metl

[Moderator Comment: Lol no, keep it clean people]

So how do you figure a round-trip, tour of the system, stopping at every planet and moon but not returning to any previous location until the final return to Kerbin?

I consider the way I play as the way I play. Nothing more or less than that. I'm not trying to say anyone's way of playing is either right or wrong. Everyone else are the ones being insistent that everyone should be relying on a Dv readout to play. I was simply pointing out that there are many of us who don't rely on one, so it really is not as critical as some would try to claim.

Stressed for importance This was my entire post in the beginning. A Dv readout BY ITSELF is useless. It is saying, "You can change your velocity by this much, but I'm not telling you how far that will get you." Without another layer of information, such as a map overlay with values mentioned by another past after yours with the pretty Dv chart, the readout alone is as vague as the scenario you just gave using my suggestion. People do find it useful, also many others have no use for it. EDIT: Also, am I the only person in this entire forum that has never used a transfer calculator?

Except it doesn't tell you how far you can travel. It tells you how much you can alter your velocity by. two completely different values. I haven't seen a single satisfactory answer on why we should have one. I go back to my first point. Without having some from of reference for it, it only benefits those that can do the math. For someone like me, knowing I have 200 m/s Dv remaining is no more useful than knowing I have 200 units of fuel left. The only exception to this that I have seen brought up is with nodes. I would be able to set a node and know if I have enough fuel to complete it. So instead of an overall Dv readout, why not just add a second number to the node display. "200/396 m/s" where the second number is your remaining Dv in that stage? Would that be sufficient to give the wanted information?

Kerbal father, please forgive me for I have sinned: I once kicked Jeb out of the cockpit during re-entry. I once strapped Jeb to an SRB and shot him at a 45 degree angle to see how far he would go. I once built a plane with the sole purpose of slamming it into the tower of the abandoned runway, then did it. I once left Bill floating in an inclined, oblong orbit reaching almost to Minmus. I once had bill use his RCS pack to leave Minmus, then he didn't have enough to get back (see previous confession) I once crashed a ship into an orbiting Bill, which resulted in a slight "poof." (again, see previous confessions.) Thankfully, the ship was fine. There are many more, but the others were accidents.

Sort of. Until a few days ago, I hadn't ever bothered to learn what Dv even meant. I relied on building the most fuel-efficient rockets possible. I had learned that a higher Isp meant longer burn times and i guess that roughly translates into how much Dv I can squeeze from a ship. My main point I am trying to make is that a player can be fully successful at this game without ever crunching a number on paper or even knowing what Dv is. I've never been to the outermost planets. Not because I can't get there, but because I simply don't want to. The time warp is too slow for me and I hate wasting time waiting to even make an intercept with Duna. It needs to be able to be cranked up another notch or two (but that is for another discussion.) There are many more things which need refinement before they need to be worrying about adding features only geared towards the hardcore, math-driven players.

Woohoo! Novice with no knowledge of orbital mathematics accomplishes feat that intelligent elitist says should have been impossible! Score one for the Kerbals! I find your Dv meter irrelevant to this game.

The grabber rocket And the 'roid on Kerbin

First, I never knew KSP lied about any values, because I have never cared. I throw a rocket up and if it sticks, good. if not, I change the design. As far as the ARM update, you are totally clueless as to the capabilities of "minimal brain power." My first launch of the arm, I made a rocket, shot it at the nearest intercepting 'roid and landed the thing on Kerbal, first try. I didn't do one math problem to get it there. I did it because I have learned from trial and error what works and what does not.

Because only a very small number of players actually visit the forums. Of those, even less are registered. The fact that 86% of the voters even know what Delta-v is should be a big flag as to this being a very skewed poll. Also, there was no option for those who don't care either way except to simply not vote. Bottom line is, KSP is a game and meant to be a game. It is not trying to simulate a real-world solar system or space agency. it is a tongue-in-cheek game, giving gamers a glimpse into space exploration without bogging them down with tons of science, math and numbers. Trial and error is part of that humor and charm.

