Pecan

It certainly helps with that as a by-product evilC. It can't make KSP's own action groups perform properly but the controls/binding for this mod will work.

Do you mean you get that 'rolling around' effect instead of snapping into place? There's two tricks I use for that: 1) Put the camera down by the side of the ship and lower the port onto the top - for some reason the editor snaps it into place because it can't "see" an alternative. 2) Turn off angle-snap ©, next to the symmetry button. Doesn't make the part snap into place but at least stops it 'rolling', so it's pretty easy to line-up by hand.

Oh the new toys I have to play with! Heads-up by the way, new version of Module Manager out as well, since it's a dependency.

Oohhhh - nice looking ship, now you explain what it is. Good luck.

There are some easy rules too - If it's in the sky it's a ship or a station. If it goes out of control blame the computer and make it a probe. If it falls out of the sky it becomes a lander; briefly. If it survives it's a base, unless it's moving, in which case it's a rover. if I make it it is debris ^^

The first placed 'command module' (can be some other things as well) is the "root" part that everything else has to connect to. There is a mod (Select Root) that allows you to choose and change which part is the root but there always has to be exactly one. The (logical) 'tree structure' of parts in KSP means every part except the root must connect, first, to exactly one 'parent' part that is already placed - so the second part can only connect to the root, the third can connect to the root or second, etc. Immediately that gives you the 'stack' of a rocket, with one thing one top of another. Any number of 'child' parts that fit can connect to the same 'parent' however - so you can have a quad-connector with four stacks beneath it, for instance. This arrangement is easy for the computer to deal with but it does have some limitations. It is so fundamental to the way KSP works though that trying to change it would basically mean starting again. There are many, many mods - what is it that you want to navigate around (parts and construction or space itself) and what problems are you having at the moment?

Curse you foul fiend, I am corrupted and undone by your evil clipping. *cough* Sorry about that. Finally decided that that method is just so effective and good-looking that I had to use it on my 'infrastructure' crew shuttle. Went a bit mad too, so I have 10 or so on an I-beam.

Getting to orbit is, relatively, hard. I'd start them off in orbit around Kerbin and show how 'going faster' (burning prograde) expands the orbital circumference ... to Mun fly-by. Try to capture to local Mun orbit. Use normal/radial burns to adjust orbit. Point out that it's all orbits ... around Mun, around Kerbin, around Kerbol - theoretically around galactic centre, etc. etc.

Great job - best reference tool :-)

You may like to look at the Crew Manifest or, newer, Ship Manifest mods for this. Incidentally; Ship Manifest now supports Connected Living Spaces which means there has to be a path for the crew to pass through (command pods, hitchhiker, lab, docking ports [open hatches by right-clicking them] but not 'through' things like engines, batteries, fuel tanks, etc.).

Not just from that picture. Will it go straight up? The big thing with proper aerodynamics is you must keep manoeuvres subtle, so the facing indicator doesn't move far from the prograde marker, otherwise you'll stall and flip.

Lots of burns. 1) Plane to zero degrees 2) Ejection/rough intercept 3) Plane-match at AN/DN 4) Mid-course correction 5) Tuning on SOI change - mostly because the orbit path/markers tend to bounce around so much they can't be relied on earlier (big wobbly rockets!) 6) Orbital injection/final corrections 7) Adjust Ap/Pe 8) Plane change 9) Adjust Ap/Pe 10) Plane change 11) Adjust Ap/Pe 12) Plane change - I'm a bit obsessive about my space-stations' orbits ^^ What? I don't know, there's something about an idle engine that just cries out for a poke.

The point I was making is that I've found the simplicity of build and reduced part-count using ARM parts becomes worth considering for payloads as low as 10t. With fewer, more powerful, parts I am also no longer using asparagus staging as a matter of course, which again makes builds simpler and reduces build-count. The new launch vehicles are also cheaper, in as much as cost has any relevance at the moment. Maintaining a launch TWR of 1.6 - 2 and deltaV of 4,600 - 4,800m/s the only downside is their reduced payload ratio; in this specific case down from 16.49% for a somewhat optimised asparagus build to 11.34%. As 10% rocket payload ratio is to be expected as a rule of thumb that's "acceptable", if not inspiring. Launchers for heavier payloads have better ratios. Before the introduction of ARM parts I found 'simple' builds - such as just sticking a mainsail under everything - were so inadequate that parts had to be multiplied and supplemented (moar boosters!) just to get decent performance, obviating any benefits. Broadly, the 'practice', which has changed and which I am addressing, is that 'simple' is now, often, also right, thus I have shunned more complex builds that I would have adopted before. You are right, of course, in that I am still interested in efficiency and performance and, to that extent, my play style has not changed. None of this is a complaint about anything. It is simply a practical observation, such as this thread was intended for. Not polemic.

Why do you need career mode to give you an incentive? Getting science to get parts is a silly way to arrange things. Getting science so you can build a space station is much more fun! Lol - what I mean, is have a space station because you can, not because the limited career mode says it has a reason. I play sandbox and have stations because they are useful, not because they contribute to some unnecessary and arbitrary scoring system.

SCANSat mod if you want to find slopes (or their absence) for yourself. KerbalMaps if you just want to look.

Oh man, I really need to publish that demo version (0.18) tutorial I was writing before I started the one I'm on.

You've obviously done a lot of work on this so there is definitely no need to apologise. Well done.

Nice job again mhoram. Glad to have added anything and very glad that it's you sorting out arguments, not me!

You need a new forum name. "Strato" just doesn't describe ...

I'm sorry, if there is anything in that which is meant to be a discussion I don't know what it is. "it isn't easier than an appropriate sized rocket" - it is a rocket and it is the appropriate size. It is fewer parts, lower cost, simpler to build and 20t more than the launch vehicle I used before. "complaign" [sic] - I'm not complaining about anything, I'm stating a fact. This thread is titled "Theory vs Practice" and I am stating that my practice has changed, for the reasons above. "imposed a boring playstyle" - no imposition, no boredom. Feel free to join in when you next design a rocket. "use a mainsail" - I have never used a mainsail in anything apart from finding out how awful it was. I have spent many, many hours on launchers and was reasonably pleased with my previous fleet. 10t launcher is single-stage 88t and 10 parts, compared to previous 'standard' 68t which itself was under 17% payload ratio so not that interesting. Payload ratio, however, doesn't seem to be most peoples' interest and at the stage I'm only launching 10t payloads in my tutorial series simplicity is more appropriate. This is how I am currently choosing to do things. Your complaints are?

I am now using ARM parts for payloads of 10t plus as it is so simple.

I think I'd better disqualify myself before I start: I've spent the past month or so playing with SCANSat maps and verifying against other sources.

Your best bet would be to ask in the KER thread. Or just get MJ you aren't forced to use the autopilot features.

Ironically, there is another thread complaining about one of the scruffy and 'cracked' NASA parts. Personally, I've never used an orange tube in a launch vehicle at all, only as a refuelling cargo. Perhaps I'm just more fuel-efficient than most (or it could be that I've had zero success at making thrust plates so can't get them to stay together].

Actually MJ doesn't do it. It'll do your return burn, usually being quite a way off on the resultant Kerbin orbit, it'll do your plane change and circularisation, quite well, and it'll do your deorbit burn very well. It certainly won't do all of them at once. As I understand it neither did/do NASA - mid-course correction and orbital stabilisation burns are normal, aren't they?