chaos_forge

Agreed. The most difficult thing about VTOLs is how long the jet engines take to respond to changes in thrust

So if I want to play with contracts and science, yet not be restricted by budgets or a tech tree, what mode would be "proper" for me to play?

You don't use it for anything, just like after you've completed the techtree in career. It does, however, serve as a sort of achievement tracker (especially the science archives section) and a measurement of how many places you've been.

I will repeat what is often said on these forums: This is a single-player game, there is no right or wrong way to play. Sandbox is as much a "proper" game mode as career.

I don't think players should be forced to do part testing before being able to use a part. Honestly I find part test contracts annoying. If you want to test every part before you use it, you can already do that with part testing contracts, but don't force it on the rest of the players.

It started with 0.22 and the introduction of science. I excitedly went to one of the many science-equipped satellites I had in orbit in my (sandbox) saved game, and got a message along the lines of "This data is useless with the R&D facility closed". This a very disheartening message, and at least for me is a break of immersion. This problem has only increased with the addition of contracts, which are also unavailable to sanbox mode players. Both contracts and science have a place in sandbox mode. First of all, both funds and science can serve as a sort of numerical measure of your success. Science especially serves (for us roleplaying types at least) as a measure of your contributions to kerbal knowledge, and can be fun to obtain for its own sake. Furthermore, I like having contracts (especially with FinePrint installed) to give me ideas on what I can do next. However, as a veteran player, I find the tech tree annoying and often times I want to run before I walk in a new save (such as going straight to Jool without having landed on the Mun first). However, in career mode I usually must grind science and funds before I can do the type of massive missions that I want to do right from the start. So currently I have two options: play sandbox and be deprived of features, or play career and use save-editing/the debug menu to give myself funds and science when I need them (which feels like cheating). My proposed solution is this: give sandbox all the features of career mode, with one key difference: when you lanuch a ship that costs more funds than you have, you can launch it but your funds simply go negative. Likewise, you should be able to unlock tech tree node whenever you want by just having your science go negative. This lets sandbox players see if their space program would be successful in the long run, even if in the short run they may want to do some hideously expensive mission. Sandbox should have fewer limitations than career, not fewer features. TL;DR: Sandbox should be just like career mode except your funds and science can go negative. Thoughts/Ideas?

This seems like a rather niche problem . . . honestly if you're slamming into the atmosphere at 75km/s there's nothing that's gonna save you. Also, how in God's name did you get to such a ridiculous speed anyways?

Moho used to have a thin super-heated atmosphere, it might be cool to see it back . . .

too many? honestly I think there's too few . . . in any case having a predifned number of contracts would be too limiting. If you want to spend your entire career mode without going farther than minmus, that should still be an option

That worked, many thanks!

I remember seeing somewhere on the internet that 0.24 had added buttons to the debug menu to add and subtract science, funds, and reputation to your saved game. There was some combination of keystrokes that you had to use to make it appear, but I can't for the life of me remember what it is, and 30 minutes of searching the internet gave me nothing. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

Thanks for the list, OP! Probably wouldn't have found out otherwise. Anyways, here's to hoping that "maybe" in aerodynamics can turn into a definite "yes". Also, with the release of NEAR, we know it's possible to have a middle ground between FAR and stock aerodynamics . . .

This is a single player (mostly) sandbox game. there is no wrong way to play.

If a rover/lander testing facility is ever added (another often requested feature), the discovery mechanic could be integrated with it for more accurate simulations

I really hope that the overhaul of the spaceplane partes also brings with ir an overhaul of the drag and parachute models

Honestly I'd be fine with it if all squad ever did with the water was make it less dangerous to land in . . . maybe some kind of hack so you need to be going at twice a part's impact tolerance in order for it to be destroyed when it hits water

I agree with regex. FAR takes some getting used to, but I'd say it is neither harder nor easier than the stock atmospheric model. I've also never heard squad say they were planning on keeping the current model indefinitely, and considering the state of other aero-related things in KSP (*cough* spaceplane parts *cough*), I'd say they simply haven't gotten around to it yet.

Do you mean 1.25 meter? The only heat shields i can see are a .625 meter one, a 1.25 meter one, the mk1-2 capsule heat shield, a 3 meter one, and the inflatable 6 meter one. Unless the others are in another place?

Is there a normal 2.5m heat shield available? The one for the mk1-2 pod works, but it looks pretty wonky on any payload that isn't the mk1-2 pod.

You have a good point, sir or madam. I rescind my previous statement.

Something HAS been done . . . the already suggested list is stickied. Also, please don't necrothread.

I've been using FAR for about a week and I'm liking it, but I'm considering switching to NEAR (mostly for performance). I've almost exclusively built delta-wing planes while using FAR, and I haven't really noticed any complicated physics. For the uninitiated, would you mind providing a few examples of what behaviors I would be missing out on if I switch to NEAR?

UPDATE: I copied my mod files & save directly to a 32-bit install of the game and everything works, so it seems to be a 64-bit problem.

Hello, I'm having a very strange bug: I've installed realchute v1.2.1 on ksp 64-bit and am using the stock chutes with the module manager. It loads fine, and I am able to place chutes on my vessels, but the chutes have no staging icon and I am unable to get the realchute config for any parachute to show up. I am able to launch my vessels, but the chute just sit there and I am unable to deploy it. EDIT: I have the log file, but it's too long to post on the forums. Where should I put it?

Not sure if I understand . . . what prevents you from using the revert function to test your rockets? That's what it's there for, and if you revert to the VAB/SPH, you get your money back . . .