Corw

For me it is convenience. It has all my games in one place and I can install/uninstall them all with two clicks. They will always work out of the box (at least in my experience so far) and it will keep them updated. In addition, sales. Only negative point are also the sales It does nothing you can't do, but it is not something you want to do anyway (manual download and patching). And it never chokes on a patch day.

From what I've read, you'll get same forced update functionality on Win7 too, so resistance is futile. I must say I was shocked how much things I was asked to share with MS on upgrade. But it works well, no problems, no regrets (so far).

My first guess would be that your wheels are not centred properly.

Dude, you have no idea how overbuilt that is... It is not lack of fuel that is your problem, it is too many engines, among other things.

This is actually an excellent yardstick. Would you play ironman mode in current release? If your answer is no because you do not trust the game to mess you up, no, it is not finished. It is an excellent late beta, but mediocre 1.0. Yes, it has all the systems needed to be called 1.0 in, but they are rather rough on the edges and may leave you with some cuts and bruises.

I've searched for similar suggestions, but I didn't find any. Does not mean there weren't What I'm proposing is to add an option to add modules like solar panels, antennas, science instruments, ..., to staging. Every part could have an right click menu option "Add to staging" which would add appropriate icon to staging thingy, like currently engines, decouplers and fairings have. Additionally, it might be interesting to be able to add action groups to staging. This could improve mission planing during vehicle design and avoid silly little mishaps like forgetting to deploy solar panels. Additionally, this would extend staging beyond current "vehicle" stage into "mission" stage.

Have you tried fiddling with maneuver points near SoI change point? Don't try just retro burn, try changing direction.

If I'm not mistaken they are all listed in options, so you can check them there. That is the first thing I do in *any* game. KSP has wiki that lists key bindings here.

Hi there. I see we have been raised in different parts of the internet. I did not meant to be rude or disrespectful, I simply wanted to state my opinion in slightly humoristic way, as it is custom in forums I was raised. Where we do not get that easily offended and we try to be witty and funny and whatnot Corw out.

FYP (+ extra characters to appease character count gods )

Phatty

Now if we only had a place for stuff like this, something like wiki...

Of course you would "cheat". Because IRL is about getting things done. However, game is about enjoying the experience

I didn't said it wasn't a major improvement, but I was hoping it would be a complete, stable and reliable product. If it was, we wouldn't need the (rather radically game changing) patches. I'm not a troll, just a disappointed fanboy.

I thought 1.0 would be good.

If I'm not mistaken, KSP loads everything to memory at start. So SSD would speed up your load and that is it.

Note the mass of a ship, empty tanks in VAB, note new mass. Difference is fuel. Or get a mod.

Heh, the "real life"/"realistic" argument over and over again. In real life they wouldn't let you past the visitors area of the space centre and even for that you would have to pay. In real life you lack qualifications to run a space program, let alone fly something (RC model planes included). This is a game about managing, building and flying stuff sprinkled with occasional explosions. You don't feel like flying it manually? OK, fine, but don't pull those "real life" excuses.

There is additional point. If you have high TWR, means you have bigger engine then required for the mission. So your vessel is overbuilt to start with and competing vessel would be smaller and required less fuel.

In principle it mostly does, as I do not have separate descent and ascent engines. I'm not 100% sure as I can't test it right now (at work). And the heat shield part is bit moot as it is a bug that should be fixed. And it is one of the reasons why I'm not playing since 1.0.2 has came out...

Op, you are missing the point. You have overdesigned your crafts so you are taking wrong conclusions out of it. You left fuel behind which means you wasted all the resources you've burnt to bring it there etc. Apollo mission profile is bringing minimum mass required for each part of the mission. Less mass on top means less mass in each stage before it, which is most visible in your first lifter stage. If you go with the lander you are not wasting fuel landing and lifting back to space return stage (Mun->Kerbin). You also need smaller return stage because you have discarded the mass you needed to land etc. Try building two crafts, one Apollo style, other direct descent and compare them. They will be able to do same mission, but Apollo style one should always be smaller and cheaper. If you do not overbuild them, that is

I've killed guy named Jeb. Police doesn't have a clue.

From what I've seen and read over the years KSP is a balance between fun and realistic, with accent on realistic. It has been using simplifications to improve fun (building out of thin air, fuel mining, fuel transfer), simplifications to avoid simulation problems (on the rails planets, SOI), scaling down to improve fun (smaller system, planets), scaling up to improve fun (high TWR, high ISP, high ion engine trust to improve burn time). But all of those simplifications and scaling are actually based in possible things. Fuel transfer is possible, but hard. RAPIER is possible, but hard, SSTO is possible but hard. Mining fuel on other planets and moons is possible, but you've guessed it, it is hard. A lot of systems were added over time as the game was maturing, they were just missing at a time and were added over long period of time. So yes, there are a lot of compromises on realism to have more fun, but realism was always strong in this one. There are no unicorns, warp drives and ion engines lifting 100t from sea level. In future Kerbals might eat, poop and have cities, because that was not high on list of important stuff, but your magic unicorns are nowhere to be found on that list. Your magic unicorn ion engines are not hard, they are impossible, so they are not included.

3rd party hosting sites like http://imgur.com/, then embed them in post.

In 2nd scenario your second stage has to move less mass, because you've dropped side boosters, so same amount of fuel has to do less work. That is why you get more delta v. And that extra delta v is propagating to total delta v of the upper stages. Left side of the / is delta v of the stage, which is unchanged for upper stages, but total of that stage with lover stages included is higher. Basically, you have discovered the most crucial thing that KER can show you = less is more. Just enough engines and fuel can get you further with lower mass and parts count than bloated design, which at first had is counter-intuitive. You don't have to go "moar boosters!" to go to space, you can just reshuffle staging, add small bits here, remove small bits there and get much better results. For me personally, KER was such a revelation and I would never go past LEO without it.