Superfluous J

I refuse to acknowledge any time system that starts from any time other than the birth of the Universe. So once you've figured out what that is get back to me. More seriously, so long as everybody agrees, what does it matter?

Enhanced Navball lets you move the resize the navball, among other things.

Without help, you're only likely to find a half dozen anomalies on your own: 1) The KSC monolith. Just survey the KSC peninsula and you'll find it, if you haven't already. 2) The island runway. If you haven't foudnd this on your own, I can't help you 3) KSC2. You will likely not stumble on this tough I found it myself based only on a picture of it, and a vague description that it was "north of the great desert" 4) The pyramid, which I found only after their exact location was given to me. Though I did do a pretty thorough search of the desert before giving up and looking it up. 5) The "easy" Mun arch. The only anomaly (except the island runway, which doesn't really count) I found on my own. If you low orbit Mun's equator long enough (and look closely enough) you'll find it. 6) The Armstrong Memorial. You can find this with some research, as it's at the same Lat/Long on Mun that Apollo 11 landed on the Moon. If you don't mind a more spoilery guide, I suggest the Anomaly Surveyor contract pack. it gives you waypoints to go to for each anomaly.

I went through the past 10 pages and we actually have a decent spread of parts that you could make an interesting ship of, with one minor problem: Only one fuel tank was mentioned, and that fuel tank is the Oscar (not by name) I think possibly the round-8 was included in there as the person said "The 0.625m fuel tanks." I'm not sure hooking a Skipper to a stack of those is a good idea . Possibly allowing each of the smallest of each radial size fuel tank is a solution? Also, there are a lot of parts refuted multiple times (the aforementioned Skipper, along with the Swivel and Poodle, have a lot of proponents for example) so I'm leery to include those in the list. Another problem is there is no way to make a manned vessel. Though that may not be a problem so much as a guarantee these ships won't be death traps. Someone did mention the Mk1 cockpit but considering it has its own very active thread right now, I suspect it's a bit too popular to put on this list. I would propose the Mk2 Lander Can as a viable manned option, even though nobody's said it. If anybody wants to try, here is "the list" with those parts that I personally feel that the community disagreed too much on removed. I also just ignored replies like "I haven't ever used any of the ______s" Command: OKTO HECS CH-J3 Fly-By-Wire rover body Fuel: Mk2 Monoprop tanks Mk3 Monoprop tanks 2.5m Monoprop tank All stock 0.625m tanks. Engines: LV-1 "Ant" engine Thud Spider Place-Anywhere 7 Liner RCS Port Wheesly Flea Hammer Structural: Not-Rockomax Micronode The big node Docking/separating: Inline Clamp-o-Tron Mk2 Clamp-o-Tron stack separators Hydraulic Detachment Manifold Structural Pylon Stopping: Large drogue chutes wheels: RoveMax 3 Utility: Launch Escape System Short Mk3 payload bay Aerodynamics: Big-S Spaceplane Tail Fin Both Canards "Shuttle tail" 2.5m nosecone 1.25m fairing base Power/heat: OX-4W P-W 2x3 All radiators Fuel Cells

It's in the water. There is a huge expanse of water and roughly in the middle of it (vertically. It's about 2/3 of the way across left->right), a 5-10 pixel wide... something. I'm guessing it's a boulder. Turning ground scatter off does not eliminate all ground scatter, just most of it. That's my guess. And until we get an exact lat/long to look ourselves, that's the best I can do.

The big problem is that "realistic" "fun" "good" and "possible" are not synonyms, but they are all desirable. The devs need to balance realism, enjoyment, and quality but must also work within the confines of what is actually possible to implement in the game. I actually like the balance they've reached in many places. I don't want to play in a 10x (aka "realistic") system, and not only due to the fact that it seems to stretch the "possible" side of it a bit too thin. I also don't find it fun. I understand that this means that re-entry is going to be wonky on one end or another, at least until they figure out either a different way to do it (which is unlikely at this point I think) or the perfect cocktail of settings that allows you to both aerobrake at Eve without exploding, and have to worry about aerobraking at Kerbin without exploding.

I just had an idea. Take all the parts mentioned in this thread, and ONLY the parts mentioned in this thread, and see what you can make with them.

After playing around a bit, I think my next career mode might end up actually being a Science Mode run.

, right? Almost, [noparse] text people won't see [/noparse] text people won't see

Give your lat/long (with a few decimal places please ) and someone else can check it out too.

I got tantalizingly close to a sub-3000 LKO launch. 3069m/s of vaccuum dV difference between what the rocket had in the VAB, and what the rocket had in space. I'm hoping that by tweaking the trajectory I'll get it. The ship's nothing special, except in being especially small. It doesn't even weigh 8 tons.

No, it can't. Unless you have a mod that sets your vertical velocity to 0, in which case we are talking about different things. Yes, with the Vertical Velocity Control mod you can hover for hours. You can go get a cup of coffee while hovering if you so choose. If you're controlling your ship with the keyboard, though, you're going to be tapping shift and control the whole time, going up and down as you go. And if you're not used to doing that (and who is, out of the people who've never tried this before?) then it's a new skill to learn and new muscle memory to train. And the penalty for making a mistake could include the destruction of your base. I understand what you're saying. Landing on docking ports is my preferred method to do ISRU. I've done it dozens of times and am totally comfortable with it. Not one little bit of that changes how hard it was to learn and perfect.

