HeadHunter67

That might work, but I'm sure it's a lot easier to just code a button in the window that simply closes it when you don't want to use it. I'm not a programmer, but it's got to be the easier solution.

Another suggestion, crazy as it may sound, is: Build More Stations. I don't mean a different one for each purpose (though that works, too) - I mean that each station you design, launch, and assemble will teach you what you really need in a station, and your next station will be more efficient and probably more solid and attractive as well.

I am fond of Seannie Kerman, because his name is similar to my own.

...and, it requires constant supervision.

Once you learn the techniques, that's honestly all you really need. After tutelage from Blizzy and PebbleGarden, I was able to accomplish a direct launch-to-rendezvous on my second attempt. All it took was a "pair of balls" - the NavBall, and the Mark I Eyeball.

Let's be honest: Some people couldn't pass a Turing test, if the Internet is any indication. I don't think anyone's "Crying", but those same doctors would state that inability to identify with or empathize with one's avatar in a simulation is indicative of a deeper disorder than a "temporary neurosis". The word "borderline" was misused before, but it more properly applies here. It's not indicative of a mental instability to think of the Kerbals as little people with emotions and goals, to want to preserve them or rescue them, or to be emotionally affected by their successes, their failures or their virtual demise. It's no different than characters in a movie - they may be portrayed by living actors but they're no more "real" than a Kerbal - yet people cry at sad movies or when a favorite character is killed. Are they honestly all mentally ill? Really? I've worked with flat affect patients many times - if you see what it's like when people aren't emotionally influenced by anything, you might have a somewhat different perspective. I think that's part of the genius of the whole Kerbal thing in the first place. They're not really necessary to the game at all - it could as easily be a routine spaceflight sim, where the astronauts are based on "real" people. You might find yourself more upset if you screw up and kill a virtual human - or especially a virtual Neil Armstrong! You might not be as upset if "Dilbag Kerman" gets killed in a rocket that explodes - so you're more willing to take risks and try outrageous designs... just like those overly enthusiastic, risk-taking idiot Kerbals. They add the necessary comic relief to what might otherwise be a tragic simulation.

If you have the technology to launch into space, you're no longer "low-tech". All the dependent technology already existed before the Space Age began. Refinements have made it easier, have made different things possible... but we still made it to the Moon using 1960's technology. Keep in mind that's before the widespread advent of solid-state electronics that we now take for granted. Yes, we can refine data as our tech increases, but spaceflight is nowhere for ambiguity. You're not going to launch a lunar mission if you have to guess on the burn angle and duration and your only feedback is looking out the window.

A month ago, I'd have said the same thing. It's how I built my first station. This time, I'm doing it manually - launched the core, maneuvered a pair of docked ships to separate rendezvous with the station's higher orbit, and delivered my power pylon... all manually. It's a tough learning curve and there's a lot of frustration and failure involved at first, but once you make the decision to learn how and study up on it, you can do it. In the meantime, don't let that hold you back from enjoying the game!

I try to deorbit debris in the process of the mission - designing staging to fall into the atmosphere, and for higher altitudes I will either put a probe core on it and manually deorbit, or slap a lot of retrograde Sepatrons or other boosters on a final stage to propel it back into atmo when it's done.

That's the real issue. It's not like other games, where a missing mod just means those parts don't load (e.g., Minecraft). No - if you have a ship that's got as much as one mod part that's no longer present (or even something docked to it that fits that description), the ship won't only not load - it will be permanently removed from your persistence file. If you rely entirely upon mods, you run the risk that one mod that's not updated or no longer works will lock you out of your save or lose you a ship. I love mods, they make my game more enjoyable... but that's the real risk.

I'm not sure that will help - I want the port as the target so that I can dock via the Navball.

While it's not Russian per se, I was able to use this pack to create a pretty good replica of the Chinese Tiangong-1 space station: Comm dishes from AIES, windows from Lackluster Labs. Not a perfect facsimile, but KOSMOS is the only mod pack that makes it remotely possible.

