SecondGuessing

I'm aware, but the optimisation, from what I've heard, has been tending in a direction that should make the game more efficient in its CPU and RAM usage, rather than it's current overuse of CPU and underuse of RAM. And Gilflo, I agree, at this point I'd be happy for them to stop adding features and just optimise the game to work the way it should.

What a useless suggestion. The game is incredibly poorly optimised, TS, and it relies heavily on CPU rather than RAM. Thus it runs in a very peculiar way on systems that should blow it away. For example, my laptop can run most modern games on high~ settings at an acceptable framerate, but KSP starts to stutter even at 200 part ships. It's purely a fact drawn from the poor optimisation. Hopefully .20 will boost the games use of RAM and lower its CPU hogging, which should help a lot of people.

A golliwog?

You can go into the persistence file and tell the file it's working in .20 rather than .19. Same with plane and rockets. It's a bit laborious, though, so I usually just restart, but its almost certainly doable.

Download Link The Almagest I 'Redstart' is the culmination of a few months work developing an SSTO. It's a light, long-range space-plane, capable of occupying a range of roles from rescue shuttle to tourist jet. Design Philosophy The Redstart was developed with several key concepts in mind, namely: - Incredible atmospheric flight characteristics. The Redstart was modified from a standard high-performance plane, meaning that its wing planform is designed with atmospheric stability in mind. As such, the Redstart works fantastically as a sub-orbital jet, and as is incredibly easy to land when the time comes. - Utility. The Redstart is built around a probe core, meaning that it can be flown with or without a pilot. (Which means that if you wish to depart with a pilot you will need to move a Kerbal over from the launch pad - a vehicle for which will be coming soon - or use the fantastic Crew Manifest plugin). Eighty mono-prop and a balanced RCS system, and a Clamp-O-Tron Jr. mean that she's easy to dock with, and a carrying capacity to orbit of roughly 1.5 tons mean she can carry small probes and the like into position easily. - Efficiency. The main focus when designing the Redstart was to have a space-plane that didn't reach orbit with only a slither of fuel remaining. Thus, its main engine is the economical LV-N, and the craft is designed with just enough intakes to reach an adequate speed and altitude in order to use this engine effectively. Testing in order to improve the utility and efficiency took some time, but she now reaches and 80x80 circular orbit with 1200m/s~ of delta-V remaining, enough for trips within the Kerbin system without refueling, and after refueling has enough delta-V - 2495m/s - to make round trips to Kerbin's close neighbours. - Simplicity. Following the tried and tested design philosophy, the Redstart was kept as simple as possible to fly. Easy to get to orbit, and easy to maneuver when attempting to dock, the Redstart can be used effectively by those less comfortably with space-planes. Even in landing on low fuel, usually a curse of SSTOs, the wing design means the Redstart is very easy to pilot at both high and low speeds, preventing the problems that come from getting her feet muddy or wet. Flight Manual Piloting the Redstart is very easy, and so odds are any pilot with an understanding of using trim and using space-planes will be able to get to orbit. However, a few points and precautions can help the efficiency and ease of use greatly. Action Groups 1 - Toggle Turbojet engine 2 - Toggle LV-N engine 3 - Toggle intakes Backspace - Shuts off all engines and deploys parachutes. The typical ascent plan I use is as follows: activate the SAS and throttle the turbojet engine to full; lift the nose (you can do this keeping the SAS on) at around 60m/s. Point the nose at 45 degrees, and use the trim to keep at that angle. Keep this heading until you reach 20,000m and then lower the nose to between 10 and 15 degrees (10 will result in more fuel once in orbit, but it can result in you passing the apoapsis and wasting fuel trying to regain altitude). You should be able to build speed easily until roughly 1500m/s, at which point activate the LV-N and angle the nose to 25 degrees. Wait till the turbojets starves and then shut it off and close the intakes. Upon closing the intakes the plane will try to drop the nose, so be prepared to catch this. (again, you can do so with the SAS on. Frankly, I rarely ever turn the SAS off). Once you've shut the intakes pitch the nose up to 45 degrees again and then simply ride the LV-N until the apoapsis is above 70km, again, using trim (alt+W/S) will help you maintain this heading. Shut off the engine and set-up a maneuver node to get you where you want to be. If done correctly you should get into orbit with roughly 1200m/s~ delta-V remaining. Landing is easy to do. However, when re-entering I heavily advice not to have the intakes open until you are below about 800m/s, as having them open will cause the plane to 'tailstand', and it's very difficult to recover from this. Landing can happen safely at about 60m/s on flat terrain, but of course you're always safer at around 20m/s. When landing, keep in mind that the nuclear engine sticks out a great deal, and so you need to be level when touching down or it will break off. Remember, if things go completely wrong you can always press backspace and your Kerbal (if you have one flying) should at least survive... even if the plane doesn't. I hope you all enjoy the Redstart. I've found it to be a very fun, but still useful, SSTO, and hope you'll find the same. Please let me know any issues you come across or advice you have, but most of all have fun!

