Specialist290

I put this little thing together in 0.21, back before it was actually useful for something other than showing off: The rover has ~500 m/s delta-v when fully fueled, which is enough to cover quite a bit of ground with good piloting. It has a couple of mod parts (KAS Connector destination point for easy refueling, plus a Kerbal Flight Engineer chip to give me in-flight data), but the basic rover design itself is all-stock. That said, some of the parts appear to be fairly high up the tech tree in Career Mode, so you might have to do a little creative jury-rigging of replacement parts if you want something like this earlier...

The simplest solution to this (and I think part of what OP is asking for in the first place) is to list all biomes as "Unknown" at the beginning, then uncover them as you discover them. That way, you know whether or not you're flying over a biome you've already done some sort of research for, but not what an "unknown" biome is until you actually do something in it.

Actually, I just realized I forgot to include the .dll with my original upload. Thanks for the (indirect) reminder; it's fixed now.

Drop all of them in. The moduleManagerSource folder includes the ModuleManager plugin, which allows the game to read files in the Deadly Reentry plugin that add heat shields to and adjust the maximum temperature values for certain stock parts. My own configuration files also include ModuleManager for completeness' sake, but if you already have it from the Deadly Reentry plugin, you don't need it.

Upload your screenshots to a third-party image hosting site like Imgur or Photobucket, then use the BBCode sharing options to share it here.

Unfortunately, probably not. This just adds the heat shield parts to the tech tree.

Decided I'd share the config files I've put together so that I can use the Deadly Reentry heat shields with my Career mode save for my modded install of KSP. The files are available here, and the source code and licensing information can be viewed together here. Hope this proves useful to the rest of you

Essentially, the basic principle of the Oberth Effect is that the closer you are to the center of gravity of the body you're orbiting when you execute a burn, the more "bang for your buck" you'll get out of your fuel. This page on MyKSPCareer does a good job of going into more detail about it. For that matter, I'd highly recommend reading the rest of the site as well.

Pretty much. From what I've heard, though,* it effectively ignores atmospheric pressures over 1 atm, so you'd get the same Isp readings at 11km on Eve as you would at sea level, were you to send a rocket to its surface. * I haven't managed to test this myself, but it seems to be consistent with other people's reports on the forums and elsewhere.

Will do EDIT: And done.

Seconding this. That's the one feature I'm missing from the previous plugin I used. I don't recall if the ability to directly edit the numbers is already available (i.e. punching values into a text box as opposed to just incrementing them via clicks or key presses), but that would also be nice to have.

Impressive work! It's funny that you're posting this here now, actually, because last night I added the original Kerbal Academy link to the Drawing Board...

The readings are off the scale! It's OVER NINE THOU-- OK, I'm done Most impressive. My hats off to Squad!

Precisely what I've been trying to say before myself. For me, the real challenge isn't going to be unlocking the entire tech tree, but (hopefully) juggling multiple, possibly conflicting goals and priorities in order to keep my space program running. The precise layout of the tech tree and the order in which I unlock parts will be secondary to that, coming into play only inasmuch as I can determine whether or not I can accomplish my goals with whatever I have available. I've played with the stock tech tree, and while the novelty was fun while it lasted, without the distinct possibility that my decisions could seriously affect the success or failure of my space program as a whole, I haven't had much incentive to keep going when I already have my more-fleshed-out sandbox save that I ported over from 0.21 and have gotten up to speed. That being said, I also agree with Whackjob: I'm sure that Squad is going to eventually work out something that is fully appealing to players of all skill levels and most play styles.

Welcome to the forums! Impressive work with that LISA replica! Feel free to make yourself at home, and don't be afraid to ask questions if you need to. You might also want to take note of the German language subforum.

My thoughts exactly. I've just been looking for a good way to phrase it.

I like this. It would also be helpful as a reminder of what experiments you've already done for a given planet and biome, as well as how much data you've gotten from them.

I've done a little looking into this subject myself. Here's what I found from my own tests: The scale height equations that I used to derive the values on the chart can be found on the individual planet and moon pages on the KSP Wiki. Of course, I don't know anything about how jet engines work, since I don't do much spaceplane building.

Repeating this for your benefit:

Call me old-fashioned, but I think it should be completely possible to fail (i.e. get a definite "Game Over") if you screw up badly enough. I've never been a huge fan of hand-holding in video games.

As others have mentioned, you might want to consider that at those altitudes for a normal reentry from orbit, your atmospheric drag is going to be a very significant force acting on the vessel as a whole. The capsule and your kerbonaut probably have different aerodynamic properties resulting in different terminal velocities, even given KSP's wonky atmospheric model.

I'm guessing that eventually, Squad will give each antenna model a different effective range, so that you'll either have to use a more-powerful-but-less-efficient antenna or a relay system to transmit data back to Kerbin. However, right now there's really no reason not to just use the most basic antenna available.

Fair enough. Sounds like we actually have pretty similar views, at least from what I gather. One of these days I'll have to write down my own thoughts somewhere, but that's a discussion for another topic.

If it's not too much trouble to ask, you elaborate both on the meaning of this statement, and what you think a meaningful challenge to an experienced player would look like? I just want to get your thoughts on why a proper economic system wouldn't be a significant challenge.

Highly recommending the above. I've found it quite useful for a great many things.