AustralianFries

Even though I recognized some of the discrepancies you guys are talking about, I still thoroughly enjoyed it. Like, I doubt CIA/FBI/government agents go into Mission Impossible or 007 movies and cringe at how unrealistic it is.

Typical Whackjob...

I've had some pretty heavy stuff on that runway, and the only thing to make it explode has been a glitchy rover one time.

What even is this thread

A bit confused as to why this is in the General Discussion section. To me it just comes off as an ad for your mission reports thread. Build a base on Minmus.

Munar eclipses occur so much because the Mun has zero inclination relative to Kerbin. They happen very frequently, but the first few times I saw them in game I was in awe as well.

Looks great. Awesome job my friend.

I've been play this game for a long, long time (Summer 2012). This is why I think I'm biased towards sandbox mode. Not sure if that makes sense, however I have never gotten into career mode because it feels too "grindy". I like the idea, and with the addition of contracts I may give it another try some time. That said, I'd much rather "simulate" my own space program. What I mean is start off with small projects (unmanned probes, simple single-seated rockets, etc.) and then get more complex as time goes on. If you followed my KAAST series of mission logs, you'd understand my play style (although that was last active over a year ago so, you know). I already hear "so start off with unlimited resources and pretend that you can't build bigger". In a sense, that statement is accurate and I have no counterargument. The real issue for me, though, is the fact that there is too much repetition in early and mid-game missions. I feel like I'm doing the same thing over and over again with the crew report, EVA report, etc. All of that just to get a piece of science hardware and go to the same locations, collect data, and return. People have suggested unlocking the tech tree via one or two missions (which is completely possible), but is there really any fun in that? I get the challenge aspect, and maybe the sense of accomplishment of completing a hard mission with a simplistic design, but regardless-. There needs to be a balance, where there is far less (or seemingly far less) grinding involved. Surely you must be thinking, if you even read the whole thing which is highly unlikely that anyone did: "there is just no pleasing this guy". Maybe that's true, and maybe career mode just isn't for a old timey, good-ol-days player like myself. Hell, there's a high chance that I'm just playing wrong or something in my style that I could change and make everything better. All valid points, but as it stands right now, I just can't get into it. To disclaim some things, I don't think career mode is bad at all. I think a lot of experienced players respect the challenge of having to start from scratch, to which I say good for them. I love this game, and to say the things I've said pains me. I find very little wrong in Kerbal Space Program, and I don't put career mode in that "wrong" category. I'll be waiting for the lack of replies.

1) Launch stage including boosters. 2) Jettison boosters. Main orbital insertion engine. 3) Transfer stage. 4) Return ship/lander separation from transfer. 5) Return home after lander completes mission.

No way of knowing. Just wait until the update comes out.

Hey I made a thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU9ZjH8tGqU

Wow, great video. I'm showing this to anyone in the future whose curious about the game.

Awesome video. Cool design.

I seem to go through "waves" of being addicted, with highs and lows. Every couple of months I just have to play something else. But then I rediscover KSP again and I'll have 10+ hour sessions every day for a week or so.

By buying an inflatable globe. I'm friggin hilarious. How would you commit the perfect murder?