original question: "It should."

I think you could satisfy both sides of the argument, that is to say, realism versus balance, if you were to simply require those who wanted to use a thermocouple (a separate part, perhaps) to also be equipped with cumbersome and heavy radiator fins, as the RTG also needs cooling, so why then, wouldn't the NERVA based reactor?

I think I did a 12Km out/12Km back EVA on the Mun with mostly jetpack power, wanted to go faster than the rover was allowing...

I like your rover! Looks quite impressive form the picture! As for the mod packs, I can identify the following: -KW Rocketry batteries -B9 lights -I forget the name, but whatever it is that adds the tank tracks -I believe those white things are radiators from Near Future Propulsion, though I'm not sure, which means there's probably a reactor on there somewhere, plus the nuclear fuel canisters also appear to be from the same pack. I just can't locate the reactor... Hm.. Those are all the non-stock parts I can see, hopefully this helps people who are wondering what some of the parts are. -M5K

If you've updated to the latest version, which is 0.23, you should be able to tweak the legs so that the suspension is locked, making them behave more or less exactly like they did in the older versions.

This is a gorgeous looking shuttle, pretty much the best one I've ever seen made publicly available, and especially considering it's made of stock parts. And the fact that it has a little four-kerb compartment that makes the shuttle able to hold the 7 crew members that the real thing could, and they come out into the main payload bay and everything, and I just cannot express the amount of impress-ed..ness I have for this amazing looking craft. While I generally don't download people's craft, since I prefer to make my own, I may download this one to tear it apart and see how you did it. Beautiful craft, I really like it. -M5K

Do I "hate" the pod? Absolutely not. Are there improvements that I would make? Yes, for sure. -As mentioned, the door matches up oddly with all the vertical-stack based pods. It should be matched up with the likes of the landercan and such. I understand why it'd be offset, though, as it was an early pod. -Personally, if asked to redesign I'd give it a bit of a texture update of some sort.. Except I'm bad at textures. -Kind of wish it had a built-in heatshield-like thing, like the single man pod. It looks so bare and adding one is kinda pointless. -The fact that it has texture-based RCS thrusters with obvious burn marks, yet they are nonfunctional. I'd love if they'd assign thrust points to them, and possibly add a bit of geometry so that they were vaguely nozzle-shaped. Just a thought. Overall, though, it's the only stock 3-man pod we have, and one of the best 3-man pod out there. The only one that has real competition with it is the 3-man capsule from the KOSMOS pack, but I don't see a major reason NOT to use it, it's more or less perfectly functional.

Of course! I love those big wheels! The lifter for this thing was insane, it was like four massive lifters, one on each corner. I still have no idea how, or why, that entire mission worked. Here it was landing... Kind of a bad picture but it shows the skycrane (more of a landercrane, as it landed first then dropped the rover a short distance onto the surface) in the background. And here it is in all of its 12-wheel glory. Yes, there was a MechJeb module on the back. No, I did the flight entirely manually, I just needed MJ to help with rover autopiloting. To be entirely honest, this was probably my favorite (and best) rover I've ever launched. It crewed 16 Kerbals and I was constantly leaping and bounding over hills and craters with no real damage... Though, there was one point where I blew out all the wheels from going too fast. I slid over a kilometer until it finally stopped so a Kerb could get out and repair the wheels. That was fun... Though, through the whole mission, I don't believe there was a single hitch. Not one quicksave or quickload, no structural failures, it actually held together quite well, surprisingly.

How could you not? It's the only way to have booster sep safely whilst at the same time performing a gravity turn. I could never see my designs working as well as they do without the sep motors.

