Dwight_js

A shockwave exponent of 1.12 gives you enough heating to require a very precise reentry. You need to control your PE exactly when doing the de-orbit burn. I usually go with an exponent of 1.1 as it's a little more forgiving, but still burns up unprotected parts and punishes mistakes. I go to the KSP Aerobraking Calculator ( http://alterbaron.github.io/ksp_aerocalc/ ) to figure out my PE. For the situation you're describing I use a Desired Apoapsis of 90km so I end up dipping into the atmosphere, burning off speed - then I rise up a bit again to the upper atmosphere before descending through a second heating cycle. A good trick is to make a quicksave, then try out various PE altitudes to see which one works best.

I'm having some issues with the settings menu. I try to change the Shockwave Exponent to 1.12, but I'm unable to add a period or even delete the existing "1" that's there by default. All I can do is increase the number to double digits. Has anyone seen this behaviour before?

Harvey Birdman:

I've got an Orion DSE 6 (Newtonian reflector on a Dobson mount). http://www.astromart.com/images/classifieds/660000-660999/660788-1.jpg (the photo isn't mine, but it's the same model).

On my machine I've got: KSP Project CARS Assetto Corsa Ultima 7 - The Black Gate with Forge of Virtue expansion Ultima 7 part 2 - Serpent Isle MS Flight Simulator X with Acceleration Pack London Control with Germany Radar

Also, if you do like Hitchhiker's, Adams wrote two other books: Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, and The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul which are quite good too.

Haha, Hitchhikers Guide is definitely good - you just have to get used to Adams' particular brand of humour (almost every sentence is a joke). I know you asked for no hard sci-fi, but I have to recommend Rendezvous with Rama by Arthur C Clarke. I found it to be very gripping, and I don't recall any overly long descriptions of how stuff works. If you like that one, there are 3 more books in the series, and they get "softer" as you go along with the story focusing more and more on the interplay of the characters.

I sometimes blow them up with lasers!

The same principles apply to braking as to turning - make your rover longer. I usually build rovers in multiple parts and join them together at the destination using docking ports. This way they pack nice on the rocket, but they can be as wide and long as I need for stability. I would also recommend building in a way to flip yourself back upright if you to roll over. Things can get pretty wobbly at higher speeds on the Mun, and I almost always end up on my roof at some point on long drives.

"A heat shieldless craft with mod parts enters the atmosphere from LKO. Burns engines for a few seconds at around 32km. And survives. Is this right? Or is the mod not working correctly?" The amount of heating can be adjusted in the settings. Left at default you can reenter just about anything from LKO without a heat shield. But if you increase the shock-wave component and multiplier you can make life more difficult for yourself. See the first post under the "note about settings".

I used it for TWR and DV numbers while building. Then I started letting it do launches, partly to see what ascent profile it would use. I also liked to let it set up maneuver nodes which I would then adjust to my liking. It basically lightened the workload a bit. Then came a new version, and I installed Kerbal Engineer instead of MJ and haven't really looked back. Haven't run into any situations where I wish I still had it installed.

I personally like to make my rovers modular so that they pack nicely on the rocket and then assemble them at the destination. I've stacked a lander can and a science jr. module on top of each other - both had 4 wheels and a docking port on their side. They could each drive on their own, but were tall and tippy in low gravity. Once they were linked up I had a kind of Mun truck with eight wheels - lander can in the front pulling the science module behind. I've also had a smaller rover that was split in two and hung off the sides of my Mun lander, attached via a docking port. Just like above, once on the Mun, I dropped the rovers off the sides of the lander and moved them into place so they docked together forming a long, eight-wheeled rover.

I would like to see food, water, and oxygen, and their associated waste products. I also would like to have the ability to set the rate of resource consumption. So if I haven't packed enough, or a mission takes longer than expected, I can have the Kerbals go into survival mode where they consume less, but are also way less productive, so you end up with a trade-off choice in emergency situations. If you want the Kerbals to return alive you'll have to give up on a lot of the science experimentation.

