Merinsan

This whole thread reminds me of the old thread about the "End Flight" button, where people were complaining it was too easy to kill space stations, even though they had a confirm button after saying end flight, so they wanted a second confirm button. It doesn't matter how many hints you add to the part about the orientation, people who don't see the current hints are not going to see the new hints. I've put docking ports on the wrong way before. Not only Sr docking ports, but standard size too. It's not hard if you don't pay attention. The point is, pay attention! Personally I don't want arrows on the side, because it would detract from the aesthetics. As a final point: "a bad workman always blames his tools" You have the tools to do the job right. If you can't, it's not the tools fault.

Your target on the navball is the purple circle, however that is pretty much useless to you. To get to Eve, you are going to have to burn in different directions. You need a burn that alters the orbit to move you into Eves SOI, and you'll probably need to execute that burn as far from Eve as possible. I recommend you use the map view with maneuver nodes to plan the burns.

My guess is it's the game itself. Basically, there is something loading in the main event loop thread which is slow. This causes any message from the OS to be queued, and the OS interprets this as unresponsive. I've had it once, when changing SOI to the Mun.

Damn, you beat me to it. Most cities are named after people, so I guess they should all be Kermantown? Of course we could use first names, like: Jebston Bobonia Billsdale

No problem, I was thinking you meant that. Otherwise I'd have been very impressed with the speed you achieved. It's amazing how much extra speed you can pick up just by increasing your altitude 100m. That's why you want to keep going up nice and slow.

Are you saying that you are only going to 2km in altitude? I would suggest you aim for about 20km for a space plane. I've hit 2km/s at that altitude (although it was an ugly plane). I expect at least 1.5km/s. I always try to burn off as much jet fuel as possible too, just to lighten the load.

You mean you can be bothered to get up and get a hot coffee??

Well, I never saw it before, so I thank you!

I had a ship in 0.19 which was basically a big bucket with landing legs to hold stuff in. It kind of worked, except one leg broke off. I managed to deorbit quite a bit of debris with it. As for transfering fuel without docking ports, that can't be done.

As someone who has only been to the Mun and Minmus, you haven't experienced much of the game. You really should experience the challenge of getting to another planet yourself before you even consider letting Mechjeb do it for you.

Actually, it contains food. Bill realized early on that Jeb and Bob would eat everything unless he did something crafty, so he stashed food there and labelled it NOT FOOD, so he had something to eat!

I myself found KSP because of Kurt. He has a far greater exposure than Scott. I am not even subscribed to Kurt, but because Etho liked his KSP video I checked it out. In my opinion, Kurt is the best marketing "tool" that KSP has had, at least until Steam came along. To be honest, Kurt really sucks at KSP, though his videos are entertaining. Scott on the other hand is like a Jedi Master of KSP. I've learnt a lot from his videos, and I have subscribed to his channel because they are good. His channel is primarily a KSP channel. I know he does other stuff, but I get the feeling people are only really interested in him for KSP. People watching his channel mainly got there after starting KSP. Very few would have come to KSP after seeing his channel.

I have experience with this in my job, and the internationalization is the last thing you do. It's not particularly hard, but it's annoying if you have to repeatedly do the same thing over and over.

I had the same problem. I suspect they are scared because they are so far from Kerbin. I never did find a solution however.

So far I've set up a fuel depot around Kerbin in one save, and done 3 Mun landings. Not a single death. I think 11 Kerbals in total have been launched. The last Mun landing I did was special. We actually landed sideways, on a hill. Still managed to take off and get back to Kerbin.

I think the amount of craters is simply excessive. It'd be nice to have some areas that are crater free. I liked the previous Mun, but it could have used more craters, but this is way over the top.

I think the 0.20.2 ASAS was better than the 0.21.1. But 0.21.1 is much better than 0.21.0. I can accept the new ASAS, and expect over time I'll grow to like it's flexibility.

Just tested the new release, with the exact same rocket I used for 0.21. It had a structural failure and started spinning. I couldn't regain control of it fast enough. Probably could have in .20, but I don't expect to recover from the failure I had. Launched again, and despite my engines not gimbaling, the SAS was able to hold it's heading for the burns, mostly. Much better than before. I'd need to try a interplanetary burn of 30 minutes with a nuke before I can feel confident in it, but so far it looks good.

I just tested that one. It seems it's been pimped. Not only is it an ASAS, but it also has torque. Made a very simple rocket for a sub-orbital flight and it kept it completely stable.

Because that's what people do when they get a new version, adjust settings of the physics? I know I haven't. And I'd guess upwards of 90% of the people complaining have not.

Just did a test trip to the Mun and back. I messed up the rocket design, and didn't put gimbaling engines for the final stage of the assent stages. It was a cluster of 4 engines. I had enough fuel on the ascent stage it to get me to the Mun, the problem though was the torque of the capsules was not enough to keep the ship flying straight. It was unable to even stop rotation, while I could manually. Previously the old ASAS would have worked easily for that. Once I ditched that stage, the SAS worked well with the gimbaling engines. It made landing much easier for me.

Another solution I found recently was to build the rover without command pods or probes. That way there is nothing to do torquing. I found out the hard way when I flipped such a rover, and couldn't flip it back.

This question often gets asked, and my response is always the same. Why bother playing the game? The game itself has no purpose, no end goal. There is no point building/launching a rocket even, so you build bases because you can, and it's something more that you can do.

Career mode doesn't exist yet. We have no idea what it will be like. Or are you a secret developer? My understanding of the current quicksave is that it was added because the game is alpha, so to help mitigate the effect of bugs. We don't know what the game will be like in this regard on full release.

Why can't a Kerbal be born small, and their heads grow as they get older? This happens for marsupials.