Vlk

Personally - at first glance not as good as i expected. But this may be a good sign too: a new part that just replaces the others is not a good addition, it is better if you have to learn how to make use of its full potential. I just hope that i will find a better use For my first experiment, i remade my favorite ssto. To be honest, judging by the numbers, i was able to expect the result. Its too heavy, and the thrust for the rocket mode is too big, compared to the thrust of the airbreathing mode. Maybe if i combine it with jet engines, and build a bigger ship? old ssto: rapier:

In a sandbox game, game mechanics will not necessarily force you to do fun things. (But escape towers are fun to make, even if you reload after a fail)

I still find it fun to revisit the mun or minmus, with different designs (probes/rovers/vtol/ssto/kethane miner/spacestations/bases etc). But you can go to Laythe too, its fun. Or any other planet/moon. Moho is interesting too, it has no atmosphere to aerobrake (like dres and eeloo)

Hmm, are you aware that you can accelerate time in ksp? The farther you are from a planet, the faster you can accelerate. Setting the correct path takes the most time, after that, you can accelerate time, so from kerbin to Jool, it takes just a few minutes.

There is a suggestion forum in an other category (development i guess) As you build, you will notice more and more issues with the editor, but also, you get used to the limits slowly, or build in a way where it will not be a problem what you can try: - rotate the whole ship, and try symmetry again - i noticed that is changes the symmetry axis. You can rotate back later. - use the "c" key to lock the parts to a place, or make smooth changes - the movement of the part will change too - put new parts on parts that were not rotated before with the wsad keys, and rotate the main subpart only after that. this way the editor works better. - sometimes its better if you use symmetry only after you finished one part of the symmetry. Like, you build the right side first, and when finished, you take the right side, turn symmetry on, and put it back. This way the symmetrical part can have further symmetrical parts edit: i also suggested that they should have a key for orthographic view, to be able to balance the ship better. But later i found out that i can use the lines on the ground: i lower the ship/plane until they are on the ground, then compare the parts to the lines on the floor ugly method but works

The mechanics are real, but the planets and moons are much closer to eachother in distance and mass, so the gameplay is faster and the maneuvers are more interesting

direct link - direct link

Hi! I am sorry for the shameless self-promoting, but i made a small game in unity to learn and practice the navigation in space, and i thought i'd share it here. The game is much closer to the community of KSP than the community of casual gamers Play Learning Gravity! I hope i will find some competitors here, as so far my own scores are much better than any of the other players Cheers

Hmm, i'm just testing my math skills I think i made an error, but i think the retroburn to get back to the atmosphere is responsible for the values. on the first picture the liquidfuel tank is 62%, the oxidizer is 73% on the second, the li is 47%, the oxidizer is 52% so you burnt 15% li, and 21% ox, and i thought that this is impossible, because you should have burned the same amount of ox and li, or more li. But now i realized that if you have a li tank, then burning in the atmosphere would burn more percentage of oxidizer - so its ok

I don't want to be a jerk, but what are you going to do with all the oxidizer you spared? (hmm, are those screenshots taken from different flights? the ratio of liquid fuel compared to oxidizer is better on the second shot than on the first) edit: but still very effective, and nice looking ship, i am a fan of simplicity as well - since the career mode forced me to work with smaller parts

I maxed out my science points, and i wasn't even close to the jool-system, and didn't go to the kerbin poles. In fact, i was hopeing for a longer science-carrier (meaning slower science gathering).

I think you need more. Jets are primarily for horizontal takeoff, and they dont have too much thrust especially so low in the atmosphere.

Since the latest update (i updated to the latest the kethane mod too), my Kethane heavy drill constantly deploying, then retracting. The funny thing is, it does the animation even in the VAB. What could be the solution? Edit: i replaced the heavy kethane files with the old files. looks like nothing broke, but the problem is solved.

