Wallace

Well, long story short, I was too impatient for tugs to return from mun to kerbin so kept launching new ones. Short story long, the first few were flawed due to lack of solar panels or decent batteries, so they got left in mun orbit, then later I took 5 loads of mun base parts over simultaneously for orbital assembly, and so used 5 tugs at once, plus an assembly tug (the one on the front with the lil red engines instead of the nuclear engines) so that was 6 tugs at once. There is also another one still out there carrying a crate full of rovers...

if it doesn't like it when you remove too many kerbals from the persistence file, what if you make an empty version of the station on the ground, switch them around in the persistence file, then recover the full station and all the Kerbals inside, if that's possible.

One thing I feel sad about and regret is I had this little ship I made with the one man lander can to test docking, the other capsule returned to Kerbin, but the lil test ship stayed up there, when I put up my first station, I realised the orbit was close enough for the docking ship to make it over to it, and it sat docked at the station for a while, I thought it might be useful if any kerbals wanted to go on a little 1 man trip somewhere... However, I later sent up a load of gear to build a refuelling set up on the station, but then it got laggy and I decided I needed to make a separate station for refuelling and so all the extra parts needed to be deorbited and I decided to use the docking ship to do it. But now I regret killing poor lil Docky, I wish I'd deorbited the stuff with a different ship and kept my cute lil Docky for his historical value as the first ever ship I docked with.. :'(

So, after constructing 2 mun bases and delivering all the rovers and other gadgets I need, I've accumulated quite a few surplus tugs in orbit, they are fairly well fuelled and have some monoprop left, but some are outdated designs, I've put them all into one handy stack, now, any suggestions what should I do with them all? I made a poll but if anyone has any better ideas pls post them.

For the old school meaning of expansion pack, when you got about 50-70% more content and features, then yes indeed. I think colonisation with wholly new abilities, to build buildings and gather resources and terraform, then you'd be looking at about the same amount of content again, so I think another $20 would be justifiable if it brought in a whole new gameplay dynamic alongside what's there in the final game. if it's just an extra parts pack, then no thankees.

It works for a given value of work. The trick is the giant feet, the only way to really walk in KSP is to be staticly stable, meaning it is always balanced when not moving limbs, heavy feet lover the centre of gravity, and wide feet make a larger base to keep the centre of gravity over. that said, it's falls over a lot. really it needs the knee and ankle joints on each leg to be independently controlled to lift the feet higher, they tend to drag on the floor, the version 1 walked better due to the the toy style wheels I had hotkeys for all the controls, but once you get the stance right, it can step with just 3 controls, I didn't use speed control cos I didn't know there was a speed control function it would have probably make it a lot easier. It can't really maintain a walk, it had to balance completely on one foot, move the other foot forward very carefully, a very small distance, then it uses the ankles to shift the weight onto the other foot without tipping over, which is extremely tedious. It actually makes more progress if it falls over forward and then gets up I would upload the craft file if I knew where to upload it to.

Ewoks beware! Version 2 of the AT-ST is here! New features: greatly improved legs with full set of knee, hip and extra ankle joints allowing the chicken-legs correct stance regular hip joints rather than clockwork toy style double wheels Correct mounting of legs underneath, and improved styling at base of cabin cabin can now turn to aim at any sneaky ewoks trying to outflank it So 111 points for distance, it could go more but it's soooooo slow and falls over a lot, so I'm not going further. It spent more time falling over than walking, controlling it is a bit like playing QWOP. Diverse Joints (50pts) Put your Best Foot Forward (5pts) Self Supporting (10pts) Drunk and Disorderly (25pts) <-- OMG, yes this one a lot lot lot! How Do I Control This Thing!!! (50pts) it can right itself but it does it without even needing arms, so not sure if i get those points. total = 251 but does it get Star Wars bonus points?? If not then I find your lack of faith disturbing. Full album of the AT-St's comedy antics:

I don't get why no editor extensions. why would that make a difference? Anyway, I decided to make an AT-ST, turns out it's a completely terrible design to make, who would have guessed it. Here's the best attempt so far, it's very slow going due to having to move the ankles, I should have put the controls in action groups. The walking action is truly atrocious, I couldn't make a video, but I'll try to do one for the final version. I have to alter the legs some more to make them more like the proper AT-ST.

Play golf! Alan Shepard would approve. I think Kerbals should play crazy golf though.

I hate letting mechjeb dock, it's sooo wasteful, it just flushes away bucketfuls of mono-propellant, and it's sooo slow going at 0.1 m/s from way out. I only let mechjeb dock when I am being profoundly lazy. The best docking is when it's freaky shaped station components, it's a good challenge, I don't use any docking helpy widgets and don't use docking mode, only thing I used docking mode for is driving rovers . Usually I can dock with almost no mono-propellant used depending of the size and shape of the ship. On my first Mun landing, I even docked a ship with no RCS at all (rear facing port and radial engines helps..) to a powered-down fuel tank (the original design was for the tank (originally had an engine too but it fell off at launch making it just fuel tank) to use it's RCS to dock while the capsule just held still, but with no power the capsule had to take over the active part of the docking).

Landing, can never judge how far off the ground is and when to burn, a few Mun Pancakes (only rovers not Kerbals) resulted and a lot of wasted fuel due to descending super slow. For kerbal landings I pack plenty of extra fuel and go really slow. Sometimes I let mechjeb do it but then mechjeb has caused several pancakes too.