So far, from LKO and Mun return I've had good results using the KSP Aerobraking calculator: http://alterbaron.github.io/ksp_aerocalc/ I set my desired apoapsis to be just above Kerbin's atmosphere (around 80km), and I end up with a re-entry that consists of two braking phases. The initial one as I approach the periapsis that I burned for, then the capsule climbs back up into the higher atmosphere trying to reach the 80km apoapsis, but it has to travel through so much air resistance that it never gets there, then falls back down for a second heating cycle that brings it safely down to the surface. This method does use a lot of the ablative material, and stacking a second heat shield is a good idea. Finding the ideal altitudes for the desired apoapsis is a bit of trial-and-error. I always shoot for a value that is as high as possible that will keep my reentry vehicle in the atmosphere. The other thing that you can look at are the Deadly Reentry settings for the shock wave multiplier and exponent. Lowering these gives less heating and makes for easier reentry, raising them has the opposite effect. Read the third paragraph in the first post of this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/54954-0-23-Deadly-Reentry-Continued-v4-3-1-11-14 Good luck!

I think that once you're done building the sub-assembly, you can delete the root part, then choose a new root part to be at the bottom of the assembly - like a decoupler for examlpe. Once the decoupler's attached, you can re-add the part at the top. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this method.

I think MJ is great. I didn't use it to learn the basics - I got my foundation in orbital mechanics playing Orbiter years ago. But in Orbiter I didn't learn by trial and error, I installed MFDs that were purpose built to help with launching, rendezvous, transfers, aerobraking, etc. Once I saw the kinds of maneuvers calculated by the MFDs I began to learn how things worked. If I didn't have that previous experience, I probably would have learned by watching what MechJeb does. What I wonder about is whether a stock autopilot will interfere with the developer's vision for training Kerbal pilots to fly the ships. Given the choice, would anyone chose a Kerbal over MJ?

Intense discussion going on here. I get the feeling that to a certain degree ShadowDragon8685 and Wooks are talking about fundamentally different things. Somebody asked how he's supposed to practice docking when he can't even rendezvous, so S Dragon said "MechJeb" - and he's right, it'll let you skip rendezvous and get straight down to docking practice (Hyperedit would let you do that too). I don't really see a problem with that. As the discussion progressed, S Dragon seems to be talking about using MJ to help fly ships that, because of their design, are difficult to fly. Nothing wrong with that either - modern war planes would be un-flyable without computer controlled fly-by-wire systems. Wooks and a few others seem to be advocating a certain progression for people to follow so they get a complete understanding of how the whole sequence works: launch-orbit-align planes-synch orbit-rendezvous-dock. That's great too. We're all free to choose the method we want, and everybody always pays lip-service to the "I'm not telling anyone how to have fun", but then why do people get so upset when someone advocates a way to play that is different from their own? I guess one thing I've learned about this game is that it offers a nearly limitless range of game-play types. From doing calculations by hand, to "push a button to go", it caters to a very large range of player types, and I hope this is carried through to the final version of career mode.

You would be able to see full detail around you in the "real world" view, but just because your Kerbal looked out the window doesn't mean that the overflown areas are mapped with any degree of accuracy. And it certainly shouldn't magically reveal detail of the whole planet. I think the current map surface contains too much detail for an "eyeball" observation from orbit for those who want the mapping process to be meaningful. Mapping from the surface would require surveying - unless you're going to use some magic solution where "poof" it's done. Trying to get information on a whole planet from surface surveys would take a looooong time. I hope you really, really like driving your rovers. That's why real-life large scale mapping is done from space. Satellites require launching, deployment, correct positioning - sounds like fun to me, especially in a game about launching rockets. And if they can collect data while unfocused, then I can get on with doing other things in the meantime. Well, it's a constraint, so it's kind of designed to "penalize" everybody by creating a challenge that you have to overcome (what I like to refer to as "the whole point of career mode"). But it should probably at least be made scalable to make mapping trivial for those who don't like it.

I LOVE the idea. A few suggestions I would make to the list of instruments: -If the optical instruments are able to give us elevation maps, (like in real life where stereo pair air-photos are digitized into a 3D terrain model) they should produce a lower quality result with a bit of error built in. High fidelity maps could be created with lidar-equivalent instruments that don't require manual digitizing to create the 3D model. -The spectrograph would be able to give some information on some types of biomes (those that are defined by a difference in surface composition). So perhaps different types of biomes could be discovered by different types of instruments. Would also be nice to be able to perform some types of analysis on the data - for example, with elevation data you can do slope analysis, least-cost path to find the easiest route between points for a rover. I know these are a long-shot, so I'll probably have to keep doing this with my external GIS software.

