Tex_NL

A PB-nuk is always on but it generates only a tiny amount of power. Other parts (reaction wheels, probe core, lights, science, etc) might be drawing more power than the PB-nuk can generate. Try switching off things like lights and SAS, see if that helps.

Do you think Life Support should be Vanilla? If done properly, life support could add a very interesting extra dimension to the game. But if it's done half-arsed like pretty much everything else then I have to wholeheartedly say NO! Please, fix the darn bugs first. Get the game working again. Only then should new features be added. P.S. I am willing to bet that if life support is added to the game within a week after release there will be a mod that removes it.

All MM does is add the info from a patch into the .cfg files. If such a patch is flawed then MM will add that flaw to the .cfg. But that's not MM's fault. MM itself does NOT crash your game.

I can't fully answer your question but why on earth would you not want to use ModuleManager? MM is probably the most useful and versatile mods ever while at the same time it is the least intrusive. It only adds the functionality to the files you tell it to. Nothing more nothing less. What you want would require you to edit or replace each and every file individually. When you want to remove that mod you would have to edit or replace them all again. Some mods require a lot of files to be edited/replaced which can, and usually will, introduce errors due to typo's ignorance and/or lack of skill. ModuleManager can do it all for you, fully automated. Removing an MM patch will cease to add the functionality within and restores the affected files to their defaults. So what you want can be done. But MM makes your life A LOT easier.

By default the VAB uses radial symmetry. By default the SPH uses mirror symmetry. What you want is mirror symmetry. Solution: move over to the SPH, build your lander, import it into the VAB and add the launch vehicle.

Absolutely! Both the VAB/SPH and desperately need some form of filing system. (That's probably why it gets suggested frequently.) In an early career with only a dozen different ships on the lists it's hard to loose track. But in a long drawn play-through it can be a nightmare to find that specific design or flight you're looking for.

That's just it. They patch it, they add a bandaid to stop the bleeding but they do not fix the issue. Come on, be a man. Answer his question. Or have you suddenly realized he is right?

Apparently ignorance truly is bliss. You haven't been around long enough to know SQUAD does not actually have good record in that area. I've been playing KSP since 0.18 (late 2012). There are bugs that STILL have not been fixed and items STILL designated as 'work in progress'. Things might get fixed, but don't be surprised it it takes a few years.

Without some sort of fancy sci-Fi FTL communication this is pretty much the only way to avoid the half hour lag between request and reply. Unless you can mirror every website you will need some sort of basic AI to predict what is going to be needed and cache it in advance.

I know of three designs along those lines: Boeings X-20 Dyna-Soar from the late 1950's. The French Hermes from the late 1980's. And the current Dreamchaser by NASA. None of them were actually built and launched ... yet. And there are about a dozen more lifting body designs. Some of them never left the drawing board, others made actual test flights dropped from high altitude planes. But none of them are as large as the one shown in The Simpsons and carried people into space.

I get the distinct feeling your missing something. This topic is NOT about the PC/Mac version of KSP but rather about the horrible travesty that's been released to consoles. Current PC/Mac versions of KSP are also a bugged nightmare but the port to console should never have happened.

@MeCripp, @Galileo, @How to: KSP. You three are all correct as your solutions are exactly the same. The two mods you're suggesting are both nothing more than a modulemanager file identical to what MeCripp said.

LSC always used to be one of my favourite station mods. Until it became a dinosaur that is. But this rebuild looks good. I'll have to keep an eye on that one. Thanks.

You sure about that?

Same here. I've logged thousands of hours over the last few years and never ran into debris. I had debris come within physics range (2.5km) a few times but those were VERY rare. Space is big and debris is small. Collisions can only ever happen within you physics bubble, e.g. within 2.5km from your active craft. Chances of running into debris is as close to zero it can be ignored completely.

Very old. And pretty sure also very out dated.

Free fuel can be down A LOT easier. Design and build your rocket as you would any other. One important note; do not forget to add launch clamps. Add an ore tank, fuel tank, converter and drill to the outside of the launch clamps. Deploy your drill straight into the launchpad. The yield may be low but the pad also contains ore. Since the launch clamps supply infinite electricity you can process as much ore as you like night and day. After launch the clamps and ore processor can be recovered for an 100% refund.

Your craft jumping on load is usually an issue with terrain clipping. Go into settings and increase/decrease the terrain details.

Yes and no. Time warping itself carries no penalties but contracts might. Active contracts may have a deadline. Blindly timewarping can result in missing the deadline and suffering the penalty.

One does not need to re-enter either nose or tail first. A belly first shuttle style re-entry with a tail landing is still very much within the realm of possibilities. Re-enter just like the shuttle and glide towards the landing area. Pull the nose up to vertical until it stalls to bleed off horizontal speed. Open nose mounted airbrakes and/or grid fins to come in for a controlled tail landing.

How do you get a large mining operation going on Minmus? You try, you fail, you learn and try again. This may sound very cliché but it - IS - the truth. Learn to launch and land big bulky, oddly shaped objects. You will certainly fail a number of times but that's the way you learn. If you're not adverse to mods I would suggest you take a look at KIS/KAS. It will allow you to link together multiple smaller landers into one big structure without the need for surface docking.

More important question: Will NMS be up to specs?

You've played too much KSP when you fail to realize there are already half a dozen threads just like this one.

Take your pick Or simply search the forums. Plenty of threads just like yours.

I tried to give NMS a try. Yes, that sentence is correct. I installed NMS (don't ask ) and immediately ran into the most common PC bug. Crash to desktop on start-up. It won't even start. I've seen people talking about a patch but none of them actually provides a link to said patch. I guess I'll have to wait on the inevitable disappointed a little bit longer.