M5000

AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition, AM2+ Socket (3.0 GHz Quad Core, archaic really, but it's been a very reliable CPU) 8GB DDR2 RAM Sapphire ATI Radeon HD4850 512MB RAM, PCI Express x16 2.0 Western Digital Caviar Blue 640GB HDD, SATA 2.0 Yes, my system is old. About five years so to the original build. Yes, it will still run whatever I throw at it in an acceptable quality and framerate to me. KSP has been so heavily optimized that even archaic systems such as mine are able to play the game effectively. If you're having problems and your system is more advanced or higher-spec than mine, you may want to look into your settings. Mind you, I can't play with absolutely full everything, but I can still play it without the game looking horrible. Again, I say, if you're having legitimate issues with framerate on a rig similar or better than mine in "theory", you may want to look into some driver updates, or check your task manager to make sure something isn't eating up your processor in the background, because, if OP is to be taken literally and believed, a 6-10 part vessel (more than 5 parts) should cause no reasonable rig a significant performance drop as is being described.

No, it wasn't really off topic to begin with, I genuinely like the idea and am curious as to how he managed that... I can't tell if it's one of those radial adapters.. Or schnazzy use of Editor Extensions mod... No idea..

OP, I have no idea how you managed that but I really like your craft, and that idea for space saving... Top notch!

I like this idea, I think it would begin to really have more of its place when career mode is more robustly implemented, such as having certain parts of spacecraft that you "retrieve" from the world, and place in this stockpile. You could then use these parts/ships in the VAB/SPH as subassemblies of their own, except you would have limited quantity, which would depend directly on how many you have retrieved from the world. You could place these pieces on your craft in place of "New" parts, and they would then help you lower the cost of the ship you are building. This would make it very profitable and sensible to then have a reusable launch system, where the cost of the ship would basically only be fuel+a bit of maintenance/assembly labor. Recovery could help you find: -SRBs -Individual parts, such as struts/trusses/science modules -Large, multi-part side booster rockets -Command pods -Anything you can safely return to the surface

Actually, I would argue that the reason that there are no electric planes is that they cannot produce thrust in enough quantities to be useful for large aircraft. There's just no way with current technology to produce usable actual THRUST to push a plane at speeds faster than a jet engine. We use jets because fuel is still cheap (compared to the cost of maintenance, licensing, insurance, et cetera) to operate a plane, and produces enough thrust to move our planes at speeds that are actually advantageous in the interest of time rather than driving a car. If we were to use electric planes, the batteries would have to either spin the jets at incredible speeds (which in turn requires a lot of current from the batteries) in a ducted-fan type system, or turn the props just like an old propeller plane. The batteries would, in fact be too heavy, or would not produce a desirable output that is significantly more advantageous over jet fuel. Regardless, back on to the topic of wheels powered by LF/O or IntakeAir, I'm still not seeing the practicality of them over standard rover wheels..

Do it like the Russians, trial and error baby!

I don't personally think this would be such a good idea. Before you say anything, let it be known that I am a huge car person, I love cars, I love engines, I love it all. BUT, this is Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Racing Program. Rover wheels are always run on electricity, because internal combustion engines need AIR in addition to fuel to operate. We don't have air (oxygen) on any planet except Kerbin and Laythe. It's just not a thing... Electric wheels work totally fine...

I love the Mun and Kerbin. Because they're home, and they're just classics. Also, when optimizations/upgrades are done, they're done to Kerbin and Mun first (Like the art pass they got last update? It was for Kerbin, Mun, and Duna only if you remember, and if I'm not mistaken.) I just love the Mun, and on Kerbin I can test stuff without having to launch a whole mission. (Gravity hacking and hyperedit isn't cool.)

YES. I have that song on my KSP playlist... Ugh, so much soul... I keep mostly songs that have been in major/notable KSP videos/cinematics, and/or remind me of space, plus a few other good classics... - (Basically just because it defined Rock, and it's on Voyager I. Plus it's a great song.)M83 - Outro - We all know what this is from... <3 M83 - We Own The Sky - M83 basically /is/ space... - The song that basically won't quit. - If I'm doing any kind of plane mission, I play this. - An alternate song for plane flying. - One of my favorite songs of all time. Very good docking music. - Also a good docking song, has some very relaxing bits in it.CHRONOS - Sky Path - The main part of this song is great for general spacey stuff. - One of the most beautiful songs produced in modern time, great for landings or launches. Don't get chills, I dare you. - Another beautiful song I found from - Love love love this song.Those are some of my favorites...

