Pecan

Would you care to elabotate? What I mean is, what was it that finally solved the problem for you - better gravity turn, more efficient staging, moar boosters?

(Re: EVA and all that) - They do bounce off but it shouldn't be at any significantly higher speed than they were closing. Much as I detest videos it might be necessary to see one of your EVAs because this sounds like you're having bugs, not difficulties :-( As with docking we are talking very slow here. No instruments in EVA so no absolute figures but the quote I remember (unfortunately not who said it though) is "If you think you're moving [relative to the target] you are. If you know you're moving, you are going too fast."

I get no ignition in the VAB (sticking it under a probe core and X200-32 tank). Centre engine runs OK up to 90%

Apart from KOS, which is a self-contained programmable autopilot, there are python and Lua mods. *grin* Lua always seems like it should be the choice for any KSP scripting language to me, since it means 'Moon'. I've read your complaint about EVA in another post but I'm afraid it sounds like "I don't want to learn EVA". Practice! Manoeuvre nodes have recently been improved - what exactly do you think should be changed about them? NOT - what would be most realistic if we had teams of mathematicians and physicists with months in which to plan missions - but an easy way for us to see a 'computer simulation' of the effects of different burns? Not sure what you mean about launch manoeuvres, but if you want an autopilot for them use KOS or MJ. If you just want to set and see an ascent path use MJ but don't let it fly the launch, just show it. Crew transfer without having to do EVA is a bit of a pain and one of the first things I asked about when I started KSP. Use Crew Manifest or the more flexible Ship Manifest mod. EVA really is pretty quick and easy once you get used to it though.

Pointing at retrograde to land is not the most efficient or controllable way to do it but it's the easiest. Initially you'll be pointing at the horizon, reducing horizontal speed. As that falls so will the ship, and you'll pitch-up more and more towards the zenith with proportionally more of the thrust slowing the descent. Ideally you'll be pointing straight up shortly before landing. The navball is by far the most useful instrument in stock KSP, the altimeter the least. It is slightly easier to land from the internal (IVA) cockpit view, which in most cases let you use the 'radar' altimeter' - your true height above the surface.

At the risk of hijacking the thread - I'm much less interested in whether a vehicle is an unmanned 'probe' or a crewed 'ship', as I am in whether it needs attention or not. All the other designations are fine but I 'mis-use' ship to mean a vehicle in-flight that will need attention (KAC'll remind me what/when), probes are only unmanned, in the right place/orbit, doing whatever it's meant to be doing (eg; RT2/SCANSat satellites) so can safely be ignored.

Unmanned lander probes are pretty indispensable if you want to constuct projects with anything like realism. I second SCANSat as useful, fun and a good incentive for unmanned flights in its own right. Delighted to see the new version is out, I've got out of date recently. (With RT2 or similar: connect ->) Map -> probe -> mission.

I totally agree - any idea how? My LibreOffice-formatted originals look a lot better, but I'm struggling a bit with ignorance of BB code. In general, if I knew how to resize the images on the page, without having to resize the originals all the time, I'd put separate images where they belong in the campaign progress and break-up the Wall Of Text. That should make it easier and less daunting to read. A month of double-shifts at work. Chapters 6 - 8 coming during that time if I can get myself in gear.

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept"

And I think we can all expect that to be true for Whackjob! Although in his case almost everything is probably at the limit, even when they move the limit.

And yet, he's asking for and we're giving opinions. Ah, the irony - is suggesting that someone should be able to make their own decisions depriving them of the right to be told what to do by others? "You've got to think for yourselves. You are all individuals" (Life of Brian). Everyone is, of course, entitled to follow "the" correct, official, dogma but that doesn't mean that's what they "should" do. ETA: Our posts crossed. Lol, why would you even need to ask opinions? You must know the parts inside out!

Sorry, I hadn't realised your main question was 'massive'. Yeah, mine are small - the one in the pics being physically small and only 130t including tractor and (2) fuel modules. If anything, other designs I've used have been smaller but I just found I was having to send out too many tankers ^^.

You should start using sandbox mode so you aren't constrained to thinking there is "a" way to play KSP that you have to follow.

Er, no - S is pitch-up, W is down. A/D are yaw- and Q/E roll- left/right. 'Up' on the navball is always S, left is A, etc. One of the really good things about the NavballDockingAlignment Indicator (based on NavyFish's) is that all the information you need is tight there in one place. @ OP: if you are having trouble selecting the docking-port rotate the camera view so it is between your ship and the target. Zoom out until the target comes into view - since the docking-port is on the 'wrong' side and you're looking 'backwards' ... it's now facing you.

