Rocket Farmer

Let me start off by saying awesome game and way to go on the updates. 1.1 looks great with the increases to jets and optimizations. However going forward we can only currently use all those great jet parts on 2 of 14 visitable bodies (Laythe and Kerbin) and while both are a lot of fun Laythe is mostly water. So after the optimization to 64 I'm thinking 1.2 is a perfect time for gas planet 2 which I thought no should include 2 atmospheric bodies. For me for planets I would love to see. 1. A nice giant Jupiter analog with a swirled surface and a moving giant storm 2. A slightly bigger than Gilly sized planet grazer. Basically a planet that is super close to GP2 with an orbit just above the atmosphere of GP2 and a orbit under 1 day. Make it tidally locked. 3. A jet breathing atmosphere planet with an extremely elliptical orbit coming quite close in to GP2 at its perapsis but have a very far apoasis. Basically this planet will be the elevator of the GP2 orbit allowing somebody to jump on close to GP2 and then get off much farther out to catch another moon with little DV cost. 4. An additional jet breathing planet Val sized mid way out. This being an extremely rough planet with mountains / ridges extending above the atmosphere in spots so that landings can be done in vacuum or a skilled pilot can risk airbraking with the constant threat of lithobraking if you plot the wrong course. Also flying a jet around this world would be very interesting as a skilled jet could leap out of the atmosphere to "hopefully" clear some of the mountains ridges). 5. A rock garden of 6-8 Gilly sized planets in close orbit (couple of km apart) but somewhat different representing a planet that recently broke up. Threading a encounter through there would be a true test to get to the middle. 6. One planet a fair ways out that is orbiting backwards that is elongated around its equator such that it's rotation is only slightly less than orbit speed at the equator making it much easier to land at the poles instead of the equator. 7. Leave Eeloo by itself. My humble dream moon combination.

I'm honestly don't know what the dIfference for me is but I have only ever experienced a dip in frame rates on my largest vessels. I used to launch pancakes of power measuring 7x7 stacked with 3 tanks on a rocket plus connectors and 8+ struts per column. That was just the lifter which didn't count the actual rocket (let's say 650 parts just for the lifter including the boosters around the outside) . All told I didn't ever notice performance drops till a at least 1,000+ parts but it's still very playable. No think the highest I remember was 1,300ish and I remember being a bit surprised at its sluggishness. I never thought it weird because I saw whackjob going 2,000+ on the forum. I run totally stock KSP on a custom ordered laptop with a good I7, 32gb ram, Solid state hard drive, 17 inch monitor and very good graphics card. The laptop is about 1.5 years old now. It is primarily used for large excel modelling (100mb+ excel files eat computer power).

Both have their place. When I start a new career I typically go for the Mun before I have any planning nodes. You can easily straight eyeball your transit as long as you know about how fast you need to exit kerbin from. After 3-4 career starts I can now hit it 100% of the time totally by eyeball. Try that with Minmas. Pretty much after your first orbit you can do a Mun flyby for great amounts of science. On the other hand Minmas is eventually better for science as you can biome hop much better. So I progress through both.

@ Tw1 & Keg I disagree but respect your constructive opinions. More flesh into the contracts would be nice but I don't see it as a priority at all. I see Kerbals more as a traditional Lego set. The ones where you got a bunch of random pieces and you had to engage your creativity to determine how to proceed. I hauled out my old Lego set for my 6 year old nephew recently. He looked in the box for 3-4 minutes before he came over to ask where the directions were because he didn't know what the set was designed to build. When I said there were none build what you want he seemed confused. I don't see the contract system as a guide to your space program development. I see them more as an optional have you tried this crazy idea. It seems that Keg above especially wants a reward system built into Kerbal. Why isn't coming up with your own mission plan and executing it well sufficient for reward? Why do you need s contract that also says good job?

@ tater Well aren't you just a ray of sunshine. Something isn't perfect in your world so it's "stupid." KSP was designed by professional game developers to encapsulate the traditionally difficult topic of orbital mechanics blended with humour to make it enjoyable. Before seeing kerbals I would have said this was impossible. Forgive me if I take their professional opinion over yours as they have made it work and work well. Secondly KSP owes you nothing. Your recouped your investment in he 1st couple hours of play. Any "demands" of changes beyond that is due to your unfounded self entitlement. There is so much self centeredness in your above discussion it's amazing in your game that the planets don't orbit around you. Making suggestions is fine. Better yet is realizing that there are Multiple avenues of development for s game like this and if it doesn't fit your style then there are other games that probably do. Personally I enjoy the entire mad scientist slightly illogical theme as it is consistent throughout the entire game with the crazy missions fitting in just fine. That's me. I'm not saying your thoughts and ideas are bad but your delivery and my way or he highway mentality does nothing for anybody. Be constructive.