I'm fairly sure they are Karbon based life forms. I think they have a high Gameplayium content too, which is a similar element to Narrativium (which is interestingly absent from the Kerbalverse so far).

you do have 2 horsepower so to speak, but as you have double the weight too, it means you end up with the same amount of work done. Delta V is not a measure of power, it is more like how far the horse can go before it is tired out. so two horses going side by side will still only go as far as one horse on it's own. however if you attach some payloads to those tugs, your double one should be able to take the same load further.

I was assembling a mun base in orbit, when a stack of wheel bases and the skycranes that will take it all down to the surface just exploded and blew one of the modules apart, I wasn't sure what caused it, however when i loaded quicksave from before I started the assembling, i saw there was a piece of debris on a highly elliptical orbit on an intercept, but it was about 2km away at intercept, so I'm not sure it was the debris, tho I guess my manoeuvring about of parts may have speeding the whole collection of bits up enough to close the gap. One problem I do have with a piece of debris is, there is a bit of junk that is just a fairing base and a decoupler that i had to dump off the front of a docking port, and KSP insists this is a probe, and with no command pod to click on, I can't change it to be a debris piece, it is really annoying, especially as it's name is confusing in tracking station as it's named for the Munbase section it was on but with probe on the end which is clipped off due to being long. I guess I could delete it but I like having debris knocking about, it's an extra challenge.

one that is folded up and goes down when you land? nope not with stock. you'd have to get infernal robotics. tho.... there maybe a work around, if you get a decoupler just right, you could have the ramps decouple and fall down as like loose pieces. would probably be very hard to make them fall down right tho.

A stranger! From the outside! ooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooohhhhh!!!

I tried this with a rectangular shaped base and clampotron srs, but the final two clamps wouldn't attach on my test on the ground. I have all the parts floating around the mun waiting to be put together, I'm wondering if there is some trick to assembling it, do they dock better in orbit?

Soo, I want to do some telescoping, but I'm not sure which telescope to use.... Ordan telescope http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/24639-0-21-1-Ordan-Industries-Telescope!-Last-Updated-August-23-2013! Zeus telescope http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/0-18-4-zeus-space-telescope/ I installed the Ordan telescope before I found out there was the Zeus one too but haven't tried it out yet. I prefer the texturing on the Zeus one, tho I see there is the Kubble mod that is basicly a differnt model for the Ordan plugin, but what I really care about is which works best as a telscope and which is least buggy/resourcey. If anyone's tried out both can we get some compares or if you just tried out one then reviews of that one please.

Many things went wrong with my first Mun landing, starting with the engine of the return stage dropping off at launch, and culminating in a heroic docking to an unpowered drifting fuel tank, with a capsule that had no RCS, but Jeb made it back successfully with no assistance needed.

Thanks, so, it's best to delete all the parts I don't use from the parts packs that I've installed. That's good to know, I should be able to cut my parts count right down, cos I don't plan on using most things from the sets I've installed, e.g. I installed the HOME kit and I only really wanted it for the cute pop-out greenhouses.

I don't like the idea of this, I much prefer the keep the damage simple, yes it would be cute if the legs on my lander bent if I hit too hard, although as far as gameplay is concerned, there's no real difference to them just dropping off, either way, the lander is ruined, and that is what is important. likewise, if the parachutes melts all cool looking or just explodes and is gone, it's the same thing as far as the soon to be pavement-pancake Kerbals are concerned. There are games I've played that have had very sophisticated damage models, my favourite being an offroading game I used to play where your car basically got slowly wrecked and distorted out of shape as you went along, the damage was a key part of gameplay as careful driving meant a better condition car later in the race, and learning to keep a car with a twisted chassis going straight was a skill. Also, it looked totally awesome when your car got all battered and messed up, KSP is different in that constant damage is not a major part of gameplay, most of the time your ship takes no damage or catastrophic damage. You might occasionally get an Apollo 13 moment where you have partial damage and have to get your kerbals home, but mostly this would just be a heap of CPU time devoted just to making crashes look cooler, which, I'm not against cool looking crashes but it certainly is not worth adding more complexity and wrecking gameplay for anyone without a monster PC, smooth running and good frame rate is much more important. Also, I have a feeling that fancy soft physics + the modular built rockets of KSP would be a mighty glitch fountain for sure.

Sooo, I've installed a few more mods recently, and I'm wondering, do extra parts use more ram even if you havn't used them yet? I've been getting more crashes since the last bunch of mods were installed and I'm wondering should I delete all the parts I don't use in any sets? Also, do mods that are active in the VAB use up memory in the rest of the game? I currently have 3 VAB-based mods (subassembly loader, editor extensions, simple part organiser) I could do without editor extensions and simple part organiser but will it benefit me in the rest of the game to get rid of them?

I had a probe orbiting below 5k so it could drop mini-landers, it successfully went round several times, long enough to land 4 mini landers all around the equator, but I switched away from it and when I came back to land more mini-landers I found the probe was gone, no debris, it most have crashed and been totally destroyed.

Curses be upon you! I just came on to check the forums quick then I was going to build a mun base... I could have built 3 in the time I spent on TV tropes.

The way I see it is I need one of them to be high, because to get in a rocket I built the Kerbal has to be brave or stupid. If i'm sending them on a science mission I pick the brave but not stupid ones, for other missions, either will do.