Cheers. In that version she does get a little slidy at 1200m/s~, which can be a bit tough. The new variant, which I'm just taking some screenies of now and testing performance a bit more rigorously, that problem's been solved. Linky link

Backup all my old saves and start a new one, and then probably mess around with some olde fashioned planes and gliders using the new seats. Then, to the Mun to plant a flag! Although, actually I probably just go check on my big stations to see how good the optimisation is. Edit: I might also recreate Dr Strangelove using the new seats...

It's in my signature link, as will be the new version, which I should be adding tonight.

My Almagest I 'Swift' is incredibly easy to use and gets into orbit comfortably. Although, I'm about to release the update to it, which is easier to handle and has more fuel & RCS.

Well done man! That first X landing is one of the those all time great gaming moments for me, like beating the Elite Four and a certain someone dying in Final Fantasy VII. Although I always feel bad when I see a single Kerbal capsule on a planet. Poor lonely guy.

Certainly. I think arguing realism in a game where you can get into orbit using 4000d/V is rather pointless. We don't want realism in KSP, we want a mild realism, tempered with explosions.

But you don't need an excuse. If anyone says 'ermergerd mechjeb is cheating u noob' just tell them to put the dummy back in their mouth and let people play things how they want.

I use it, but only for weird obsessive things. For example, my ComSats have no propulsion of their own, but sometimes undocking will give them enough push to put them into an orbit that doesn't end in an even number... if that happens then I quickload and launch them in a slightly different direction. Yes is know it's sad. If I'm doing anything on a planet or in rendezvous then I only quickload if I do something silly like stop throttling because I changed music track (I have my shortcut for WinAmp to play the next track set as Ctrl+Alt+. which can mean that if I haphazardly change song then the throttle gets dropped). If I mess up a landing or smash into the space station and damage something then I leave it, though; I find rescue missions to be easily one of the most fun parts of the game.

I'd put planes highest, but then I take the most pleasure in getting a space-plane to the planets. That or a base; precise landings are much harder than docking is.

IRL the potential problems are much higher, as are the potential losses. I'm not denigrating mechjeb users, but this is a lame excuse. Mechjeb doesn't add any realism to the game, it simply smooths off some of the tedium found when you launch your hundredth rocket. That's perfectly fine, but don't pretend that using mechjeb makes your space program more realistic than not using it would.

That's going to be horrible to rendezvous with from the ground; if it's slightly ahead of you then you have no chance of entering a lower orbit to catch it up. First 'serious' save rendezvous (I've rendezvoused (is that really a word) a hundred times before, but it always feels new when I do it in a new save). It was very serene, except that I discovered by shuttle had nowhere near enough wing surface and thus collided with the ground at 50m/s when coming back home. Milger survived though... the test shuttle didn't.

Hydrogen-oxygen rockets aren't famous for their CO2 output (when in flight at least, the construction and cooling is horrifically polluting).

Water first then milk! But yes, mechjeb is a controversial topic. Of course, it's only controversial because there are a lot of self-centered people out there who feel compelled to pretend that theyre wounded whenever someone does something that they disagree with, even if the action has no chance of affecting them at all.

I'm a builder, but I don't like mechjeb. I spend most of the game in the SPH, albeit with brief, explosion-filled interludes.

For the love of God don't make this game more like Spore. I've never been so disappointed by a game in my life.

What purpose would wasting a nuclear weapon by putting in orbit serve? The only distinction between a nuclear weapon and a probe is a few circuitry heating details and a mass difference, but if you can put a probe into orbit already then you've gotten over the big hurdle. Not to mention the fact that putting a nuclear weapon into orbit is only effective if you're going to to use it immediately. If you launch it and use it as blackmail then the other guy can simply use the MAD principle and you go back to a stalemate. Not to mention once a weapon's in orbit it's easy to pick up using radar technology that was easily available to both sides and thus you lose any sense of a surprise attack. And 50s and 60s rocketry science wasn't applied to ICBMs, it was derived whole-cloth from it. Sputnik was launched in an ICBM for goodness sake. And as for NASA, clause of the original NAS act clearly lays out the fact that the military is to be tacitly involved in NASA actions (oddly contradicting clause a)). Link. You don't need to directly put a weapon through your enemy's mailbox to be a threat, you just need to show off the fancy new red bike that you will deliver that weapon with. That's what the space race was, that and a brilliant way to galvanise a public and rile them into some good ol' patriotism.

I don't understand what you're saying is propaganda. NASA and the early space missions were all based around a need to prove to the Soviets that America could meet them in a conflict. 'Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace.' Seems like a battle-cry to me.

I have a Medion Erazer and it out-performs pretty much everything else in its price range by a long way. The starting RAM was a little low (4GB) but it was easy to replace, and the only issue I've had with it was the power jack breaking.

The usual reason for this is the tail of the craft lifting before the nose, resulting in a plane that is balancing on one wheel - a situation that will never end well.

Which only happened after the Cuban Missile crisis had shown that neither country was actually willing to use intercontinental weaponry, and that it would almost certainly remain a Cold War. So, both countries decided that it would be in their best interests to show a willingness to co-operate, which would make each leader appear benevolent and kind-hearted given the potentials for violence, and meant that it was much easier to keep a check on the other side's technological advancements. If you want to know how good your enemy are at rocketry, first hand contact with their most advanced rocketry program is probably about the best way to do so.