Wait- Was That Important?

I got the same message. However, just looking at your thumbnail horrifies me.

The next size up would be 3.75m, in accordance with KSP's 1.25m scaling system. As of yet there are no 3.75m stock pods, however, I've heard that CBBP's Dragon Rider works nicely if you scale it up to 3.75m.

Here's an interesting way to play: forgo the stock parts. That's right. Get rid of all the fuel tanks and engines (except maybe the NERVA, Ant, and the probe-sized tanks, as those aren't replaced). KW gives a great replacement for all of those parts, and you can pick and choose from a few other packs to suit your needs. For example, right now I'm doing a RL-style program: realistic looking boosters, escape towers, extensive testing before operations, and perhaps most importantly, fairings size restriction (5x5x20m maximum). It's a really weird way to play, but actually quite fun- I'd recommend at least trying it. B9 also looks very nice, though due to performance requirements and a complete and utter hopeless ineptitude for flying spaceplanes I haven't used it yet. For mechanics, I love the Kerbal Flight Engineer Redux and Crew Manifest addons. They're both great features I can easily imagine being in the game one day. Regardless of how you play, a good rule of thumb is to have 3-4 addon mods to give functionality, and maybe 1-2 big content mods to mix it up. You could also play stock religiously, but it's really up to you.

I would actually hate having to rendezvous with solar systems like a planet orbiting Kerbol. I suppose though that if FTL was implemented then you'd go fast enough to negate that type of navigation. You know what'd be neat? The addition of a far- off target from Kerbol as a way to test the FTL drive for players before the addition of full- on galaxies.

It's cool that someone with such a large following is playing KSP! Here's hoping we get a bunch of new people!

This is kind of dumb. "Oh, more people want to buy the game and support its development, and possibly become point of the community? Hahahahaha NO." What's the big deal? So what if more people come on the forums and ask some dumb questions. Maybe it'll spur us into making the tutorials better- or even just organizing them better. I for one welcome any and all new players, and will do my best to help them get acclimated to this wonderful game.

Are you allowed to burn off fuel on the launchpad? I'm thinking that a craft using almost-empty SRB's would be the best thing, as their TWR just becomes ridiculous. 1.) Burn off fuel on launch pad until you have 30s left 2.) Launch 3.) ????? 4.) Profit!

These are all incredible- I'm using KW in place of stock and the NERVA's fit the tanks very well. Beautiful job!

I don't get this challenge, but whatever. Here's me doing this without SAS or RCS fuel. Stage 1 and fairings separation: Making orbit: Docked. Note the lack of RCS tanks on either craft. Yeah, here we are on the Mun. Mun's boring, bye bye. Docking again. No RCS thruster ports or tanks anywhere. Crew transfer. Ready to go back home. Mission success. Without clear scoring guidelines, I award myself 4.5 billion points. However, seeing how I went to the Mun instead of Minmus, I furthermore detract 4.49981 billion points from my score. Thus, my score stands at 190,000 points. Beat that, fellows.

This belongs in the thread for Mechjeb or in the addons section, methinks

I like it! I've failed miserably to do anything terribly artistic with it, and took some kajiggering to get it to work in paint, but I'm sure I've tossed at least 10 of the little buggers overboard by now. I'm going to try and see if I can sent one on solar escape!

Hey KSP community, Just throwing something out here that I've never understood. People always are complaining about how ASAS uses too much RCS, how the various docking assistant mods use too much as well, etc. etc. At the same time, others complain of the difficulties of unbalanced RCS while docking. I've never understood any of these complaints. I learned to dock from only watching a couple of Scott Manley videos- and no tutorials at that. I'm not bragging: it was a stupid way for anyone to learn. It took me literally 4 hours and 41 launches to rendezvous and dock a single 2 ton station module. Regardless of my learning troubles, however, I've never used ASAS or any of the mods. I gratuitously abuse timewarp's magic ability to violate the law of conservation of angular momentum, but that's really my only mechanized assistance. I don't find docking unbalanced modules particularly difficult- even the heaviest things I've docked which come in somewhere near 120 tons really don't pose an issue for me. If you just go slowly, it's just a question of adjusting for each translation and watching the navball closely. I suppose my question is two part then. The first would be, why do people find docking with unbalanced RCS so difficult, and the second would be, after learning to dock this way, would using ORDA or even just ASAS be worth it? I only ask because I'm designing a second- generation command vehicle and don't know whether I want it to have alot of RCS (in this case, 2.5 tons of it for a 15 ton craft) or just enough for a docking or two (.5 tons of it). ~WWTI?

