Tw1

You're using the wrong code to embed there. You need BB code. Like so: Also, welcome to the forums fellow Aussie!

First you'll have to learn what each number means. They are orbital parameters. Then it's reasonably straightforward. Scott manley's Video on save file editing gives some good info.

Wow. Now these look good. Are the ion engines still the same? I would also suggest making the larger tanks heavier, and increasing the Xenon content, to make them proportional to the original tank. I've been editing them myself so far.

Yeah, don't do that. If you don't adjust settings it will try to put you into orbit at your current height, no matter the result.... You need the rendezvous button. That makes it dead easy. (And boring) Or, type in a height that works for orbiting, beam it up, then learn to rendezvous for real! It's a great KSP skill to master. The land option just holds your ship at a certain height, but if you click land again, it lets go of the ship. So, you could in theory lift yourself to orbital height, release, then burn to orbit.

I was searching the page for info on the exact same thing! It's basically rule one for my kerbals.

My one dislike is it's so engaging, it's easy to be distracted by it and the forum when I'm supposed to be doing something else. What do I like most? That's a hard one... Basically, there is no other game that is quite as versatile as KSP. One day, I'm making rockets. Next, I'm driving and exploring. Then I'm building random Idea X. Then I'm mucking around with kerbals, developing a story.. Rescues, stations, plane flights, there's just so much that's possible.

What function of hyperedit did you use to get it there? The Orbit modifier? If so, it sounds like the error where the vessel's state stays at landed, despite it being launched. Is the vessel's orbit line showing up in the map? Maybe try modifying the orbit again?

Well.. That's one way to do it!

Space broom. The ironing board rover. Both pretty minimal.

I'm hoping to make a simplified version of this for a major station. I came up it for simcity many years ago, but was never able to make it. These were sketches for the main facade. Did make the track alignment in railsim though. What I do with it depends on how many platforms, and what track alignments are. Speaking of rails, it'd be good to come up with a track standard for both this, and the modular rails I'm hoping to make. We should discuss that on its thread sometime.

True, but wider is going to be better for high speed and low gravity. Don't want our Mun railways to be slow do we? . Or, Gilly railways... Odd, isn't it? I wonder why the makers of SketchUp did it that way. But it was nice of them to provide a little button to change that when exporting.

Nope, the ones in the middle of the planets are the numbers to launch or land. The basic idea would be to take the highest delta V requirement, double it, then add a bit more for mistakes, and for orbital maneuvers. Not counting Eve, Jool, Tylo, or Kerbin, the highest is Laythe. With its atmosphere, you could just glide to a landing, reducing the need a lot. But you need to deorbit and aim. Some of the aiming could be done with the mothership, thought. Then you just need the take of value in atmospheric delta V, on top of that. One thing though: To use those values, you must land with the most efficient technique. Looks like you need just a little more. Disclaimer: I have not yet attempted a full grand tour. This advice is based on theory only.

6.3/10. I see you sometimes, but one never forgets that pic.

So far, it seems to only happen when the positioning controls are active. Creation didn't cause a problem, just editing. I switched to IVA after placement. External view seemed to jump around abit too.

I considered that a possibility as well. It's evidently not the main food source, but could be supplementary. Still too much would not be good for them.

7 meters? Somehow, that's wider than I expected. I use multiwheels, but not those panels. I'll have to have a go. Wider track would give greater stability... Speaking of track with, we ought to come up with a common standard, it would be cool to be able to join these track parts on to the city's rails, and make an extended network. T shape has been working best for me. I've been using one that's 1.3m wide at the top, 0.9m wide at the stem, and 3 meters wide at the base. The top bit is 15cm, the stem 60cm. I'd be happy to double the with, at least. This was refined to work best with stock wheels and stock panels. However, the planned bogie part makes these proportions less important, so I'd be happy to change them, if it doesn't work for you. I propose T shaped track, with a 5.2 meter top. That should be pretty generous, and not look to bad with standard fuel tanks being used as cargo. Other dimensions could either be the same as my first track, allowing stock wheels to be used, or slightly exaggerated. I noticed as the amount of wheels on my train car progressively decreased during testing, I got more clipping problems. Might lager track reduce this problem? (Also, I managed to get textures working! (In unity at least.)) Not planning rolling stock with this, (just a bogie/truck, the wheel base) but that's no reason someone couldn't make train bodies to go with it! I better go sleep..

I have found a bug. Hint: look at the navbal. Using IVA when the placement mode is active results in a strange, out of body type experience. Is this a known bug?

Experimented with prototype train tracks...

V shaped track is glitchy so far. T shape works a bit better, and does seem to stop the thing bouncing of- when it doesn't just clip through. But look at this: If you look carefully, you can see the seem where one track model passes through the other. It went straight across without a hitch. Proof of concept Next time, I'm going to to the same, but faster, and maybe taller. Aslo, seem to have got the hang of sketchup-unity-KSP. Except for one odd quirk. Models are all loading sideways at first, despite what I do. Must be something wrong still.

Went to test a piece of tapered track, looks like I make a mistake somewhere.... But I managed to get a model into Unity, and then into KSP, so not too bad a start. Some faces were invisible, got to fix that.

I read something that suggested that the constant acceleration and then deceleration could explain why they got there and back so fast. That is what you do for a speed run to Mun, so now quite as bad as it first seems.

*Looks at clock* Yes, it might be.... Well, studying right now, but did spend a while playing earlier...

Yes. You are right. (I studied french.)

Introducing the Mantis Shrimp Climbing Rover! It will get where it needs to go. Able to climb vertical walls! Currently tested for 28km, one way. Use KAS to hold yourself in place! Breaks are too slow? Use KAS to stop yourself!* *Actual results may vary. Able to do really cool jumps like you're not supposed to! Onetwothree- Kapow! The Mantis Shrimp. A rover that gets where it's going.

Tylo. That way I could dump the heavy lander, raising my probe's delta V went up by about 2km/s.