roosterr

Great thread, this has been a thought of mine since KSP day 1. I have no convention of name, mission, or stage of mission, bounce between them random. I think it is time for me to standardize that one way or the other. As for model convention (Mk I, etc.), I usually just do 1a or Ia. Then I bump the alpha number upon necessary "backups". The numeric designation will change if I make major changes to the stages of the rocket when the configuration is noticeably different. As for using the "Mk #" Mark sequence, does anyone have a reason why some rockets (and other vehicle designs) in real life sometimes obtain that designation? Does it mean prototype? I could google it i am sure, but if anyone has their story for that I'd like to hear it.

From what I remember, your code would create an endless loop: I AM AWESOME! I AM AWESOME! I AM AWESOME! I AM AWESOME! I AM AWESOME! I AM AWESOME! ...... LOL! I forgot the kill command in BASIC though. Was it "end"?

Mechjeb is really the only mod I install, yet have dabbled in a few others from time to time. I dont play KSP to show off my hand-eye coordination by steering everything, I enjoy KSP for the dream, design, planning aspect. As for the "cheating" aspect, keep in mind if you dont build a craft that is stable and with enough fuel, good design, etc, your craft will crash and burn no matter how good your automation system is (like reality). I use it for just a few things: 1. create an efficient launch profile by timing your gravity turn, turn ratio, and staging. Doing this by hand all the time just gets old. 2. holding orientation with the prograde, retrograde, normal, etc. with the push of a button. Doing this by hand proves nothing to the world so its nice to push one button instead of constantly steering to find your orientation 3. real-time flight info, like thrust to weight ratios (even as you build), apo and peri so you dont have to toggle "M". Also on rendezvous, I like the time-to-target and dx at closest approach info as you close in. 4. OCCASIONALLY, I use the autolanding computer (so did Neil!) if it is a repetitive landing site and that my craft has a proven track record doing so. It is a great time saver. Otherwise I have yet to even test many of the other bells and whistles. BUT the good thing about those other bells, is they introduce new rocket science terms, whether I decide to look them up or not, MJ can be a teacher. CONS: Some KSP players will dis you for using it.

Ditto here Apollo, I'm 43, am a programmer/developer and on the side run a popular CMS News site, among many gaming sites back in the day. You and I will forget more than the trolls will ever remember

My deal is realism. And for whatever reason (probably lack of thrust, relative) I have never seen a land launched rocket with jets for the first stage. So i dont build em.

I am the original poster on this. For those that are getting all flustered over the "We're not worthy" title: WOW! It was a little jest and referencing good 'ol Wayne and Garth: Get over it. And as far as the challenge it was nothing official, but if you have any mission recorded anywhere near that caliber, mods or not, post it. I am sure we are all worthy, given enough time, video editing skills, and a nice CPU to handle it all. Showing your un-appreciation here for clearly excellent work was not my intended result when I posted this. So take it or leave it, but I am the first to admit I am not worthy (due to lack of time and the aforementioned items), even though I have many Duna missions and orbital rendezvous under my belt.

... almost as unclean as regular expressions

I think the use of mods is impressive because more parts means more complexity. Also realize that mods dont always play well together and I would have to believe he has his share of frustrating bugs. And if the storyline itself wasnt enough, he finished it off with a crash reel at the end. Bravo!

That is pretty insightful for a 13 year old, good for you. I have to believe that any "kid" that plays KSP is more intellectual than most of their peers.

I challenge anyone to top this:

I was born almost a year to the day later. I was glad to see this post; I now know there are more "old dudes" that play KSP.

I met Buzz about 10 years ago, he was drinkin scotch, really! I have a picture of us I will post it in the near future. He and I were the only two people in the room for about 10 minutes, so I talked to him. Interestingly he was nice enough, until I asked him questions about the moon landing's in general (not necessarily his, just fact finding I was). He had little to say and I could tell he didnt want to talk about the moon. So I dropped it. His wife came in later (now ex-wife, I believe), and she was a bit tipsy and pretty annoying. Like a 70 year old trophy wife or something. I think she was annoying him as well.

I am a regular reader of space.com and was glad to see this. I almost posted the link but see you have beat me to it. I am surprised it took them that long to notice

My only uses for Mechjeb right now: - real-time flight info like apoapsis-periapsis, time to target, closest approach to target - create efficient launch ascent profiles - hold orientation (prograde, retrograde, normal, anti-normal, etc..) - OCCASIONALLY use landing autopilot, if it is a common landing site/craft that I have stuck manually many times (more of a time saver thing) Future uses for anything that I master manually first.

In Squad We Trust!

Thanks for responding Harverster. On my system, which has a decent graphics card, etc, Mun looks a bit brown at times. And yes, darker than before. Overall, I thank you for the new look though, those craters are great! BUT, it does not look as much like our Earth moon as it did before because of the odd color.

Amen! BUT, I do appreciate those that have added to the community by constructively shared their issue in an effort aid the developers in solving the problem. The recent poll suggests that the majority of the users are not having the problem, but there is a population that does. I am SURE that this will be resolved very soon. Until then, as Jules from Pulp Fiction (Samuel L. Jackson) would say: "Bitch, be cool!!!"

Oh, yeah, despite my positive report of my SAS condition, one side note that I forgot. I too, did notice that on larger rockets under heavy acceleration in atmosphere, SAS struggled to keep its heading. Reducing power had a noticeable affect to correct this.

For the record: I am NOT on steam, fresh install, Windows XP on decent hardware, and I am not having any issue, in fact SAS is working very well. I flew a stock jet, #1 on the list. I never fly airplanes and with very little experience I was able to easily take off fly and land the #1 stock jet. I toggled SAS on and off and found it to be effective. Then I built and flew a Kerpollo Mun mission with success. YES, the SAS is weaker, but functional and my Saturn V redux rocket has about half as many support struts than previous version since the oscillations (wobble) has been reduced greatly. On another note, I saw a HUGE performance increase in flight, loading, and across the board! THANKS SQUAD!!

I am at work right now (ssshhhhhhhh....) and dont have my KSP in front of me. But has anyone of you having problems confirmed this to be a solution to your problem? If so, this could end this discussion.

This is what im thinkin too.... ANYONE?

awesome!!!!!

Scott Manley put this out, see the new kerbin textures, etc. http://youtu.be/l9oH49oFlN8

Too lazy to upload a photo of my flag to imgur, so see my sig below including my common plaque message

That is also called the Oberg effect. And I guees you could try it, but I dont think you should. Keep in mind the gravity on minmus is tiny and you really should slow down because it is very easy to overshoot the SOI