I just leave everything at "Normal." Less is over WAY too quick and more is grindy. And turning off saves/reverts is great until the Kraken shows up. I was considering doing a "normal" career where each tech tree node was modified to be its base cost * its level. So the first 5-science level would still be 5 (5*1 and all), but the next ones would be 15*2, 18*2, and 20*2, or 30, 36, and 40. The next tier would be 45*3=135, the next 90*4=360, and onward up to the final tier (with few nodes in an umodded game) that would each cost 1000*8=8000 science to unlock. THEN maybe I'd see a reason for the science lab. But I doubt I will. The "tier" isn't coded into the save files so I'd have to modify each node individually.

You can turn off auto-update, but that just means "Don't update until I tell you to or try to launch the game" which - for genericeventhandler - is likely not ideal. Like mikegarrison said, though, just copy the game somewhere. I have 5 copies, 3 of them active, all on the same computer, and I don't even use Steam. I just like options and archives

I need to add something to my list. After playing it far too much over the past 24 hours, I suspect I'll be filling in a lot of my pre-1.1 time with Planet Explorers.

While not as hard as some may think, it's not as easy as all that. Perfecting the process took me far longer than it took to learn just basic docking, and unlike basic docking you don't have any appreciable way to stop and take stock of the situation during a vertical dock, unless you can land the ship to the side when you need a breather. And any mistake - unless you f5/f9 of course - could destroy your base. A rover with a claw or well-placed docking port is far less trouble.

Try imgur. Free, easy, and the forum has support for it via [noparse][imgur][/noparse] tags. Regarding your tankers... #1's rough because both ends have something on them, making it harder to mount vertically. I'd put the chair on top and drop the ladder. You'll never use it on Mun or Minmus anyway Then I'd mount it claw-up on the top of my rocket, maybe with a disposable engine for the transfer stage, attached with a docking port so you can detach it but it'll suck the fuel from the tanker itself. #2 I like the look of, and it's got that docking port right there to stick on the top of your launcher/transfer vehicle. #3 will mount very well, and will need very little COM shifting. In all three cases, you'll need to strut the rover to the fairing, which can be a chore. The game doesn't technically support it though it works like a charm. You need to get the fairing all set up correctly, and then attach girders or something to stick out from the rover, through the fairing. Then run a strut from your rover to the girder so the strut goes THROUGH the fairing. Then, remove the girder, leaving the strut there with nothing to connect to. Then, save the craft, an reload it. Bam, your struts will be attached directly to the fairing, making your payload VERY stable. Once the fairing's gone, the struts will remain (which is a sign Squad never intended this to work) but if you have them on decouplers you can toss the decouplers after you ditch the fairing and all's good. - - - Updated - - - I launch a "ship" that is a lot like what you're trying to do only about 3x bigger in my series. Check out the below video, and especially 8:05 on, where I launch the beast into orbit. At about 10:15 I ditch the fairings and you can see how I used struts and a decoupler, like I described above.

I'm hoping to have my Contract Configurator pack completed, and get some Fundamentals episodes out. My "how to get to orbit" video is from 0.90 and needs to be retired and replaced with one that actually works in 1.x

Why launch 1 when you can launch 2 for twice the price?

One of: Jool-5 mission Apollo-style mission to Eve Perfecting landing on a docking port on the surface of Minmus. | That. V

Many of them. Kerbal Engineer and ScienceAlert are two I use. KER is nice because it tells you all the time, and will tell you the biome you're projected to land in. SA is nice because it only tells you when there's new science to do, and can stop time warp to give you time to do the science.

The trick is to launch it vertically, under a fairing, and to use the offset tool (hotkey 2) to slide the rover so the total COM of the launching rocket is as close to vertically over the COM as possible. You *can* eyeball it from overhead but I would suggest installing RCS Build Aid, which is misnamed because it works on thrust as well. A reaction wheel or two can only help. Your rocket will be a bit squirrely in atmo but you can mitigate this by filling that orange tank with fuel so the rocket's top-heavy in the lower atmosphere. Then pump the fuel backwards once you need it for a stage.

Without knowing where you're getting tripped up, it's hard to help you, but in general you want the explodey part at the back, the pointy part at the front, and don't let your rocket get back-heavy in the lower atmosphere (say, under 30km). If your rocket flips, it's likely getting back-heavy as fuel drains. There are many ways to mitigate this but the easiest is probably to split your launch into 2 stages, so you keep a lot of fuel higher up on the rocket. And if you can post a pic of your rocket in the VAB or on the pad, along with a description of what it's doing (or not doing) and we'll probably be able to give you more specific pointers.

I think Max covered that in this Squadcast, though I didn't really highlight it in the post. They're not doing planes INSTEAD OF rockets. They're just doing them BEFORE rockets. Which is perfectly reasonable in this, the game's Beta phase.