agentKmurph

Windows 8? Power users? Windows 8 was meant to be a "casual" platform hence why it features basically a tablet interface. I mean one could argue that "power user" implies "difficult to use" in which case Windows 8 might be more of a power user platform than I thought but still I prefer to do my hard drive formatting, file servers, development, and other not-everyday-user stuff on just about any platform BUT Windows 8. Lets separate your PC's settings into three different locations. Lets make it so it doesn't shut down fully by default. Lets make it so you have two different taskbars. Lets make an interface optimized ONLY for touch screens. These are the big reasons I can't stand to do anything really "computery" with Windows 8. Desktops / classic laptops with Windows 8 make me cringe. Okay this is going to sound really wierd but I am now going to defend the Windows 8 interface. When I use Windows 8 on my tablet for taking notes, web surfing, Xbox Video, Music, Maps, and other more application oriented tasks, I actually quite like it. I don't really care where settings are, or that that it does a hybrid shutdown so I can resume work faster, or how I have two taskbards because I really only use one when I am tablet mode. The charms offer great multimedia interconnectivity without the BS of past Windows distributions. The interface works very well for certain things and clearly those things are not what you do. Basically that makes it ill-suited to what you do but not inherently "horrible." Just got the Windows 10 Tech Preview running in a VM on my Linux box. The first thing it did when I signed into my Microsoft account was load my tablet's desktop, login screen, theme colors, and photo library. I was VERY unnerved by this. I knew MS accounts were more integrated and universal but I never really thought about how much I was sharing until then. How naive of me in hindsight. I totally agree that the potential for constant surveillence is there. In fact, I would actually go as far as to say at somewhat of a risk that you have every right to gut those features despite what the EULA says. My philosophy of computers is very much at odds with most of the industry at the moment, part of why I my major in college right now is computer engineering. Refer to above comments on the UI. As for the second part of your comment, THANK YOU SO MUCH! Someone finally understands computer architecture and the that operating system is different from the interface To clarify, the way most people think about Windows 8 isn't really what an operating system is. An OS is just a hardware access and memory management program called a kernel. The UI or "shell" is something totally different; its the part people actually see and interact with. Its actually a program run by the operating system. Windows 8 kernel is actually really fantastic. It has less overhead than the Windows 7 kernel, performs better on similar hardware, and is so far the most stable version I've used yet. Uh that beging said, RUN LINUX! Does better on all fronts, except perhaps stability (but then again if Linux crashes its probably your fault because you did something stupid) Wow, we were talking about Holo lens originally right? Yeah, about that. Love it. Want to get my hands on one. I think for once in Microsoft's history since the days when they migrated out of DOS and 3.1, they are doing something that is truly unique and industry defining. The Windows 10 UI is much better than Windows 8 for mouse-keyboard by the way.

Check me if I am wrong but it sounds like you are trying to say "It shouldn't be stock because its a mod." To which I would respond "That is a moot point; a lot of stock KSP came from mods." Also people shouldn't have to pursue add-ons to compensate for poor design. That's like saying "We should build a car without power steering and seat belts because the owner can add those themselves later." In any case, thanks you for the link to the mod though. I will be trying that soon. Yeah I know . It is the only page that is completely empty ever in KSP which is what I needed to visually describe my idea.

