Liowen

Back many versions ago I decided to take a Kerbal very close to the sun, you know for science. Well this would have been all well and good except for the fact that when the Kerbal went out on EVA it did the mysterious slingshot off the command pod door, and "crashed" into the sun as a direct result. Normally I would have went back to a quick save for something like this, however I did I revert back 8 missions and causing me to burst out into laughter.

While not the smallest you can make I feel this is a fairly clear and versatile craft (pre 1.0 I used this lander for a Duna mission). It can be modified to use either the pair of radial mounted engines or a single engine underneath, I prefer the radial engines in case one of the legs breaks during landing. I actually just took this picture after landing it as a test and the inner ring of tanks is still half full and the mid tank is full, again a modifiable design to either keep the tanks on to refill and land again or drop them giving you a single use lander. You could add some science to this if it were to be used in career mode, however I believe a science jr would be a bit much for it to handle (maybe not).

I wonder if doing 10 man landings would count as a thing. Considering I am overly rusty at the moment this will be much harder than it should be.

I finally got back into the swing of things after a very long and stressful break, now I just need to go to Eve and back in 1.0(whatever version it is). Now to sleep and dream big!

Thanks I couldn't recall the name of it + rep to you sir/madam (since I was getting naughty points back when Val was brought in I better be overly PC about everything).

Oops. I'm a bit late in replying but yeah, you can use this in your series no problem. LOL I am going to try this in 1.0 with some tweaks to the design, although some that I have been practicing with have been very bad floundering flops. I couldn't make the video sadly due to a major pc issue that caused me to reformat the whole thing, but when you have a new design I would love to give it a go again as this one did make it there and back in .90 (I think that was the one I tested it in).

I am looking for a mod that will let me switch the fuel types in the tanks (LF,OX, or mono) without changing out the tanks, this is mostly for an older build that would other wise be a massive pain to tear apart and rebuild. If that is not possible to do is it possible to get the nerva to use fuel like it did in pre-1.0? I know I could drain out the OX out of the tank but to me it feels like the tank would only be half as full, and to me if I can pull it out I should be able to put more full into the same space as a result. The ship flies just fine as is but the fuel ratio is completely wrong since the update, and being the main drive unit makes this even more important to fix. Thanks for any help.

Darkness is your friend

I know I will be transferring my .90 save in order to have something to fall back on if the 1.0 is either unstable or just not fun, since some rockets tend to wobble still the new sheering effect might make it more annoying. Wheels are nice if you like planes, would love to see some rover love but doubtful that will happen. Kerbals are asexual.....and that is all I will say on that. Things that should be in this next version; CLOUDS to add life to the planets (Weather and such would be nice too but just some pillows in the sky is not too much to ask for), storage for rovers, fairing, useful nose cones with fuel, useful adapters that contain fuel, radial decouplers with built in sepratrons, some form of KAS would be nice to work in tandem with the resources, some form of KAC to slow warp down at nodes or events, storage containers to house science instruments (these could be setup on the ground to do readings), more/updated command pod/cans (the two man can especially), and docking ports that have their cross fuel setting set to disable by default . That is just the short list for me of what is missing that should be in the 1.0 release, however if SQUAD will continue to do development after 1.0 to get these in it would be nice.

I know for me personally I have not built many planes because I do not want to, not because I "need" a part to do so. However with rockets we have parts that serve no function at all other than ascetics that need attention, as well as rover parts and ways to pack them on to a rocket are far behind satellites and cargo bays. Not to mention the look alone of the spaceplane crew cabins looks far nicer than the rocket end, granted the MK1(the non pointy one) and MK3 cockpits do still need interior views done yet. Also the plane adapter tanks have fuel in them where as the ones for rockets are still a static part that just adds weight without function, but most of the rocket adapters have this nagging issue. Since the aero model is getting an update these parts, might, make these parts more of a necessity, however they should have some substance that makes them more useful.

There are lots of things that should be added to make rockets more enjoyable and streamlined, yet I have my doubts that those items will be implemented beyond mods. Nosecones that have fuel in them to make them a useful part wold be a nice idea, currently they are nothing more than a part to add to the part count. Containers to store things like; rovers, science experiments, spare parts, and just to make the rocket a bit cleaner. Better landing legs would help with heavy landers/ground bases, rather than making static legs to make up for it. More crew pod/can choices and/or revamp of the ones we currently have, the two man can is kind of ugly IMO. Just a few of the glaring ones, not listing fairing because it has been said to death.