The easy answer is that just play around with the nav node, and find the spot where you need the lowest deltav to get to a close sun orbit. But i try to explain the hard one, which is, if im correct, that you have to start the burn around B: If there is no Kerbin, you have to burn retrograde, so against your current veloicty around the sun. (Kerbin's velocity) If you want the same while orbiting kerbin, you have to plan an escape route that goes out against kerbin's velocity. To do that, you have to start burning prograde At around B. Where i think you are mistaken: if you burn at A, your velocity at C will be pointing to the right, if you still stay just in orbit, thats okay. But if its a high orbit, it would be a very-very little magnitude vector. But you will not complete the orbit, you will escape. And it is much better if the escape is fast, and if the direction of this escape is a sun-retrograde direction.

Yes. It must mean that the fps is lower, your computer haveing a little trouble simulating phisics. If i remember well you want it to be green (hmm... or white?). But if my memory is well, yellow is still not that bad, i remember it is often red to me. (Well, maybe only when i accelerate time)

I played long enough in sandbox mode that carrier mode was not harder, it was just an other interesting challenge. But i still learned a lot from it. Going through the tech tree was like a big tutorial for me (i tried to play through realistically, and not grinding). Before carrier mode, i used to put an orange tanks and a skipper or mainsail engines on everything i wanted to shoot up - from now on, i think i will use smaller lifters

Hello, welcome I think one of the kerbal tutorials explain orbiting well (inside the game - you can reach it from the main menu). The main idea is that you should burn in the direction you are going to incrase the orbit path on the other side of the planet, or you burn exactly the opposite direction you are heading to decrease the orbit path on the other side of the planet. hmm, 5k alt. is not very high maybe you use jet engines? those need atmosphere to operate. You mean you cant get into space at all? Or you just build a big spacestation, and you cant get it up?

I play minecraft too. And i think eve online and (looking at Sean Mirrsen's signature) dwarf fortress players may be common too.

They obviously put more effort into the new one, i see no reason why someone would want the old version back.

When i was a child, games were so difficult to understand, but i loved them! I kept playing even if i failed a lot. Now that i'm an adult (and i can speak english), games just tell you what to do, and they are so simple that they are only good for one playthrough, then i uninstall the game. But i love that there are still games like KSP, minecraft, dwarf fortress, where you have to experiment, try and fail, or even research on the web.

Choose the lower trees, eventually you will find the battery and the solar panel. I'm "grinding" (actually i enjoy every second ) for the solar panel now.

I experimented with this "dual-docking" thing too, but in the end, i did not really like it. As i've noticed, the tree structure still stays, there is one "dominant" connection - you can notice this with fuel flow. (Fuel goes through one docking port, but not the other). And i'm sure it was a perfect dual-docking, because i had to undock with both docking port after. But the main reason i dont like it is that it is still unstable and wobbly, and i noticed more lag too (well, a design like that requires a little more parts, maybe this is a reason for this too).

Yeah, the thrust of those engines seems to be too low for their size. I guess they are high-ISP thrusters designed for space navigation? SSTOs usually use jet engines so they can get the oxygen from the air - this makes them light and efficient, but they also give good thrust.

Yeah, thats a common problem if you re-design too much Weight and engine performance can be a problem too - i dont know the parts you use. I just noticed that your plane has 4 wheels. Maybe you should try 3 wheels, with only one wheel in front. And the front canals you choose are pretty weak, because only the small parts are rotating. Choose a better one, where the whole wing rotates.

Yes, and front canards - those will help a lot to raise your plane. Btw, maybe you dont know: the fact that it wont raise before 85m/s does not mean that it can't fly under 85m/s. But raising from the ground can be difficult. This is why you need to help it with front canards, and by lowering the front wheels, so the angle of the plane is better on the ground. (The air can go under the wings) Edit: front canards are not a must have, but they help a lot. With a good design, you can make it so your plane lifts up easily without the canards. But until you build such planes, i think you can allow them to be on your designs (some people does not like to use them, because in real life (unlike in KSP) front canards can make the plane unstable by causeing random turbulence at different angles)