Rusty6899

Yes, I actually did use a fair few reaction wheels to maintain stabiity (I may be able to take them out). If they were taken out it would be 20k in unrecovered items. I had seen the Scott Manley video a few weeks ago, and it was part ofthe reason I decided to make one. I'll just have to keep it for Sandbox rather than Career. I'll probably go for a SSTO or a Mk 3 shuttle next. Although, I have heard that the Mk 3 parts aren't the most user friendly.

For a while I had wanted to make a space shuttle on KSP, but had never really got round to it until the last few days, when I thought I'd give it a try. After a fairly long time tweaking things in the SPH and numerous unsuccessful test flights, I managed to make a shuttle that performed pretty well. It consisted of a launch stage with 2 S1 SRB-KD25k's radially mounted to an orange tank, which fed fuel into my shuttle. The shuttle has 3 LV-T45's (2 firing initially and a third for when the SRB's finish burning to balance the thrust vector). The shuttle was fairly small (Mk 2 parts), had a small cargo bay and a small monopropelant tank for completing my orbit. Putting a small satellite in orbit from the cargo bay, costs me about 25,000 funds (it could be reduced by taking fuel out of the orange tank as I have a fair bit more delta-V than I need). By comparison, I could mount the satellite to a rocket and get it into orbit for maybe 5,000 funds. Is there a reason that the shuttle option is so expensive? I'm guessing fuel may be disproportionately expensive when compared to engines. Obviously, the main difference is that I am putting an entire spaceplane into orbit compared to just a satellite, but I thought the whole point of the shuttle was to make the expensive stuff reusable. I'm sure people have managed to make KSP shuttles that have a much better economic efficiency than mine, but I don't see how you could even come close to making up the cost difference between a shuttle and a rocket.

0.90 has been brilliant so far. The game is looking brilliant and will most likely get even better during 2015. Well done, Squad!

For interplanetary missions, I name each craft after the Greek equivalent of the Roman god that each planet's closest real world equivalent is named after. So my first mission to Duna was Ares I.

LKO is the only place that makes much sense. You will be able to get there fairly easily by using Kerbin to aerobrake when returning from an interplanetary mission. Anywhere else and you are throwing away fuel. On top of that, LKO is an efficient place to transfer to a lot of planets so refuelling there is preferable to Minmus or Mun.

It's very difficult to compare costs unless we know exactly what you're taking. I was landing probes on Minmus for 7k, but my first manned mission there (capable of landing + ascending 3 times) cost 25k. The heavier your craft, the mosr cost spiral out of control, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if 105k was reasonable for a 3 man Mun landing.

I think the 3 star survey missions were 27000 funds/location with 4 locations and over 200k funds for completing the contract. I haven't done one on Mun yet as Minmus seems the much easier target, considering you can adjust your orbit by coughing out the window, pretty much. I had to restart my game after killing Jeb. I was trying to control my thrust when landing back on Kerbin, to avoid a heavy touchdown. Unfortunately, I pressed shift 5 times, you can guess the rest. I have build functioning planes before, but they are all very much trial and error. I think I might practice in sandbox before I strap Jeb in.

The Stayputnik has plenty of function. You can stick a Remote Guidance Unit on it and fly it fairly well (it can also make use of gimballed engines for control). You can also use it for your first few satellite missions before you unlock a better probe core. You can use it for Kerbal Rescue Missions, by attaching it to an empty lander. All in all it is a very versatile and useful part and a large number of my early game missions made use of it as the primary command module. I think that the decision to have the functionality of the probe core progress as the tech tree progresses is a fundamental part of the game. In previous versions of the game there was very little difference between the probes and their position in the tech tree seemed completely arbitrary. Now it makes sense. It offers a challenge. And by the debate that has been ignited here, I would infer that there are a number of players who agree with the inclusion of the Stayputnik in the game in its current form. If it doesn't suit your style of play, you are able to research more sophisticated probes further up the tech tree and ignore the Stayputnik, but please don't ask for a part to be deleted, under the pretense of saving memory, just because you are unwilling to use it.

I'm quite the opposite. I'm pretty amateurish at making planes, so I prefer to zip round Minmus taking the temperature and looking out the window for excessive rewards. They do pay too much. I spent 25k on a very overpowered ship that can take care of 2 or 3 survey/temperature contracts. The contracts pay out up to 300k funds and 300 science (on Hard, so 500k/500 science on Normal). One advantage is that this does stop you spamming "Science from space near..." contracts, but the payout seems too high. Well maybe not too high exactly, I think the game would make more sense if contracts payed out less, but the buildings were cheaper to upgrade. The way it is at the moment, they just seem to be giving the parts away far too cheaply when compared with funds in the rest of the game.