Harm? None. I'm justing pointing out that not everyone feels it is such a big need. I do however like you're position regarding applying it to maneuver nodes. That makes sense.

A Dv meter by itself will only help those that already know how to calculate how much Dv is needed. While it would be very beneficial for that small minority people that can do that, for everyone else it is just useless information. If they are going to include it, what would be the point without adding something to reference it to (for all of us laymen?) You bring up maneuver nodes, let's discuss that for a second. What if they had added the node tool, without adding a point of reference on the navball to reference it to? It would be great for someone who could eyeball it good or knew the math to figure out the needed angle, but for us laymen, it would have been mostly useless and right back to guesswork. With enough practice, we could figure it out though, just like now with the Dv issue. Unless it is made into a complete system, it is a waste of time for most players.

I'm not bashing MJ at all. It is a wonderful piece of programming. Everyone here is saying the devs "should" include something (Dv readout) so I was simply adding to that "should" request. Why is it okay for you to say that this is information that ANY space program should already have (implying that KSP should have it) yet I cannot use that same argument stating that if they include a Dv radout, that they should include something to reference it to? Do you really have nothing better to support your argument other than that?

I agree that there are indeed many factors, which is why a Dv meter by itself serves no real purpose, because on it's own, it tells you nothing without some frame of reference to know how much you need. As far as "vital", far from it. Many players have managed to navigate the Kerbal universe without ever needing any Dv information.

Having a Delta-V meter serves little purpose if there is nothing to compare it to, such as how much is needed to achieve a certain orbit or transfer.Hence, if they add a Dv meter, then they should also add a system which allows you to select a target and it would give you the required Dv based on your current orbit, plus where to burn to actually make use of that Dv, otherwise a person would easily burn it away without knowing the sweet spot to burn most efficiently. With both of those in play, it is a small step to an "autopilot" function. Then we are at MechJeb. The other option to make the data useful, would be a map overlay which would show how much Dv would be required, similar to this chart http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/25360-Delta-V-map Again though, it is a small step to having a full-blown autopilot. With all of that said, I do think the idea of being able to research a tree branch which unlocks computer systems and autopilot functions would be a reasonable compromise. I'm not against a Dv dispay, I am just pointing out that it really isn't something a casual gamer really needs to know or care about, as they won't have the required knowledge to make use of it. It would be just a "I have this much fuel left" placeholder.

If we are going to add a Dv meter, then why not go a step further and add a complete, automated system which tells you exactly how much Dv you need and will do all of the burns and everything for you, all you do is hit "launch" then once in orbit, hit "Land."

I rather like the minimal information and open screen real estate. The more data being thrown at you at once, is that much less of the beautiful game that can be seen. Also, the idea behind keeping it basic allows new people who have no idea what to do the ability to pick up and learn the game easily without being bombarded by tons of information with absolutely no clue of what it all means and how it all works. I have no idea how much Dv is needed to make it to the Mun and back, but from trial and error, I have learned how much fuel I need for what engines. I don't always make it when I play with new designs, and that's okay too.

Edit: Disregard, I completely missed where someone already demonstrated how to do it. Sorry

There is an easy solution. Under one engine, place a cube strut or similar under it, then the decouplers on top of the reversed bi-coupler. Next, place a strut link fron teh other engine to the 2nd coupler that is not attached to the cube strut. Lift the assembly at the coupler connected to the cube strut. Remove the cube and replace the assembly directly to the engine. The strut link that was previously attached between the engine and decoupler will reattach, but now they will be flush mounted and decouple appropriately and look exactly as you are wanting it to look.

Do you think he just lashes together a couple of space turtles using his back hair?

Yeah I need a visual aid. I am totally not getting the idea from the initial post.

You aren't an expert in KSP until you are named Scott Manley, have a huge fan following and have actually sat down and played KSP with peeps from NASA.

Thanks! That did the trick!

I'm sure this has been mentioned, but in 63 pages, I wasn't able to find it. The effects are beautiful but I noticed teh length and strength doesn't scale with the thrust like the stock effects. Is there a fix for that or just the way it is? I am currently using stock effects because I like the visual feedback.