Fourjays

I'd love to be able to make something like those. They're really good!

That was great! Never come across this guys videos before... can see my watch list filling up already.

The level of hype and information was fine, but the timing was off (perhaps due to the timing of the events they presented it at). I'm only disappointed as I've been waiting for a few weeks now to start a new career game. Don't want to start one if saves are going to get broken by an imminent update. If I wasn't waiting specifically for the release then I probably wouldn't be disappointed.

Career mode, but I'd really like to see the science get some more depth. It feels too rigid and one-dimensional right now. My greatest fear is that the multiplayer will take over and there won't be any further improvements to science and the career mode.

Maybe it is coincidence and I'm just "burnt out" on KSP, but I've certainly not enjoyed playing it as much since I started my career game. There needs to be a bit more of a dynamic element to science somehow, rather than just the flavour texts and an associated number. It feels too simple and "gamey" right now. I get far more enjoyment out of the "real" science I can do in KSP ("what's the temperature of this", "whats the pressure of that", "lets map this moon", etc), so I'd like to see something added that encourages/rewards this kind of science. Perhaps a table of temperature, pressure, etc that you have to fill up by doing the appropriate missions and you get some sort of secondary boost or reward for completing them (perhaps bonus % on science from subsequent manned missions to the same planet). Would add some more gameplay beyond completing the tech tree and give a purpose to the currently useless unmanned missions.

Not interested in multiplayer. Even more so when I see what people do in it (build weapons). Just hope when they are implementing it that they still add things to singleplayer and the focus remains primarily on the singleplayer. If KSP goes down a multiplayer oriented route then I'll probably stop playing it. Would like to see resources, but mods do fine at it so far.

As soon as I realised I could do samples, EVA reports, etc all in one mission and sometimes multiple times a mission I was doing something similar, but it still ends up repetitive then. And to make progress in that way you are kind of forced to build certain rockets (like covering a ship with batteries, attaching 99 rockets, etc because the parts for doing these kind of missions any differently are buried deep down the tech tree). I know there is a challenge aspect to that, but it is limiting and not in a good way. I've now "cheated" my career mode because I just want to enjoy the game with the science. In sandbox I was doing things steadily and was very pleased with my progress to the Mun. But the career mode seems to want me to go to Duna as my fourth or fifth mission and spoil the "epicness" of the achievement. As I said, I feel the problem isn't necessarily that it can be repetitive, but that you aren't getting anything out of it in the end other than parts. At the same time, making parts the reward on such a large tree is restricting players from just building their own rockets. If you look at other games with tech trees, they never just unlock parts or units. They unlock new gameplay, and usually at fairly logical points. I know it is early, but I am rather concerned that there isn't too much else planned for the tech tree. To keep it constructive... I'd do a smaller tech tree that focuses on technology and functionality rather than just parts. Group the parts together to allow more freedom (give more of the small rocket parts to start with and a single probe core, put the big parts together, etc), then make the majority of the tech tree focused on advancing the functional parts such as science collection, better batteries and solar panels, improved transmitters, more scientific instruments, rover parts, better parachutes, etc. In addition to this, make some of the nodes on the tech tree unrelated to parts, so for example, better fuel efficiency, ability to "see" the planets (maybe after a space telescope is in orbit?), unlock the astronaut complex for hiring additional astronauts, bonuses to money and science collection, etc. And to add another level, make some of the tech tree conditional on logically relevant gameplay events (like the telescope one I mentioned above). Given how central the tech tree is going to be, it needs to be much more than just a list of parts to unlock, IMO.

It isn't a popular opinion, but I find the new career mode irritating as well. The problem for me is the way the career mode and tech tree currently function feels like it forces you to play one of two ways: 1) Spam science. This is what I did initially while trying to play it the way I always have done (little steps, like a real space program), and I quickly realised you have to repeat missions several times to get enough science to unlock the next tier, which probably doesn't have anything you want anyway. After a few missions I noticed I could do all the science things in one mission and get more science that way. But even that gets boring quite quickly because you just repeat it endlessly to try and get the science you need to unlock the part you want. Not to mention the tier order that forces me to do manned missions first (yea, yea, "it's Kerbal space program not human space program"... I'd rather it was my space program). 2) Be a pro. Send a manned mission to Duna with nothing more than a command pod, 20x the same fuel tank, an antenna and some chutes. Congratulations, your an ace. Have bag loads of science. You'll probably completely unlock the tech tree in two missions time. Then what? I love the science implementation (the flavour texts are a great idea), but the tech tree just feels like a bad mechanic at the moment. Rather than rewarding success, it just seems to make the game linear and repetitive. I'm not entirely sure the tech tree is the right mechanic to begin with, but it would be a whole lot better if the tech tree unlocked functionality instead of parts. It wouldn't need to be as long - and would cost more for each tier - but it would allow players freedom to run their space program while providing something genuinely new to play with at each tier (instead of "yay, I can now use 1 large fuel tank instead of 3", which is only rewarding to our computers).

