Levelord

Ah I see where the OP is coming from now, but the last part of his post was steering away from the original point he was making to encompass why anyone would use MJ at all. I was responding to that. I could make another post explaining why newbies would use MJ as a learning tool, but I'll finish up my coffee until then.

I know I shouldn't be responding to obvious bait, but... The OP's point is that they don't understand why anyone would use MJ, I answered that point with reasons why people like myself would use it. My post is about using MJ when we're bored, is because we've mastered something and not being bored in the sense that we couldn't be bothered to learn a task. Your (self edited) 'quote' of my post simply lacks these important details about what I said which is why you're obviously not seeing the point I'm trying to make.

You forget that even hardened veterans like myself use MechJeb. We can fly into orbits and do interplanetary transfers with our eyes closed, but eventually these tasks get repetitive and boring. So we put MJ in charge of tasks we've already mastered and leave other more complex and interesting tasks (like SSTO flight, aerobraking, easter egg spotting) for ourselves to handle. It's similar to real life where astronauts are well trained enough to pilot without computer assistance, but also use computer auto-pilots to handle tedious tasks that are boring and time consuming, freeing them up to do other more interesting tasks. This doesn't mean that we are reliant on MJ, because just like in real life we can easily and quickly respond to AI malfunctions using our innate knowledge and experience. When you're in my position launching several hundred identical flights manually, it gets boring real fast.

SSTO space planes and the interplanetary drives. I also work on floating bases.

I wasn't sure if it qualified as a bike or a plane :S

I'm in favor for a flatter version of the materials bay, because the current one appears to be too tall and is asthetically unappealing in most designs because of it. Of course, keep the weight values and all for balance sake, but I would prefer a change in it's geometry so that I can incorporate it better into my lander and ship designs.

A floating Laythe Base. Also, a floating Laythe base with a VTOL landing platform.

Looks like an explosion at the wing factory.

There's a Jr. Docking port on the landing platform floor. My crafts have Jr. Docking ports on their underbelly. I just retract the landing gears and the craft settles down on the docking port for a solid dock. Then I can re-fuel the craft

May I recommend a probe-controlled VTOL for the rescue? It comes with a re-usable interplanetary frame, and should be quite fun to rescue Bill with

Okay I figured out the problem seems to be associated with the Junior docking ports. When I use the regular docking ports, the floating bases remain bug-free. Allow me to show you a tour of my new prototype Laythe marine colony. This is the colony, designed to be modular. It has a marine science module, a landing platform and several housing bays. On the landing platform we perform routine maintenance of VTOL SSTO aircraft and refuel them as needed. Here is the single housing module And the quad housing module for more colonists. It's designed to resemble a small village. Here is the science bay where Laythe's water, atmosphere and other relevant experiments are carried out. Another angle of the layout. Feels quite cosy.

I am currently having this problem repeat itself again when testing from scratch. I think the game is trying to make the floating parts register as 'landed' but when you register the part as landed the game automatically places the ship on the nearest surface (which would be the sea floor). This didn't seem to be a problem with 0.21 when I docked multiple floating modules together at sea, but is a problem in 0.23. I've noticed however that individual vessels floating on the sea won't have this problem, but once you dock two ships together, the whole combined vessel gets placed on the sea bed and explody things happen. This might be a semi-important issue that SQUAD should look into. Aquatic colonies on Laythe should be as important as terrestrial colonies are on Duna or the Mun.

My first thoughts... But on a serious note, I really liked your video. It was presented really well and very professional.

I've encountered a new problem. While I was testing modular parts, the docked first parts of the aquatic habitat would suddenly disappear and then appear underwater on the seabed. When I switch crafts to it, it would then immediately explode. I have the persistence file here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16683090/KSP/persistent.sfs Quicksave file here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16683090/KSP/quicksave.sfs The craft in question: As I move towards it: It then suddenly disappears and reappears on the sea floor instead: When I switch vessels to see what's going on, this happens: Any idea on what's causing this?

Really? O_o At your level I thought you would have nuked Eeloo with one of your mammoth crafts while laughing manically at your evil genius.

I'm currently making an aquatic base on Laythe. I challenge you to make a massive floating base on Laythe!

Well, after a test run with Octagonal struts, this seems to float a bit better...

I just gave air intakes a try, but they seem to bounce and over-react to water, causing the platform to wildly rock from side to side.

So I was planning on extending my floating Laythe base by expanding it to include a landing platform. On testing the platform on Kerbin, I've noticed that the platform sinks significantly when landing a plane. Adding more empty fuel tanks at the bottom doesn't seem to increase its buoyancy, so I'm at a loss on how to keep the platform from looking half submerged whenever I land a small craft on it. Does anyone have any suggestions? here is the base I'm planning on expanding: Here is the sinky problem: This is how it's meant to float:

I had two solutions for this. My VTOLSSTO had inline jet engines, meaning one in front of the other. But that required some creative use of octagonal struts. My second *better* solution was to use Stabojetâ„¢ technology. The engines can flame out but the craft won't do a flat spin due to the thrust going through the CoM. Stabojetâ„¢ technology showcased at 1:15.

What if your plane *IS* a rover?