Multiplayer for sure. Multiplayer just adds to the features already in the game without requiring an entire, game-changing set of gameplay dynamics. Resources can't do that without totally changing the way players interact with the game. You see, what originally attracted me to this game was the fact that there were no resources in the game and that I could just go into the VAB and build a massive rocket with no regards for economic feasibility, health, or safety concerns, and (semi)realistically launch it into space. I mean, the way I understood that resources were to be implemented was that there was a finite number of resource X or resource Y or resource Z and you had to more or less "craft" them together to create resource Q so that you could build rocket part W. Everyone's so scared of KSP becoming the next Minecraft, I don't see why we're so sad to see resources more or less be scrapped. It's Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Mining Program. I don't know, it's about creating and managing a space program, even in career mode. Space programs, as far as I know, do not have their own mining divisions. You don't ask SpaceX to go out and mine its aircraft grade Aluminum out of the ground. No, they buy it in its more or less "completed" form and shape it to form the parts they need. Multiplayer, on the other hand, has the potential to make the game super fun. I believe it was on one of the KerbalKon streams where one of the devs(?) or streamers(?)...Well, someone mentioned that Multiplayer would be cool because you'd be able to get yourself and two friends into a CSM and fly the Apollo 11 mission with them, where all three players could have control over some part of the ship. It's a level of cooperation and immersion that I think would really make the game more interesting to play. I've played the KMP mod on a server, and, while it's still really buggy, it's insanely fun, even if it basically is just a bunch of people syncing to each other in Sandbox mode. The fact that I could, if I wanted to, dock to another player's craft that is being actively controlled, seems, like, awesome. There is literally no other game currently on the market that would offer a (realistic) space simulation in multiplayer. And even if it isn't the favorite feature of some players, you don't /have/ to play it in MP. That's the thing about MP, it's not a required part of the game. There's no possible way that it could actually /subtract/ from the gaming experience involved. Whereas resources, where a fundamental part of the gameplay mechanics were to be changed, there would be a distinct polarization between supporters and opposers. So, that's why I'm personally really glad that SQUAD is taking the game the direction it's going, it will only help the publicity, and I believe will round out the features in the game. Remember, nobody's going to force you to play multiplayer. So there's that.

Nah, it's okay. I was just throwing things at a wall to see what sticks. Also, about the refueling thing, I thought we just needed a clamp-o-tron senior that was intended (but not required) to be able to be used to refuel. I misunderstood, but that's okay. I just wanted to see if you overlooked SRBs or if I could somehow win by being sneaky. Fun little challenge! c: -M5K

Does this count? Technically, nothing was said about SRBs in any way, shape or form, so my score would be 0, since I used no liquid fuel to get to orbit. I used it to de-orbit, but alas, this was not part of the challenge. I understand if you overlooked SRBs, things happen, you don't have to count this entry. At most, I just did really well. At least, I just exposed a loophole in your rules hehehe c: -M5K

Oooh, this sounds fun actually. I'll see if I can't get to work on an entry, as I might have a way to be witty about this challenge.

This. I just built a rover yesterday that's very compact yet extremely stable and reliable based around the RoveMate. It looks something like a Russian version of a solar-powered Curiosity.

Now, I'm not horribly familiar with the RSS mod, so I have a question, and then if the question is answered with the result I am expecting, a possible solution. Does the RSS mod automagically change the specific impulse of the engines to realistic values, to match the planet sizes? IIRC, the stock values for engines, as well as what most mods are balanced for, are significantly inefficient compared to real-world counterparts. If it does not account for the difference in Isp, why not modify it yourself? You've built quite a large rocket there and, while I understand that the Saturn V was also huge to get to the Moon, I believe that it may be able to be done with a smaller rocket, or at least one that's a bit shorter. That's kind of my personal aversion toward the RSS mod, in that I often see people creating massive, Saturn-V/SLS sized launchers to put like, 10 tons into LKO, due to the anemic engines that would work fine in stock KSP, yet are very underpowered or inefficient in RSS. It's just not realistic at all. However, I may be entirely misguided as I'm not horribly familiar with the RSS mod, but it seems that it, in fact, does not influence the specific impulse of engines. So, that may be something to consider if you truly are going for realism. You might be able to get away with a much smaller (shorter) rocket.

Wow, I'm late to the party if anything. Can't believe I missed this. Really enjoy the work you guys are doing and what you stand for, really wish there were more rocketry groups like you guys! -M5K

Same, I'm considering entering the next challenge when it arises, it would be cool to add a sort of "stock ships expansion" series to this, where we fill out where the stock ships may be incomplete. I love craft design challenges, as it's not about the pilot, but the engineer in each player. Just wishful thinking -M5K

Apologies, I misread your name, it was a reversal of two letters that for some reason I had convinced myself looked right. I will correct the errors in my post. Yes, I have in fact imposed my own criteria, however, they are criteria that I believe tend to a generally good craft, in addition to the original guidelines set forth. These features may not have been considered when the craft was originally built, but my vote remains unchanged because it describes what I think personally would make a good stock rover and skycrane. Just because the craft was not designed for a certain criteria, and said criteria is not expressly mentioned in the guidelines, does not mean that the craft is exempt from judging for those criteria, especially when the voting guidelines are left so open as they were. All the guidelines asked is that our vote includes the features described, but said nothing about whether or not one would be encouraged/discouraged to impose their own set of criteria. Since there was no explicit part of the guidelines saying specifically to only follow the features as said, I see no problem with judging it as I see fit. Besides, I would venture to guess I'm not the only one who voted in this manner, I simply was one of the people who explained how they had voted. I do apologize, however, if I offended you by voting in a manner that may not have been expected. -M5K