Cheers, will give that a shot.

Is it really possible to just edit a .cfg file to unlock everything straight away? Because all I want to do right now is play KSP as I did in sandbox mode (planning ahead, small steps, small improvements, like a real space program) - but with the science parts displaying the text and functional (if ultimately pointless) transmissions.

Fair point and one I hadn't considered. When that screenshot is taken, Eve is "forward" of Kerbin. If Kerbin is at 12 o'clock, then Eve is about 10 o'clock or 2 o'clock (depending which way round you go). I've not tried the big one, as I prefer to build my own than use a pre-made piece. Would there be any way to get the small telescope to have the same zoom level? Will check it out in a new save though and see what it does. Edit: Just checked and the big telescope does give me really beautiful close-up shots. Seems the small telescope has some sort of limit on its zoom level. Any way to get it the same as the big telescope?

Yea, definitely in full zoom. If I try to zoom in any further all it does is "bounce" like it has hit a limiter. It is the 0.625m telescope. I've tried redownloading and reinstalling the mod several times, same result. This is Eve at full zoom from a 150km orbit around Kerbin.

I can't see to get this to work right for some reason. I am using the telescope part and it initially seems to work. I can find Duna/Eve, but even at full zoom they are tiny (nothing like the screenshots). Dres, Jool, etc aren't visible at all. Like Minmus in the sky of Kerbin tiny. BOSS doesn't show up or function either. Got everything assigned to keys. Is there a settings trick to it or something?

Absolutely love this one. Especially that it is Duna(?) when the screen falls down.

I don't care about anything in particular, this game just keeps getting better.

Nope. I do have a whole Excel spreadsheet with missions done, missions planned, outcomes, objectives, programs, lifters and their capabilities, Kerbonaut rotations, statuses and mission history, and scientific information I've collected. Going to have to add checklists/action group records now too.

I voted slight improvement, but for me it has gone in two directions. The game itself seems a little smoother (although I never built anything big enough to lag it like others). But the game loading is noticeably slower - and that is with fewer mods than before (I'm now almost entirely stock).

I've not played a lot yet, but I've had no issues yet. Was fairly smooth before, but it is smoother now. Only thing is my loading time seems longer (wasn't it was supposed to be faster?).

Thanks for all the tips. Seems there are several areas I can look at. Was quite a shock though when this simple design kept going into death spirals (been playing with mods for a while). Despite that I did manage to launch two probes with it by jettisoning the boosters when things got too out of control (heading down instead of up) and using the second stage to regain control. Needless to say a new rocket design is going to be needed before I send Kerbals up again.

I'll ask this here as I suspect the answer may help others in future. With either an SAS or an ASAS, I'm having issues with a simple rocket rotating/spinning (always clockwise) as soon as it leaves the pad. As I understand it, ASAS should be using the thrust vectoring and SAS the torque. Why aren't either of them having an effect? The design is very simple. Probe sphere and an SAS/ASAS, T400 tank below it with an LVT30 engine. Then 3 T800 tanks with LVT30 engines strapped to the side with separators. Here is a screenshot, and you can see it is a long way off after just 13 seconds (no player input, just turned SAS on and launched).

This is great. Been reading through all of your others on your website as well. Keeping me entertained for ages and inspiring me to try all sorts of new ideas in KSP.

That was a really good read. Given me some inspiration for some of my future missions once I'm done with the Mun and Minmus.

Not tried the MechJeb Landing Autopilot so I don't know if it is possible, but could you use the "Land at target" option, then turn autopilot off when it has got you in the ballpark? So let it run until you get under 500m or something, then fly it manually so you don't actually land on top of the target.

You need to start with the cone pieces first as shand said. Then add the side pieces. Also make sure you are using the correct type of fairing. "Extended" pieces are only for the "extended" bases.

I've been pondering about doing my launches manually again (only thing I've really used MechJeb for) and was thinking about how to solve the problems that invariably end up causing me frustration (slow movement of huge rockets when attempting to target an inclination or circularize). Which in turn got me wondering, just when should I drop a rocket stage? When it is out of fuel? Or when it has served its designed purpose (i.e. getting to LKO)? I would guess the answer is a bit of both (I shouldn't have enough fuel remaining to worry about), but I then thought it would be interesting to find out what others do. So, when do you stage your rockets?