Hmm. I've never launched a "first mission" as a universal clock (use the MET on this craft to track total time passed.) I've been playing since 18.2, where there was no "revert to VAB/SPH" there... And I've done several interplanetary missions, spread way out. Plus a few very slow rendezvous missions where I totally missed... I imagine that anything pre-.21 consists of about 20 years of play, maybe? Then if you don't consider me time-reverting when my experimental vessel fails on the pad, and actual successful missions, I'd say add another 5 years or so. 25 years maybe..? Though, I always like to think of my space program in a more roleplay-world type manner. I imagine it started somewhere in the 60's, and rocket design has progressed very much since then...

Of course they respawn, they got a whole tank of 'em. Why do you think the biggest tank is orange? When they die, they just pour the liquid Kerbal into a mold and out pops three more orange suits.

Ain't nothing wrong with that, loving the good 'ol SPS engine on there. Personally, the craft I've used so many times over and over is my Betelgeuse-I Delta Heavy lifter. That link is to download it on spaceport, which is a slightly outdated version of what I'm currently developing, but its' parameters are the same. I love the Betelgeuse series of rockets, they have slowly evolved from something that was just a wild idea back in .18.2, to a highly refined, highly versatile lifter that it is today. It has evolved from a Stock/KSPX/KW Rocketry to cutting out the KSPX parts to streamline development and market to more buyers (users). While the new Betelgeuse-III Gamma is being tested for eventual release, the Betelgeuse-I Delta will remain the last of the first in the Betelgeuse series, and serves as the front technology demonstrator for the entire family, all future Betelgeuse lifters will take design and application cues from the Version I Delta, and it still sees very active use in my space program, while the Version III is developed. (Version II will be a smaller, 2.5m core lifter, while III and all variants after that will be based on a 3.75m core platform.) Picture of Betelgeuse-I Delta: Look at some of the amazing features that Version I can accomplish: -Maximum recommended payload capacity of 65 tons, 67 ton tested. -Can deliver 65 ton payload without tapping into fuel supply of payload. -Payload test orbit at 100Km, circular. -Upper insertion stage usually retains significant amounts of fuel after final insertion burn if optimal flight path is followed. -Upper insertion stage contains supply of RCS for use of orbital maneuvering of large payloads, or translation. -Upper insertion stage contains four RCS thrusters for orbital maneuvering or translation, assuming payload is balanced with thrusters. -Upper insertion stage contains small power supply, autonomous capabilities for self-deorbit, and SAS systems for flight path use. Betelgeuse-I Delta is designed for: -Station building -Small single-shot unmanned interplanetary missions, usually usable as a transfer stage for most of transfer burn -Delivery of very large payloads safely and reliably to orbit -Looking good while doing just about anything The stock payload that comes with the Betelgeuse-I Delta is a microstation, pictured below. The Orbital Transit Vehicles attached to it, however, are not. Please note that this micro fuel station/fuel depot is smaller than the maximum recommended payload size and is designed for demonstration purposes and proving only. So yeah, this craft has been with me since I started playing in .18.2, and, while it wasn't my first craft, it's certainly my proudest, most reliable, and most trustworthy craft I have. It's been under constant development, and has evolved incredibly since its inception. It has truly set the pace for my entire space program, with the model that "If it can't be put up by Betelgeuse-I, it's too big and needs to be broken down." Obviously this is changing with the advent of new parts and technology, but it still sets the pace for my entire program. I have built five stations using nothing but this lifter.

If you're having trouble correcting, try checking to make sure you have enough control surfaces, and that they are placed in good places. For example, that tail fin looks fairly small for a craft of that size. It looks good, but it might not be providing enough control authority.

My only issue with this is, how would you know that the clamps would fit such a wide range of rockets. OP describes clamps being attached TO the rocket, being specific to the model. That brings to my mind, the launch tower the Soyuz uses, that surrounds the rocket until it takes off, then they fall/hinge away. What happens when I build a rocket with sizeable side-boosters, or I build a Saturn-V sized rocket? Obviously a tower built for a Soyuz will not fit around a Saturn-V. The way it is now, with the pads, is really not a bad solution. I propose they you may instead be implementing the pads improperly, or that your rocket is not structurally sound. However, am I saying that this is a bad idea? Absolutely not, I like the idea of large launch gantrys and little graphical FX for fuel boiling off, but it does pose some problems when you think about it on any scalable or widely usable level..

