Augustulus91

Like most people i chose for resources, but also to extend career mode. I think that career mode will offer a lot of challenges. Which is necessary, because like every KSP player, i sometimes wonder what is the point? That's why i would like to see extended the utilities and scientific parts. Resources, processing, but also scientific research (in space stations, to unlock certain improvements, designs, technologies), and also the need to develop a communication network, something to do with all this fancy stuff, and that overload of electricity on board of all my ships.

I would say that i really like the idea, i always disliked the choice between a docking port or a parachute on the top of my rockets. Thank you! About the flow of the conversation, I need to agree that all ships are generating lots of electricity with no particular use, so some kind of refining would be nice. As i am no chemist (only high-school knowledge of protons , neutrons and electrons), what kind of conversion would you suggest?

To dock with a ship returning from the Mün, i noticed that my orbital inclination has changed (it's not straight over the 90° degrees line above the KSC = equator). Now i was wondering, is there a way how to know (some mod, or add-on), to which extend i need to burn to reset my orbital inclinations?

The leading news agency of my country, once spoke in a minor article about two Russian astronauts. After which I politely send them an email to inform them that they are called cosmonauts. Okay, I guess it's a minor mistake, but I still defend the opinion that published articles of any kind should follow strict grammar and spelling rules. Otherwise, what's the use of official language? In my opinion it's more about professionalism and principles, than the mistake itself. About the flow of the current article, the reality (which saddens me) is that you can perfectly live your life with total wrong conclusions about history, geography, biology, ... People have the choice and the option to watch jersey shore, kardashians ... which is fine by me, it's only sad that most people only watch this kind of entertainment tv (distorting their world views). How i have laughed with Snooky's view that the ocean is salty because of the whales, hilarious! The sad thing about today is, that there is actually more money in media if you give people dumbed down, zero-content stuff. People don't need to challenge their brain, and honestly, it's exhausting to challenge your brain, discuss stuff, which is why (in contrast to most people who play ksp, or are active on this forum), the majority of many nations don't know, and even don't care about the correct history, correct geography. So to compare regional knowledge levels is not so useful, everywhere there are people uninterested in the truth.

Thank you for the response, i will go through all the different answers, but i assume that doing a gravity turn is clearly the better option (as i am not using any tools, so it's hard to time certain orbits (for Mün slingshots)

I am making my first steps towards interplanetary travel. I am launching a probe, that i want to place in an orbit around Duna. I've read somewhere that if you're planning to leave Kerbin's SoI, there is no need to do a gravity turn. Most tutorials start with a ship in orbit around kerbin, and start burning from that point. What is the most fuel-friendly? Placing the probe in orbit (using a gravity turn), or just keep on burning straight, until i leave Kerbin's SoI?

Amazing news! Yes, i already the 0.20 install, in case craft files didn't work, i just rebuild them (and check how they were built the first time), i asked because last week i spend a whole day designing a working VTOL, and i just didn't want to lose it again Thank you very much!

Does anybody know if craft-files will still be working? Like some, i don't really see the point in expanding my spaceprogram, just building some crafts I would like to test in .21?

Thank you for the reply! and i didn't know it was the wrong forum, my apologies!

I am building a new heavy duty lander, and i saw that the impact tolerance of both stock parts is 12. So , are they actually just the same, with the bigger one double as heavy?

So with an vacuum isp of 390, the 'poodle' is the second best engine to use? I thought isp was the thrust factor at full fuel consumption, and didn't account for the amount of fuel used. PS: how can i change to prefix to answered?

After my first successful Mün landing, i am starting to build bigger rockets, (with lander cans), I was just wondering, is there a way to rank the different engines according to efficiency? Is a poodle engine more fuel efficient (more thrust to fuel consumed) than two or three, or four (i don't know), of the smaller engines (the one with the small diameter). Until now i always used a combination of the smaller engine, but recently i was astonished by the range and efficiency of the poodle engine. Any suggestions, or support would be appreciated! Thank you for your attention.

Thaha, this is so true!

I think i will wait until the next update, which hopefully will make texturing easier. Anyway, thank you everybody for your help.

Hi everybody, I have been playing KSP for some time now (3 weeks), and i really start to get the hang of it. I have two questions, First, in KSPX (a part pack) , there are radial mounted (sphere/ball)-like tanks for oxidizer and liquid fuel, in the same way as there is one for mono prop. Now these two new tanks have a small coloured line, to indicate their content. Now, the stock part, doens't have this line. My question is, i would like to clone the stock part, alter it texture to add a small yellow stripe, just for esthetic reasons. Could any of you point me out, somewhere where i can alter these?