Pecan

Stickied at the top of this forum section is "The Drawing Board", which lists all (the best) tutorials available. Link is also in my signature.

That's just crazy talk. May your trains ever derail!

A 32-bit application such as KSP can only use a maximum of 4GB, even if run on a 64-bit operating system. Internally, it just can't 'count' high enough to talk about/with any more memory than that. "How many" mods depends on how big they are though and, since 1.0 is changing the memory-handling along with everything else, how (in)efficiently KSP handles them. Since we don't know what 1.0's performance is going to be like yet and every mod has a different requirement there's no straightforward answer to the question I'm afraid.

Most recently discussed in this thread

Hehe - get IR and make a walking rig instead of using wheels.

Those Steam people, hey? You have to admire them. You think they've made THE worst system possible but they still come up with another reason to hate it.

Yes, in-flight docking has been done a few times. Only a few times though because of the restrictions on the physics bubble (2.5km but changing in 1.0 apparently) and not being able to change vessel while in atmosphere.

Know as 'fine' mode, versus the usual 'coarse'

If you are looking for help with a particular mod the best place to ask is in that mod's thread. KAX is here

What is this "Career mode" of which you speak? Will almost certainly give it a go in 1.0 but I'm not expecting it to become my usual play style.

Take a breath; sometimes it's hard to remember to breathe. Sometimes a document downloaded (and presumably read) by tens of thousands of people, including 2 who were specifically proof-reading it, can still contain the most embarrassing errors. In this case I'd messed-up the distinction between breath/breathe, as above and only spotted it a week or so ago. The only other changes are minor typographical ones and not nearly as cringe-worthy. No ships were used in testing this version. This should be the final version of this that I post ... KSP 1.0 is coming.

You are replying to a post that is almost a year old.

There has never been a spaceplane in real life. I've tried DRE a few times but never found it added anything so I think it must just be that I use a very shallow approach anyway. All the "Exploring The System" vehicles that are meant to re-enter atmosphere have been tested with DRE, for instance.

The installation chapter of "Induction To Construction" tells you where Steam puts KSP, recommends copying it out of there (as SRV does above) and explains how to get and install mods. Many people have more than one KSP install so they can use different combinations of mods and/or keep a stock version as well.

No, that was being reasonable because the alternative would upset the moderators. Since the picture might be as intended, and real-life engines are not perfectly symmetrical, it may not even be a issue. My point is that you are not only being pedantic but are also factly wrong in calling it a bug. And I really wish you'd stop SHOUTING about it. The thing is, if you want some issue addressed it's best to label it correctly because then it'll get the amount of attention it deserves, from the people most able to deal with it. "Graphical Glitch" (maybe) will be looked at by people who deal with graphics. "Bug" will be looked at by people who deal with code, and they'll dismiss this - genuine, I agree - point you have. As SkyRender says above, "asymmetric thrust" is likely to get more attention that "bad drawing", because it's functional. Whatever annoys you is a genuine issue though, so help yourself by presenting that issue as well as you can.

"Ignorance" of what a bug in a computer programme is. This isn't. At all. No matter how much you SHOUT that it is. At worst it's a mis-drawn picture.

Moho is hardest to get to. Tylo is hardest to land on. Eve is hardest to re-orbit from. As others have said, TWR is the main problem here. Stick with it; it's very possible, but don't feel bad about it not seeming easy - it isn't!

Take the wings off and launch it vertically ;-0 Follow other people's advice if you want to make it a spaceplane rather than a SSTO.

Reputation works a bit differently to the other 'resources' as it's capped at 1,000 (or possibly 100; it's late and my brain has stopped). As you get closer to that level - whatever it is - the increase from 'points' is reduced so the maximum is never exceeded. If anything new does come out it's extremely unlikely you'll be able to continue your existing career save, so I wouldn't bother. Apart from that it's more or less guaranteed that none of your ships will work the same way in 1.0 anyway. (Parts are being rebalanced, new parts are being added, aerodynamics is changing, tech-tree is changing, etc. etc.)

The reason it takes more dV to get into a retrograde orbit is that you need to overcome the velocity that Kerbin's Eastward rotation gives you. Otherwise there's no trick or importance to it and there isn't that much extra work required (from the engines, there's no more extra difficultly for you at all). Deutherius and diomedea said the important stuff though: the only practical reason to go into a retrograde orbit is if you need to do an ion burn in the sun or meet a vehicle/contract in retrograde orbit as well. For transfer to the moons or other planets there's no benefit whatsoever.

Most kids seem to like it if you throw a blanket over the dining-table, as it gives them enough room to crawl around underneath while still being 'child-size',

^ This. Quote from Induction To Construction, "Save yourself some time and save your computer the work – ignore Launcher.exe"

Skills don't stack. T30s are still lovely within their payload range but Mainsails surpass them quite quickly. T30s remain cheap, if you can cluster them without expensive structural parts just for that reason. 49-7S are at bargin prices; it's a "before the fire" sale.

I'm, sorry but you keep showing pictures of pictures and then saying there's a "bug". Where's the bug in the logic? Where's the bug in the functionality? Where's the bug in, in fact, anything? What you have is, at the very worst, a graphical abberation but I wouldn't even call it that. Please show me a picture of a real engine that is visually perfectly symmetrical and we might have somewhere to start a discussion. Without that nearly all the comments in this thread are just so many people demonstrating their ignorance.

(Click the link DeMatt's gave)