@tater You are sitting at a computer steering little green men while they explore space and explosions. You seem concerned with it being "dumb," "stupid," and "cruddy" and yet you still spend time on it. You are fine with imaginary vacuum in different imaginary locations as measured on your imaginary science devices and yet consider there being differences between these items "dumb." KSP is a one of the kind game that tackles orbital mechanics with tongue in cheek humour that is totally on point. I have had hundreds of hours of entertainment for the low cost of $30 and I have actually learned a fair bit about a very difficult concept. It's unfortunate that you aren't mature enough to appreciate it. If you want the real thing NASA is hiring, otherwise control the small minded nerd rage that things arent exactly as you want them.

Lol at people that complain about the inclusion of optional content. If you don't like the contracts then play sandbox. There you go, problem solved. As an "experienced" individual I find that after having been everywhere that the contracts offer nice challenges that keep the game interesting. I have put a SRB into suborbital flight around the mum. It was great.

Per all the hate for them not including KER. You guys do know it's a simple math calculation to figure out your DV. Just have excel running in the background and plug in your total mass and total fuel (both of which are listed now). Personally I play totally stock and have no issues. Infact using Excel greatly reduces my build sizes/time building/ and failure rates as I can quickly model each stage and determine where I can reduce mass/fuel, try different engine combinations quickly, ensure my TWR is suitable in any given stage, and still accomplish my mission. Frankly I don't know how you guys get anywhere with the little bit of data you get from KER.

I chain my contracts together. Right now I am preping for my mission to fulfill contracts of 1. Space station Kerbin orbit 2. Space station mun orbit 3. Space station landed on minmas 4. 2 tourists to orbit mun and land in minmas 5. Personal rotation of existing minmas base station back to Kerbin to become 2 star scientists, engineers, pilots 6. Park in Kerbin orbit and use a separate drop ship to land said kerbal and tourists 7. Take said kerbals back up and refill the space base fuel tanks 8. Complete flyby Duna mission 9. Complete discover Duna (small detachable lander used for landing). 10. Land on Ike. Base will stay there with the science crew while a pilot takes back the extra science. All in one mission. that ought to buy the next science compound.

Never had a near collision in space. I did have a very near miss with minmas once. Back when I originally started I had stranded Jeb in a ship with just mono propellant in a tight orbit around minmas. So I sent a rescue ship. As it one of my first attempts at rendezvous I used both ships propulsions to line it up. I finally got the rescue ship within 329m and killed relative velocity (neither ship had docking ports). So sent Jeb on Eva between the 2 vessels (the rescue ship had a higher orbit). While crossing the gap I happened to rotate my screen to look at he oncoming terrain and was stunned at how large the oncoming ridge looked. While I sat transfixed I watched the lower ship hit the minmas ridge while Jeb and the rescue ship cleared it. The ships had been 328m apart and Jeb was only 1/2 in between them...... My adjustments had put the lower vessel in a suborbital path..... While I thought it best I didn't realize till I had played much more rare a event I had watched.

To be fair I play a bit of ksp and haven't had a single crash since 1.0 came out. I have orbitals around the mun and minmas and a base on minmas in my current 1.0 career and am gearing up for Duna. I have also done s lot of STO space plane missions and have played for 2-3 hours at a crack. I also play stock so maybe it's not the newbs having issues but the experienced players that are stretching the system already?

Great except for the part about not synchronizing your orbits. A successful rendezvous can not occur without sychronzing first (with one exception I have witnessed as below). Last week a grasshopper successfully rendevoued with my vehicle while I was doing 130km/h and he was doing about 10km/h. While he did successfully dock on my windshield the results were not overly favourable for him. He would have much preferred synchronizing his velocity to mine first however that would have required access to Kerbal rocketry and while they are both green species the similarities end there.

No ladder involved (none in the ship). But otherwise the result seems about right. 80km x 80km orbit to clarify. I had just gone Eva and as soon as the screen switched to Jeb he was already falling fast. The area experiencing fairing issues was 15m away from where he went Eva so it wasn't that he got clipped by a fairing piece either. Either way the results were entertaining.

Yes I was in a steady 80x 80x orbit about to rendezvous with my space station. After the "incident" Jeb had a very steep re-entry at what appeared to be well above orbital speeds. Thus in just his spacesuit he went through the upper atmosphere far to fast to slow down enough before he hit the lower soupie atmosphere. It was the first time I had a kerbal explode from heat all by himself

That's right. Today I was launching a new lander and I guess I had a part clipping the fairing as it stuck and didn't come off after I made orbit. After trying everything else I decided Jeb would fix it via EVA. After exiting the part of the craft outside the fairing suddenly there was a shudder and When I blinked it was just Jeb (no ship) and he was dropping like a rock. I thought well hey I get to try landing a Kerbal by themselves in the ocean I was so convienantly above. Well it turned out his tragetory was a little steeper than it should have been. At about 55k the flames starting showing and by 30k he was positively glowing something similar to an old air brake around Jool. This unfortunately ended with a puff of smoke at 25km. Anybody else unintentionally (or intentionally) try the heat resistance of a lone Kerbal? p.s I vote that the badass characteristic should include heat invulnerability.