Well, that is probably being a bit pessimistic. It can take 11km/s, but only if you deliberately want it to. If you leave on day ~720 and choose to take a stupid route it is 11km/s. This gives you a travel time of 350 days. If you leave on the same date, however, you could spend less than 5km/s and be there in 240 days. So by choosing an odd route you are costing yourself 6km/s and 110 days. I think this is far from the discussion about whether Duna and Eve's windows should be brought forward. Eeloo, Jool and Moho have much more regular transfer windows (just over a year for Eeloo and Jool and a lot less for Moho, which has a long transfer window every 135 days). Those windows are unlikely to effect a new players ability to go interplanetary quickly as they are not primary targets, and the windows come round fairly regularly. For a new player, Duna and Eve would be the two main targets. Duna's transfer window is around day 220, I feel this is fair to give new players time to pick up the basics to have a good chance of making the window. At no point in the first 400 days, will a direct transfer from Kerbin to Duna, with aerobraking, cost more than 2000km/s if you time it right. For these reasons, I think experienced players should bear the burden of the extra 0.5-1 km/s delta-V if they want to go to Duna "early" rather than force inexperienced players to rush for a deadline (if they are even aware the deadline exists), considering it takes 800 days until the next transfer window.

I'm not one to back down from a pedantic internet argument. From the KSP Wiki; "A sidereal Kerbin day is 6 hours long, the Mun has an orbital period of 38.6 hours which defines a Kerbin month, and Kerbin has an orbital period of 2556.5 hours which defines a Kerbin year." http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Time

I suppose I consider a kerbin month to be defined as the orbital period of the Mun, maybe a Munth would be a better word for it. Although, you would then have Minmus months as well. According to Wikipedia "A month is a unit of time, used with calendars, which is approximately as long as a natural period related to the motion of the Moon; month and Moon are cognates."

Well, if we are just talking about Duna and Eve, the transfers are around 1km/s during transfer window. It will obviously cost more, but neither is going to be 20km/s. Anyway, I think it is better to give newbies a few game months before expecting them to go interplanetary. Remember that if they miss a Duna window they could be waiting a few game years until they get another chance.

It rotates every month. The slow rotation actually helps you here as it means that you will catch every survey site without altering your orbit (apart from your height depending on the contract requirements). Stay in an exact polar orbit and you'll be fine.

Well, the obvious problem with that is that Duna and Eve transfer windows come about pretty infrequently. If new players take a while to get off their feet they could well miss the first transfer window and then they'd be waiting a fair while to make use of the Duna/Ike/Eve/Gilly contacts, which are typically the easiest interplanetary contracts. I'm guessing advanced players could manage to make it to Eve without a direct transfer window for a little extra delta-V, or at least trying it would offer a nice challenge.

I think that the "science data from space" contracts problem could be solved by making a couple of adjustments. It's important that newer players get to play these "easier" lucrative contracts as they are just starting out, but I think there should be a set limit to the number of times they can be used. After that maybe there could be more restrictive stipulations included in the contracts. E.g. Mystery goo study between 100,000 and 110,000 over Kerbin. This would mean that a player could save time by building a space station with a Lab and a small probe capable of undocking, moving to a new orbit to perform an experiment and then redocking. It would also require refuelling periodically. It would still provide a steady stream of funds, but the player would have to set up the infrastructure to exploit it to its full potential and it would provide a new function for space stations. It isn't a perfect solution, but it may be better than what we have now. A limit to how often these contracts came up could also help. Maybe if you accepted one of these contracst it wouldn't come up again until 3 different contracts had been completed.

Some torque would help a bit. Although you could just choose engines that have Gimbal. I can't remember if they are in the same tech node as the first reaction wheel, but if not, they probably should be.

I think the problem with the buildings is that Tier 0 buildings are... not good. I enjoyed the challenge of flying without Patched Conics, and seeing how far I could fly with an 18t limit etc. but they are restrictive. After upgrading almost all of them, I don't actually feel like I really need to do it again any time soon (255 parts is probably plenty for almost anything, I can't remember the launchpad mass limit, but it's high, unowned object tracking isn't that important, 12 Kerbals on mission is manageable, strategies... meh). I think there should be cheaper, but more tech levels. the total cost of fully upgrading may be the same, but there should be more of a gradual increase than a spike. Also, the problem with engineers is that very few parts get damaged. They could be given other abilities, for example only engineers can alter thrust limiting during flight. Alternatively, overheating engines or re-entry into atmosphere could have effects on the fuel efficiency of engines. They might lose thrust for the same mass flow rate, or could start leaking and have a higher mass flow rate without gaining any extra thrust.