Especially with the recent incorporation of KW Rocketry, I've been growing to dislike the current interface for selecting parts in the VAB and Hangar. Its clunky, slow (pages rather than a scroll... ick), and the shear number of parts makes a visual labyrinth that is easy to get lost in. I find myself looking over the part I want two and three times even though I have played the game for a little over a year now and am more or less acquainted to where each should appear in the menus. The current organization scheme of Pods, Control, Structure, etc I feel doesn't go far enough. There doesn't seem to be a particular order that the parts appear in the menu other than parts that are similar in function will appear in the same tab. Also some parts are not classified correctly, such as the ion engine or Hitchhiker Storage Container. Seems to me those should be in Propulsion and Pods respectively, not Utility. This is what I would personally like to see. In each tab, group each part by its exact function (and part size for those that are particularly numerous like fuel tanks) into a labelled sub-menu. Then have the item tab contained the sub-menus scroll up and down to reveal them rather than have pages. Here is what I am getting at: Alternately at least group into subgroups in the tabs and sort them in some non-random order like by ascending size order and use a scroll bar instead of the current pages. These are the sub-categories / menus I would suggest: Pods: -Manned -Small Unmanned (Oktos, Stayputnik) -Large Unmanned (the pancake control units) Control: -Thrusters -SAS Units Propulsion -Small Fuel Tanks (toroidial up to FLT200) -Large Fuel Tanks (FLT400 and up) -RCS Fuel Tanks -Small Engines (LV1 up to LVT30) -Large Engines (Poodle up to Kerbodyne) Aerodynamic: -Fixed Fins&Wings (Wings without control surfaces) -Controled Fins&Wings (wings with control surfaces and control surfaces) -Nacelles and Intakes -Nosecones Utility: -Batteries -Landing Legs -Wheels -Solar Panels -Ladders -Docking Ports -Lights Science can remain unsorted. In each subcategory, fill them such that the parts go from smallest to largest in terms of thrust, fuel capacity, energy content, etc. The icons are deceptive and untruthful about the size of the part so we need something else to go on. Of course this is just what I think should be done. Thoughts, comments? And please give quantitative reasons for your opinions. If you think the interface should stay the same, "I don't want to learn a new interface" is not a valid reason. "I don't want to learn new interface because the new one isn't as good for X, Y, and Z," That's fine. Don't be a traditionalist is what I am saying.

Yup. I use a program called Xpadder. It turns any controller into a mouse and keyboard. Ive used it for playing Minecraft on Windows with Xbox 360 controllers and the original Half Life which doesnt support gamepads.

Biggest thing I ever successfully launched was this: If I remember correctly it was for launching 80 tons of fuel to a previously launched space station whose destination was Eeloo. The whole rocket weighed in at 1095 tons.

"real rockets have a lot of strutting that is built in to their structure." IN TO - Right, the structure is inside. Why then do we have to recreate it externally with struts? The superstructure should for the most part already exist. I'm not inclined to the "modular parts are why joints are so weak" argument because that methodology is only used to make this into a game rather than a CAD program. I hope I am not to far out of line assuming that these parts are being properly bolted, welded, and riveted to each other. Now radial parts, odd placements, extremely massive stuff. Of course that should all require strutting. But a simple linear Atlas, Titan I, Ariane, Saturn, Redstone, or Delta style booster shouldn't bend and oscillate like a tree in the wind. That's really my only point here. And of course real rockets have a lot put into their structure; I don't think that knowledge is quite as esoteric as you make it sound. The bottom stage getting weird spread or oscillations isn't a problem since I am using the non thrust vectored LVT30 engine and 1.25m tanks. It most bends at the decoupler between the first and second stage. Removing the third engine would be a theoretical dV gain but the TWR would be unacceptably low given that the first stage drops at the start of the gravity turn. I'll try the reaction wheel relocation though, thanks for the tip.

Wow 50% larger by mass than a Saturn V according to the MechJeb readout. Props for making that monster work! But my real point was that KSP rockets have immense difficulty maintaining stability even with a decent engineering mind behind their construction. I am not asking for something like this: To keep its form without bracing (or total redesign ). I want this, a launcher I used to use for mid-sized probes: to stop bending like a twig whenever I try to steer the darned thing. I've phased out use of this thing because its a bear to control until the first stage detaches. Yeah I get it. Making the joints stronger could lead to making whacky machines that are totally outside the realm of of even distended plausibility and sap the fun out of the challenge of building a successful craft, but I think that only begins to happen when the joints become nigh unbreakable. An decent but not gratuitous increase to their current strength would greatly alleviate some of the most frustrating aspects of this game, like the infamous orbital wobble.