Personally the farm control stick is a little to close to the day job so I'll stick to being a keyboard astronaut....

Actually for close in docking I find it easiest to simply eyeball it. Your target is dropping relative to you? Burn downwards. It's rising and moving to the right. Burn up and at a right angle. alternatively if you get good with your nodes you can close to .1 a .2km without ever going to ship view (just staying in map view)

I figured I would start a posting of very useful tips a person uses that they have never seen posted in the forums. For me my tip is this. Know where you will land on Kerbin when you are returning directly to Kerbin without orbiting in between accurately and with little dv cost: For accurate landing in Kerbin know that the Kerbin day is 6 hours long. So when returning from a high aopsis (mun, minmas or any other planet) as soon as you get into Kerbin's sphere of influence fast forward to the nearest multiple of 6 hours before your projected landing time (6, 12, 18, 24 etc). Check out where you will be landing on kerbin at that time (ie let's say 30 hours before you actually get to Kerbin). Your landing point shown will be your actual landing point geographically as Kerbin will exactly rotate 5 times before you land (6x5 = 30). Simply adjust your course slightly to pick your preferred landing site. Given you are so far away dv costs are minimal. You can also use this on any other body as long as you know how long their day is. This usually allows me to land those early missions within 5-10km of the space centre with little do cost.

Mach 1 = 340m/s so you are about at Mach 3. At sea level your ship will disintegrate from heat somewhere between 1,075 and 1,250m/s depending on how you built it. Above 20k you can get 1,300m/s+ if you fly right but your engines also begin to die due to lack of oxygen. Best of luck.

In response to a heavy lifter 1.25m engine and a 2 man 1.25m pod I'd vote a strong no. Both of your issues can be overcome with good building (yes, lots of boosters and yes 2 one man pods) or alternatively you can use the next size up which had both. You want parts that remove the challenge. Instead I like the requests for. 1. Radiators. This could be very handy. 2. Hoses for fuel transfer on the surface. Yes you can use the claw or perfectly align docking clamps but that's more of a pain then a challenge (in my opinion). 3. Electric propeller. I would do expand my Explorer plane fleet by using them on Duna and similar worlds that have no air but do have atmosphere. - - - Updated - - - Oh and a robotic arm would be very nice (canada arm style) with a gantry. Would make unloading cargo bays much easier.

I play totally stock hard mode so cost of launch matters to me. So pre 1.0 I had an SSTO plane that would nicely deliver s decent payload to Minmas and return or alternatively also did Gilly and Ike landing returns (Duna was a tough place to fly in). With refuelling on the runway I once did a Minmas run, followed by Gilly, followed by Ike. Currently in 1.0 my SSTO can carry a small payload into orbit and return. I can see maybe a Mun orbit and return but that would be about max. So changes were in order. Currently I am having great success with a modified system (not SSTO). Basically I am strapping wings and jets on a rocket and doing most of the launch that way with a breakaway rocket after I drain off the last of the fuel in the wings. Even with a small 2 jet 1 rocket setup I am easily and cheaply lifting 3,500 DV plus a bit of payload in LKO. For me this is great because it makes Duna, Ike, Dres, Gilly return missions cheaper than my conventional Mun orbit missions were all on small rocket designs. Anybody else having good luck with hybrids?

Umm 200m/s is around 720km/h or around 450 mph. Therefore I can't say I would know why a car capable of that speed looks like because I expect there are very few of them (not going to say they don't exist but i haven't seen one yet). As for the lawn mower at 180km/h (110 mph) that seems little fast for a lawn mower too.

You know I have developed almost the same exact profile. After trying everything else I switched to 3x turbo and 1x nuke using a 40 degree rise. I usually have throttled down slightly between 10-15km as my ship tends to get pretty hot throttling up before cracking 20km. In my best run I cracked 1,350m/s before I started losing speed from low thrust. I'm not quite getting the dv into LKO that you have but I was using MK1 so I might have to try switching, try to ensure I'm in your math for engine and I wasn't hitting the nukes as quickly as you (I was trying to coast the last gas out of the turbos). It's a little ways away from my pre 1.0 SSTO to Duna landed and back but all in good time.

In one of the screen shots they released there were 2 side mount parachutes visible in the hanger part list so I expect we are also getting either different sizes of side mount parachutes or more likely we get drogue side mount chutes. So add that to the part list.

Anybody else find this update very intriguing due to asteroids becoming mineable? Instead of the hey look I put s big rock in orbit, ummm now what we will have large gas stations anywhere we want. It looks like this will become a essential component of anybody wanting to do lots of deep space work. Mining minmas, pol, fully etc will be useful but they are all a fair ways from my regular flying routes but with a handy asteroid in Kerbin orbit refuelling is simple and right where you need it. I guess I will have to brush up on asteroid moving but that ought to be much easier with large stockpiles of fuel right there too. I for one applaud squad for taking an existing feature and giving it a great refresh.