Usually people try and go to anomalies- the "Moholes", the Munar Arch, the Dunan Face, etc. 0.20 will have flag planting, if that's your cup of tea. Otherwise, you really can just fool around for a bit and then leave, as you said.

All my first generation Apollo-style Munar landing craft dock without RCS- they're only about 20t each so it's not that tough. Docking a 65 ton station module was the toughest thing I've ever done without RCS- it was really stupid of me not to put RCS on it, but ah well.

I love the "load ship" option- I'm assuming that directly loads a .craft file without launching it at the VAB first? I love that idea! I wish the Orbital Construction mod worked like that- you still have to endure gravity to launch a ship.

I'll be interested to see how this works- this is definitely a thread to follow. I like the solution of simply omitting timewarp- it's a can of worms in multiplayer. Also, any idea how this would handle mods, OP? I'd assume it'd crash if it were forced to render models that some players didn't have. For that matter, what about launching from the only Space Center at the same time?

This is a very nice looking example of stock fairings- I love it!

264.) Custom simulation of the Kerbal universe where you can modify the physics of all solar systems and control everything

Explaining basic orbital mechanics isn't really tough unless the OP is ridiculously dense, as most of us are intimately familiar with orbital mechanics now. For that matter, since KSP doesn't have a multiplayer of sorts, there's really no place for asinine begging. Those were a bit annoying as most of the people posting those could've browsed through the addons section of the forum for a few minutes and found exactly what they needed. Docking is tough- just because I learned without MechJeb, ORDA, hell, even ASAS or a decent tutorial doesn't mean I expect others to pick it up as fast as I. The only reason people got exasperated is that some of the newest guys didn't seem to want to listen or even care. Actually, I've long held the belief that people who rant about a game within the first week for a long amount of time tend not to be those who will stay. Sure, there's aggravating moments when you're first starting off, but if you rant to the point of ragequitting then maybe you don't have enough patience for what can, at times, be an incredibly trying game through its realism. You have a good point about the FAQ's however: many player-made tutorials were lost forever thanks to the forum wipe, and many wiki tutorials are either too unengaging or overly math-heavy. We could do with people making better newb-friendly text tutorials.

I really like this idea- I've fooled around with the mod before, but wish there was a stock way of doing it. Realism can only take KSP so far. We already have the semi-fictitious NERVA engines that exist but have never actually been used. Orbital Construction would be a great addition along those lines of plausibility.

Seeing as you can't land on Jool, why not try suggesting one of its moons such as Vall or Laythe?

*head explodes* On another note, I really like the suggestion of command pods gaining little flag emblems on the side when they land on a planet.

You certainly need KW rocketry. Not only are tanks and engines organised into separate "tiers" that advance logically, but it reduces part count by as much as 10 times and can make really beautiful rockets. It just makes so much more sense than the stock tanks. If you're only going to use one parts expansion mod, this would be it in my opinion. NovaPunch Remix seems to be a bit more scattered and less cohesive (both visually and literally with the connections) and yet, while it has a few nice parts, KW's fairings are the best I've ever seen. Really. You need to check it out.

I can confirm this: It's not just because its modded either, it's happened with stock but this is the only picture handy of the weirdness. Maybe it's a GPU saving thing, I get plenty of lag on simple reentry heat effects.

No, it's EA. EA did this rather quietly with Battlefield 3 where they slowly banned channels with BF3 content on them, now it stands to reason that it's EA doing this with Simcity 5 instead of KSP whose developers are against DRM. It's not YouTube's fault either: EA simply uses the mechanic where, if you report enough videos on a channel for copyright infringement, the channel is automatically banned without human review. You can ask for a review and it's likely that will resolve the problem, but frankly there are so many copyright claims a day the amount of money it would cost Google to hire legal staff to review them all is just ridiculous. Try again without the EA shi- ahem, I mean "stuff", OP.