Please read the rest of my post because it seems you did not.

My favorites that have come up in my astronaut pool are so far Al Kerman and Doodski Kerman. Sadly I lost both of them to a vicious stall in an SSTO on reentry. I have since learned to install contingency abort systems on all my SSTOs and make strategic use of F5 and F9.

You realize that the S-IC stage of the Saturn V is 10 meters in diameter and 40 meters tall right? That one single stage is quite a bit larger than most of the rockets we build in KSP. Now consider the entire Saturn V. 110 meters tall and 10 meters in diameter versus our 2.5 meter diameter 30 meter tall rockets. It suffered catastrophic structural failure 0 times of 13 launches. Our rockets are unrealistically TINY and they have difficulties. The ones that require massive bracing are actually only approaching the size of a real launch vehicle. The joints do need to be stronger. Also can someone explain to me why the Cubic Octagonal Strut appears to have the strongest joints in the game (I commonly mount LVT-30s on radial Cubic Octagonal Struts without bracing) while the Rockomax 64 fuel tanks struggle maintain stability even with proper bracing? This seems a total reversal of what should be true.

You mean like the Nav lights on aircraft, right? Like this: Just little beacons to let you know where the darn thing is? If so.. OMG yes! I would love this!

I hate the Mk1-2 because its so FREAKING HEAVY! I usually just use a Hitchhiker Storage Container with OKTO2 for command - that's 1 more crew for a 2 / 3 the weight. If you really want lightweight, Mk1 Lander Cans are the best. Four kerbals for 2400 kg.

The Mailsail is.... unecessasry. In most cases. Its just its big and bad and yeah I get it but really, its more of a red herring. You can get to both Eve and Duna using only the Skipper which I can see you have unlocked. And the nuclear! Wow, you're actually set! You also have the right idea of launching two part missions. Most of my missions in career mode in involve orbital assembly. Its best to do it in LKO actually. I wrote a full tutorial that you can view here Here are a few sample craft of my own (bland but functional) design. This was my first probe to orbit Duna. As you can see, no Mainsails - only Skippers. This is a manned derivative. This is an interplanetary booster I used for putting a 10 ton lander into orbit around Duna and then for returning the lander's barebones core and science experiments after a rendezvous in Duna orbit. The fuel efficiency of the LV-N is your best friend in this game. Literally. Also, watch Scott Manley's videos on how to aerocapture. Aerocapture saves thousands of dV which can then be used for return and in-system orbital corrections. Here are my main rules on interplanetary travel: -the smaller your craft, the better -learn the rocket equation; dV = ln( initial mass / final mass) * Isp * g, with g being 9.8 and Isp the specific impulse of the engine -any interplanetary transfer stage should be using the LV-N once unlocked -two part craft are usually better (this eliminates the Mainsail from the picture in most cases and keeps me from building Whackjob-ian rockets) -Three words; aerocapture, aerocapture, aerocapture EDIT: ALWAYS ASPARAGUS YOUR BOOSTERS. until drag gets patched, its the easiest way to put huge payloads into orbit with a small launcher.

^ Correct. Unless you have a life support mod installed but I don't think you do. Scott probably does a better job explaining orbital rendezvous better than me but I wrote a full tutorial a few weeks back. Click here to see. I think the only thing that may be unclear is that you should achieve a very similar orbit via Mohman Transfer (burns at apoapsis and periapsis to raise / lower the opposite in each case) after adjusting your orbital plane. Oh and honestly, you can do things GRAVITY style if your anywhere closer than about 50 km. Kerbal EVA packs have the dV of a mid-sized probe unlike real MMUs which have a small fraction.

May we derive propulsion from something other than the jet engines? It is implied that we can't in the title and description of your challenge but not clearly stated.