That's like saying. Add a gimbal to the LV-30, and if players don't like it, then lock the gimbal function. We get it. You don't like the part. Don't pretend that you speak for the entire KSP playing community. Some people like having an early game probe, and are quite happy to pilot it without SAS until they unlock a probe that has it. One problem that we had was that almost all probe cores were equal. This way, the functionality of the probe increases the further you get up the tech tree. If you don't like it, don't use it. But it doesn't make sense to request it be removed from the game, just because you don't like it.

I'm still saving up for the Tier 2 R&D. I'll probably have it by tonight. It's over 1,000,000 funds on Hard and most of the buildings seem to at least triple between upgrades, so I'm prepared for a big outlay. It is quite annoying at the moment as I only have one technology left to purchase before I finish the portion of the tree that is available.

I have done the exploit to get two satellite missions completed in one launch. It probably is a bit "cheaty" but it's just my own time I'm saving, rather than money. The cost of putting a satellite somewhere in Kerbin's SoI might be 6000 funds. The amount they are paying for those contracts completely dwarfs the cost of carrying out the contracts, so I'd rather save myself 10 minutes if I get two satelite contracts that are convenient to carry out at the same time.

I used them a fair bit for satellites and to complete the explore mun and minmus missions. You need a reaction wheel, and to be able to fly reasonably well, the landings on Mun and Minmus were pretty sketchy. My craft fell over both times, but I managed to get the minmus one back into orbit.

So you don't want to upgrade buildings, or play through contracts? Why not play sandbox? We have been playing the game in early access at the final tech level, which makes your complaint understandable, but you don't start a game on XCOM and complain about having limited satellite uplink or power supply. This is a common game mechanic, implemented fairly well, and if you don't like it, play custom settings and give yourself enough cash to upgrade everything.

Yes, we are consumers. However we are not consultants. We bought a game, with the price reduced to compensate the fact that the game is in development. Yes, the game needs some improvement. No, there aren't any elements that are "completely broken". Squad are, quite rightly, not going to have a team meeting and say "well, we have a well thought out, long term development plan for this game, but on the forums Spaceboy96 said "I want Deadly re-entry in stock in the next update" so drop everything you're doing and work on that now." I think it is fairly nonsensical to claim that anyone who thinks tweaks are needed rather than complete overhauls are happy to "take anything that Squad throws at them without criticism". I would also love to see a screenshot of your contract to "Test the Rockomax Brand Adapter at 26987,75m at a speed of 528,9923671m/s on a Friday between 9.17am and 9.22 am with the Mun in it's third quarter". This sort of inane exaggeration undermines your attempt to make "fanboys" (roughly translated as "people who are satisfied to some extent with the last update") seem like the unreasonable party in this discussion. We bought a game where there was uncertainty over the final product. Everyone has a different impression of what the final product "should" look like. Squad are making the game that they want to make. They obviously do take feedback in the forum into consideration, but it can't override their development plan. I dare say that there are plans in place to change some of the elements that you are unhappy with, but it's not as if you have made any useful suggestions either. Constructive criticism is helpful, suggestions are more helpful, making mods to solve the problem (which could possibly be implemented if they work well) are even more helpful. Angry, straw man strewn rants, aimed at disparaging people who don't share your opinions are none of the above.

I really don't see much reason to complain, to be honest. This has definitely been the best update since I have started playing (0.21 I think). The game feels much more polished and there is a career mode that you won't complete in 2 days (although I imagine some poeple have). There are a couple of issues that I feel need addressing for balance purposes, but my first impressions of the game in beta is that it is really fun and the restrictions at the start add a lot to the game. I'd never had to fly without SAS or patched conics before, and it offers a new and refreshing challenge to a game that had, in some respects, began to lose my interest. I find the upgradable buildings allow the player to decide what to prioritise, with their planned missions in mind. Do you want patched conics early to try to get an <18t probe to Duna, or do you want to upgrade the Launchpad and Astronaut Complex and bring back samples from the Mun? (If you can get to the Mun and back with an 18t limit, I would be impressed. It might just be possible, I reckon I'm about 250-300m/s short with level 2 tech). Even if you don't like the update, the fact is that this game is Squad's game. We can offer feedback, but with the acceptance that if the game doesn't go the way we want it to, we have no right to feel let down.