Of course it's practical, just make sure you do it as high up as possible! (That includes mid-transfer too) I come in the wrong way almost every time, but I change it high up so it usually only takes 200-400m/s DV to change my orbit completely around, in a single retrograde-then-prograde burn.

Unfortunately, I personally do not know of a way in the stock game, nor any mods that will give you this functionality.. I agree it gets cluttered fast, so I feel your pain. Perhaps some other users may have some better insight?

Favorite Planet? Kerbin. Favorite moon? Mun. I know, I'm so boring, but when 90% of my missions to another surface have been to the Mun, it's kinda hard not to love it. And why Kerbin? Because Kerbin is home. It's where you're safe for a few billion years till the sun expands, it's where you have the means to build anything you want. It's where you can test craft without first launching them somewhere else.. My alternate answers to this question would be: Planet: Duna. It's so pretty, the warmly colored surface and atmosphere make it seem so much more barren and untouched than it already is, plus it's low gravity and you should be able to make it to orbit with a slightly beefed-up Mun lander. Also low altitude aerobraking <3 Moon: Vall. It's by far, in my opinion, the most gorgeous atmosphere-lacking body in the game, save for possibly the Mun after it got the art pass. I love Vall even if I've never successfully gotten to the surface in one piece. It's a love/hate thing...

Alrighty, I just got on and received my PM about locking the thread, and I am doing so with this post, so the time capsule is all filled with nifty stuff and pictures to remind us of KSP in its infancy. So, without further ado, I now pronounce this thread honorably locked, to be re-opened when the OP requests. -M5K

This. This is my general sentiment. KSP is a unique game and its community is almost self-limiting, due to the nature of the game itself. You see, KSP is both an incredibly attractive, yet somewhat repulsive game, to the outside, uninformed user. First off, there are a LOT of very nice KSP cinematic videos that may make people super interested in the game, not to mention all the streamers and commentators. This provides an initial hook to a wide variety of people, I think. However, I think there's another group of users that simply isn't interested in space, plus there are those who cannot, or will not, put up with the learning curve involved in the game. So, that said, I think the game will self-limit its userbase to only those who can put up with the game itself, which in turn implies a generally friendly community like we have now.

What are you trying to apply this to? To sandbox? Or are you trying to suggest a new way to structure the career mode? If it's the first, I don't think that would go over very well with players, they'd all be wanting a sandbox, an unlimited playspace. If it's the second, the devs are already well on their way to having completed the Tech Tree which is a different approach to unlocking parts. To restructure it now would mean a lot of backend work that most end users don't see.

Yes, it is, in fact, possible to lock and then re-open a thread. Just let me know the exact moment you want it locked and/or re-opened. And I think I'll contribute my very first major mission, from 18.2.... And my latest... Here's to hoping we'll all still be around when time comes in the future to open this thread.

There are four ways to really do this... 1: The hard way: You go into the .craft files and make a new one, then add parts in manually as you need them... I honestly don't know how to do this, but I imagine it's possible, as I've heard of users doing it before. 2: The mod way: You download the Subassembly Manager (also VERY good to pair with Select Root which lets you re-define the root part of your vessel.) These, used in conjunction with one another, will allow some pretty good options for your subassembly needs. 3: The "wait it out" way: The next version of KSP, version 0.22, is said to have subassembly functionality built in to the game itself. Now, select root might still be a good mod to have, but the game should have its subassembly functionality on the next update. 4: The un-way: Manually replicate each craft you're to sub-assemble, piece by piece, using your head and/or pictures. Those are the only ways I know to do any kind of subassembly work you can do.

I don't see why it should, as you're changing only the colors. A texture that is X pixels by Y pixels, will take up Z space on the disk and in memory, no matter what color it is, assuming ALL other variables in the file are kept constant. (Bit depth, file type, compression ratio if applicable, metadata) which should not change anyhow unless you tell them to.

Oh no, it's good. I like this project.

Monitoring this thread..