Torham234

Well, after downloading the program I think we have a default winner. Space engine just takes the cookie on this one. millions of galaxies, each one simulated down to the rogue asteroids and surface features like mountains and impact craters. I don't think you can go bigger than this.

Dear princess Celestia, today I have learned that patience is a virtue.

Fixed that for you

I do not think its wrong. Its also something I wouldn't do. The best part of KSP for me is designing and building my craft. I would be taking away the most fun part of KSP for me, if I decided to reverse engineer other craft.

I didn't really attempt any Kerbin speed records, but I did try my hand at high speed Mün rover ...

I was going to say that I am surprised that this found its way into stock before Kerbal engineer redux, but but what you said makes a lot of sense. Setting up your node just right is vitally important when you are trying to encounter something like an asteroid...

That's hilarious!!!

VIKI, Your logic is undeniable.

Still, one could argue that it stood the test of time, what with 1000 years of history under its belt...

7- 9 Km, depending on TWR.

Oh man, they are the epitome of kerbal engineering. A topical episode about a rogallo for the uninitiated...

Exactly. Quite often I see someone complain that the game is boring for them and there is nothing left to do after they mastered it. Well, witch other games can they list that can captivate them for years on end? for example, is someone complaining that after they play Mass Effect to the end, there is "not much left to do". Even a hundred hours of gameplay is good value for money in a game. After that, I would expect most the games to loose their charm. The most important thing is: Did I have fun while I played? If you had fun playing KSP, than it has fulfilled its goal - to entertain you. KSP is like a set of lego, if you have the mindset to entertain yourself by building and engineering, than you will have fun, and you will set your own goals and objectives.

I hold KSP in high regard. Its made engineering fun to play, and the relatively realistic approach to orbital mechanics is educational at the very least. Combine that with a fact that the game is still in development and is being developed by a small Indie team with limited resources, and one can but feel privileged to play it. For me, its wroth every penny of its price tag. That is a fact that a lot of games today cannot claim. It's a shame that I had to wait 20 years until someone actually made a game like KSP. TLDR: It definitely deserves its reputation.

I am not. I have no solid ideas for them. I would need some more info on each of them to flesh out some ideas. Plus I do not really have the time. I did do some icons previously, but I do not think they are of the quality needed either... Here are some things I have done. Edit: Sorry for the poster size pics

I use FAR. Generally, I find it a bad idea to actually engage the SAS system in the atmosphere, since it tends to freak out a lot. For SSTO's however, its very useful once you leave the atmosphere. You just have to balance your craft well so that you don't need the sas switched on. Joystick helps a lot.

What I was going to say, Krona or Krones.

Up until recently I was going all stock for nearly a year. But now I think I understand that Squad is not actually planing on implementing things like FAR, deadly reentry or Kethane into the vanilla, so I have installed several mods to test them out.

check your fuel crossfeed. Normally it shouldn't happen, since the decouplers are not crossfeed enabled. If the decouplers have fuel, than the whole rocket is assumed as one stage and will be drained from the top to the bottom.

My purchase receipt has got Feb. 10. 2013 on it, so I guess we joined at a similar time... gratz, and here is to another year of KSP..

Every time I see an aircraft nowadays, I instantly take note of the wing configuration, try to estimate COL and the general stability of the plane. Even on the airport, when boarding a plane...

Take a break. Read a book. Works wonders.

Mission control mod has solved most of those issues efficiently. You pay when you launch a vehicle, and when you are able to recover any/all stages, you are refunded for the recovered parts. Minus the fuel of course and not the full costs, since there is maintenance/repairs and cleaning that needs to be done on the recovered parts. Yes, you may end up spending more than if you just used a small purpose build lifter, but you will see savings if you keep reusing your vehicle over many missions (if you don't crash ) Like I said, it boils down to your play style. Some people are quite happy even if they never build a working plane. I on the other hand have spend more time in SPAH than in the VAB. I just like planes. Did I mention I like planes? I like those.....

I had to manually strip down the B9 pack. I can give you the names of the needed parts however cargo bays + 2 small cockpits Cockpit_MK2\ Cockpit_MK2_Adapter\ Cockpit_MK2_Adapter_M125\ Cockpit_MK2_Bicoupler\ Cockpit_MK2_Body_05m\ Cockpit_MK2_Body_2-5m\ Cockpit_MK5\ Cockpit_S2\ Cockpit_S2_Adapter\ Cockpit_S2_Body\ Cockpit_S2_Body_Cargo\ Cockpit_S2_Body_Crew\ Cockpit_S2_Control\ Cockpit_S3\ If you take the cockpiks as well, you should also keep the [props], [resources], and [spaces] subdirectories. If you do not want the cockpits, than you can just keep the parts subdirectory. Hope that helps

The reason for the lack of engines on the big fuel tank is costs. Engines are pretty much the single most expensive thing on the rocket (that or the fuel). The orange fuel tank is non reusable, and always burns up on reentry. That's why the main tank is kept as simple as it could possibly be to keep the cost of manufacturing one for each shuttle mission down. The boosters can be reused, and should have parachutes to slow their descend. This is one of the primary reasons people would find shuttle design tricky. See, ideally you would have all the main engines on the shuttle so that they can be reused over and over again. This creates off centre thrust and the shuttle has tendency to spin. If you want to see some very interesting videos, TheWinterowl made a whole about his shuttle program. You will see most of the most common hurdles in the development as he himself encounters and subsequently solves them.I think his shuttle is one of the best engineered I have seen around.

Maybe not yet. But from the very start, I am expecting that KSP will in the end feature funds and budgets. Reusable delivery vehicles (be it spaceplanes, shuttles or reusable rocket stages) will be more efficient than fire and forget 1 use lifters. Of course its mostly just an individual gameplay preference.