Sorry piglet, but from within the context of the game, time-warping for hundreds and hundreds of days while doing nothing while your Space Program sits there completely inactive, for me that constitutes waiting. It might only be for a few minutes of real time, but it's a huge chunk of game-time wasted. It's also overly simplistic (ie, boring) game play, and if it ends up being the core of Career Mode, should be considered a dismal failure. For those who don't want constraints and pressures to shape their game-play, I suggest that you will not be very happy with any implementation of Career Mode. Your argument is very eloquent, by the way. "invalid!!"... lol. You don't happen to work in a big government bureaucracy, with a giant stamp with the word "REJECTED" that you gleefully thump all over people's carefully filled out forms? Try not to bring your work home with you so much.

If that ends up being my only option, I'll take it. But personally I don't like dealing with mods that much. I think optional game features so the player can adjust the experience is a much better idea.

Well, I guess that's a perfectly logical conclusion... ...if you completely ignore the fact that I have repeatedly advocated for optional, or at least adjustable game features to tailor the experience to the player. Quite different to your "my way or the highway" method of thinking. And yet, you're this site's biggest advocate for gameplay designed around waiting and doing nothing. One mission at a time, hundreds and hundreds of days of coasting to your destination, nothing to do but time-warp. I think you've just invented a new game - the "Kerbal Space Mission - Conquering the solar system... one long boring mission at a time". I'll stick with the "Kerbal Space Program" myself. And the idea of launching one, years-long mission while everything else just magically takes care of itself, and there are no consequences for just sitting around doing nothing sounds incredibly boring and ridiculously simplified to me. The good news though, is that many other people share my vision of a Career Mode that requires multi-tasking - you even had an estimate in a previous post as to how many of us there are.... what was it you said again? ....oh yea, "everyone". I've said it before, and I'll say it again: anything that adds reasonable complexity and that makes sense in the context of the space program should be included as an optional/adjustable element. Time based science will add a number of intriguing scenarios, some of which have already been mentioned, and I'm sure we'll discover more that we haven't thought of once it's implemented.

Adding a life support container in the VAB is a gameplay element? Just put on another oxygen tank - Yeeeehaaaa! Or perhaps the fun is in accurately calculating the duration of your trip and adjusting the life support resources to match the demand, which then translates into the satisfaction of knowing you got it right when your Kerbals make it home safely. No different from knowing that an experiment will take x amount of time and consume y amount of power per second, so my satellite has to have enough power generation to match demand, and it will spend z amount of time in the shadow of the planet, so I have to calculate enough power storage for that too. And I want to unlock a couple more science nodes in time for the Jool window coming up, so I have to make sure the mission is launched in time for that. It's not about waiting, it's about adding complexity and challenge. Anything that makes sense in the context of the space program and that adds a reasonable amount of complexity should be added as an optional layer to career mode. That statement perfectly sums up your approach to this discussion. Your argument invariably consists of "I don't find it fun, who in their right mind would? So it shouldn't be included". The main problem you're missing is that you don't have it all figured out as far as what constitutes a worthwhile gameplay element, because different people have different ideas of what's fun. Some people do their DV calculations by hand, some have an autopilot do their flying, some build rockets and don't even fly them themselves. The key to game design is offering a level of challenge and complexity that is right for the individual. Give me a game where all I have to do is set course, then fast-forward for hundreds and hundreds of days, and I'm ready to blow my brains out. Give me a puzzle where I have to balance time, resources, money, juggle concurrent missions, and keep everything in balance so the space program stays afloat, that's the game for me. Time-based science fits right in there in the game I want.

Those are just other hoops for the player to jump through. Communications relay requires the tedium of launching and arranging a bunch of extra satellites before getting on with your real goal. Life support just necessitates the adding of extra parts full of supplies to the craft. Why would those options be any more exciting than time based science? Your way or the highway, eh?

I really hope that Squad aren't fixating on trying to tailor career mode to one fixed idea of what is "fun". It seems to me that "fun" is extremely subjective, and that appropriate level and type of difficulty is what drives people's enjoyment in a game. If there is a potential game play element that makes sense in the context of the game universe, then that element should be included. Managing money and time both make sense in career mode. But since they are not necessarily fun for everyone, their impact on gameplay should be optional, or at least adjustable. I'm hoping that elements like money, science, time management, resources, etc. can be added or removed from a career save so that the game can be tailored - adding or removing layers of complexity to the puzzle that is career mode to create the best possible challenge.