If you are talking about the stored-data size it's probably much smaller than you'd think. Most terrain is generated mathematically as its needed from key data rather than the whole thing being saved pixel-by-pixel. For the system itself there's no 'map' as such, just the figures for the planets' and moons' orbits - from that the computer can work out where they are at any time. ETA: The classic 'Elite' reputedly has 100-billion planets and moons (in many different star-systems, of course) which would have been an impossible number of anything to store on the computers of the time when it was launched. 100 Gigabytes would be possible now, but still very, very impractical ^^.

Not sure what happened here: post deleted.

1. It's a sandbox game - if you want to do manned first you can. If you want to do unmanned first you can. If you want to play by career-mode's current silly rules you can. 2. Probes might be able to talk over a long distance but radio waves find it hard to travel through planets. Hence, if you want to be able to communicate with something in the 'radio shadow' of another body you need repeater satellites. RemoteTech 2 (probably the best-known communications mod) simulates a coverage 'cone' so if you aim a dish at, say, Duna its arc will cover most probes around it - but not the ones it can't "see" because they're behind the planet. 3. Batteries don't have solar panels. Solar panels don't have batteries. You need both - and you need to make sure you i) deploy solar panels unless they're the always-deployed OX-STAT ones, ii) orientate the vehicle so the solar panels get proper exposure to the sun. 4. A radioactive generator is available under the 'utilities' tab in the VAB/SPH. 5. SCANSat is another great probe-mod; that one adding mapping satellites. If used with RT2 you'll need to start with COMSats so you can control things, as above, following with SCANSats to identify safe and/or interesting landing sites. No animals on Kerbin so you'll then have to jump to manned ^^. 6. Career-mode is very much unfinished but should make a lot more sense in 0.24.

I see no requirement for any lander to return to the mothership at all - just maroon a Kerbal to plant a flag and sail on without him ;-0

*cough* Tex's signature *cough* You want to know about stations? Really nice design/building guide.

That's ok Sirrobert, we don't have a king ^^. Elizabeth II Regina Est

Tripped over a review of KSP in PCGamer or some such, got the demo, read the wiki, did the in-game tutorials, read some of the tutorials here, watched a couple of short videos (I have the ability to read books, videos have to be very short and to the point - de-umming is a must!), checked references elsewhere on the internet and in the library. Bought the game a week later then asked my first question, "what's a flag?" ^^

Good poll, I had a hard time making my mind up. There are still some planets I've never even got a transfer-window to because I tend to restart my games a lot. I seem to have most fun going to Moho and I've got a soft-spot for Duna/Ike because it was my first interplanetary landing. Then again, Jool's moons just make it so interesting ... so in the end I voted for Kerbin because there's so much you can do so quickly.

It is a good idea to always set an action group to toggle solar panels and another to mission-critical instruments. I use another for the engines as well so I don't wreck it all by pressing shift at the wrong moment. Now or later, if the same ever happens, Actions In Flight and, better I think Action Group Manager will let you set and change action groups after launch as well as before.

Incidentally; from the penultimate tutorial chapter, on spacestations (which I haven't published yet): (The final chapter adds the landers and an interplanetary tractor) Note that the station and the tractor are both < 25t so light, if awkward, to launch. At ~40t the fuel module is about the limit of what I single-launch. The tractor can place the complete station in Mun orbit without excessive burn-times, although it's probably better to assemble it there in the first place if you even want a station around Mun. I did because I was visiting lots of 'anomalies' on the surface but there's not much other reason to. The cupola is at the bottom for the reasons given earlier, docking adapters on two of the four ports around the core, there are also two dockable 'claws' on the hitch-hiker because I don't think there's such a thing as too much docking versatility ^^. Oh, and notice the ladder running from top to bottom. And, yes, I know the spaceplane isn't wonderful - there is a (not very good) reason.

You don't say what core and what else you have on the probe but assuming an Okto 2, z-200 battery, tri-coupler and (because I'm in symmetry-3) 3xOX-STAT solar panels I get 6,928m/s deltaV from those tanks and engines. That should be fine for a Moho intercept and establishing orbit (6,640m/s), although it doesn't have a lot of margin for error. Should you decide to redesign I'd suggest losing two engines and putting core, battery, tanks and engines all in a single stack (11,176m/s, enough to come back again too, with efficient flying and good aerobraking). Multiple engines of the same type (the LV-Ns) will make your burns quicker but they reduce the available deltaV because the whole vehicle is heavier by their extra mass.