Fix for the poster; ambient light mod will boost the ambient light in the game and brighten up the picture. Fix for the complainer; don't look at the pictures....no one says you have to look at them right. This complaint sounds more like a complaint to have something to complain about, oh wait that is the nature of the forums I forgot .

To me there are more important things that could be done than putting in female character, honestly I thought the Kerbals were genderless to be honest. We get female Kerbals before there are clouds in the sky.....that is still confusing.

I am with 5thHorseman on this, spend the time where it is needed. While it would be nice there really wouldn't be much they could say until it was close to release, unless you want them to make tease posts so everyone and their sister-uncle can speculate.

Criticism is one thing, but anger and vileness is something completely different (IE calling a company stupid). Also if you go somewhere where the food was god awful would you go back repeatedly to complain about it? I know I wouldn't. Yet with videogames it is seemingly different for some reason, almost like they like to complain to complain. I honestly do not see the appeal of first person shooter games (to me they are all rewashes of the same design) yet I do not buy them and go to their forums to complain about it. Even when I played MMO's I would get annoyed with things I felt were wrong with it, however I knew where they were going was not something I would not enjoy so I left it to its own devices.

I voted other for in a kind a yes and no answer. Yes they should post things on the forums, or more so, rather than having to go to 3 other sites to find out information. But no those posts should be locked from being commented on, as with most of the posts regarding information found on other channels it is annoying looking through pure hatred in them If people are that angry with something they should just stop using, no one is forcing them to play and all their vileness is toxic at times. I do not fault SQUAD for not posting here because in the eyes, who have never made a game mind you, of some it is wrong, mostly because it is not what they feel it should be for their play style.

Maybe engineers can cure them of "orbital flea"?

It's the forums that is what people do or they like to be overly critical, because we all know that they have made better games than Squad could.....right?

I have been using it as part of my new chute landing device, as well as an abort system. For landing on Eve I use them and some girders with chutes attached for the landing, and once on the ground I decouple them and fire the rockets on the towers to get them clear of the craft. This gives me the chutes I need for landing with the added benefit of losing their dead weight once I am off the ground and awaiting liftoff from the surface.

While I have been to Laythe once and I honestly do not find it that appealing, there needs to be a bit more land mass on its surface. On the flip side I like Bop and Pol, still working on Tylo and Val to complete the set .

Just because someone says that X mods should be in the game does not really justify it needing to be in game, unless every person is playing exactly the same as said person. I have played with life support but never felt the need to have a construction time, if I need to warp to a window I would simply go to a ship that I wanted to monitor (or just the KSC) and time warp till I was ready to go. If it is something that can be turned on or off, which it should be if implemented, that would be fine, as long as it is done for all levels of play rather than hard coded to medium or hard (choices are often better than forced difficulty).

To me I am not selling the part to someone but rather the distance from KSC is a fee paid for going out and getting a part; closer to KSC the less the "recovery team" has to do to get the items, but further out means they will charge you more.

It should be a selectable option for any given difficulty setting, not hard limited to a setting. Personally I would never use it though as it just doesn't mesh with play style I like, and time is a big limiting factor so the less twiddling my thumbs watching something I have built being built (See also: redundant is redundant) is even less appealing. What is really confusing about is that they want to add "jump to" options and add this, so SQUAD wants to speed up the game somewhat and slow it down in another sense. If it is hard coded into the game maybe there will be a mod that bypasses it in someway hopefully, or maybe something that can be delete from the game folder like the NASA pack.

So wait if construction time is put in will I have to wait X amount of time from designing my rocket/plane/pile-o-parts to launch it, or something else? If it is the first one that, to me, is silly considering I might do multiple tests of something to see what is or is not working. If it is something else I guess I am missing something then. Personally I hate artificial time sinks in games, it is as bad as grinding away for xp in some games because you are too low to move on to the next area. If implemented I hope there is an option to turn it off, or even better still make it off by default but easy enough to find for those that want it on. As for life support I feel something more a long the lines of Snacks would be fitting KSP, it kills of you rep if you leave a Kerbal in space without snack (at least last I looked into the mod that is), this could effect contracts you get, how much pay out of those contracts, and random Kerbals leaving your space program because they are unhappy with you, the last one would suck if you had no one to turn on SAS on you big crafts.

I have to agree with this. I know for myself I play more than I post, I am not overly fond of forums to begin with due to past experiences. There will be some who play the game that may never come to the forums, or just come to get help with a problem that is not cleared up in videos. Judging a game based on the number of people active on a forum is like looking at downloads for a mod to see how popular it is, neither is a good way to judge how good or popular something is based one those numbers.