I have a request that may seem odd: Can we have a way to close the window when we don't need to use it? I do like this plugin for difficult docking situations such as a particular port on a station, etc. But when I'm doing an ordinary rendezvous between two small craft, or using any available port on a station, I don't need the window and I have to drag it off to a corner. It would be beneficial for me to be able to close the window when I'd rather dock without its visual assistance.

It's not about quantity, it's about size. Given the limitations of the 32-bit Unity engine upon which KSP is built, you'll find that crashes begin once your GameData folder creeps past 1.5GB, becoming more frequent as that folder increases in size. Once you've got 2.0BG+ in there, it's likely to crash when loading the game. Remember that the Squad stock parts are present in this folder already, and account for nearly half of that limit. So, anything more than 750MB of additional mods increases the risk of unexpected crashes.

The only reason I haven't deleted any stock parts is because I like to examine other stock craft for inspiration. Understanding how other players have done something, how something goes together or works, and what's the best way to use it... those are all ways for me to improve my own rocket design and play techniques. So I've had to be pretty aggressive in cutting out mod stuff that I don't need or use. Basically, once my GameData folder creeps past 1.5GB, that's when crashes begin.

The necessary interstage is included in the Kerturn pack - with NovaPunch it could be done! The biggest issue is that it's incredibly wobbly.

If you're going to be spinning it, there will definitely be a down side. PHYSICS.

I'm perfectly capable of separating the two, thank you. The point is not "are Kerbals real", the issue is: are you? All anyone here knows of you are words on a screen - words which sometimes show that you don't clearly understand what others meant. We had a program like that back in the early 80s called Eliza, and they've gotten more sophisticated since then. Because it might still be unclear, I'm not categorically stating that you're artificial - I'm saying that, for all it matters to anyone here, you're an electronic representation too. It's unlikely that you'll meet anyone here unless you already knew them, so to the rest of us, you only "exist" on a computer screen. So let's not misuse terms like "borderline", if you'd be so kind. This is not the place for armchair psychiatrists - especially since one could as easily draw conclusions based on people who cannot in any way emotionally identify with the protagonists in the movies they watch or the games they play.

Oh, I shall be trying this out for certain! Thanks for another incredibly useful tool that will allow me to play KSP better!

Agreed. I'd like to see landing legs that do that (maybe all landing legs, honestly, unless someone can offer a reason why not). While we are at it, make them adjustable in height so you can align them with other base modules on uneven terrain. And with that in mind, I'd like to see an extendable, flexible docking adapter to link base moduels with a flexible tunnel.

Sure it bothers me! They're people too... Some would say "but they're not real! They only exist on your computer!" to which I can only say: "For all intents and purposes, that makes them no different from you."

Ultimately, I think time to dock is the only thing that really matters. Time to rendezvous really only indicates "close enough to begin docking procedures", otherwise it's just a fly-by and speed doesn't matter.

I had considered suggesting that but I didn't think anyone would actually burn all of the fuel - and if it happened, I personally think it's better to go back and retry the mission. If you're not careful with fuel use during a rendezvous, you might find yourself stuck in orbit with no way to go home.

Pebblegarden's channel on YouTube has many videos that are still timely and relevant for the current version. The Phoenix Project was recorded in 18.4 but it's all still accurate for .21. The only thing that really changed is how SAS works, and that doesn't affect the lessons. If you watch and follow the videos, you will learn how to build a solid, steady and reliable rocket; how to make an ascent to orbit; how to rendezvous with another craft or station; and how to dock with it. When you've got the hang of the basics, the next series to watch is Mission to Minmus, where PG will show you how to build a lander; make a lifter to carry it into orbit; how to get to Minmus and make a landing; and how to return safely.

I'd personally define "basic functions" as: Being able to build and launch spacecraft, flight control, orbital mechanics, rendezvous, docking, and landing. While these other things would be nice to have, I'd consider them "optional" features, or certainly of a lower priority than the essentials.