Pecan

*Sigh* I used to think Kerbal Space Program was a good game. Not so interested in 'planes, now it's Kerbal Flight-Simulator.

THe cantab principle, "Flags orientate themselves to prevent screenshots"

Unidentified asteroids are 'virtual' objects and disappear after a while so they don't interfere with anything else you have going on. When you select one in the Tracking Station look at the buttons at the bottom-left of the screen. One of them is a 'radar dish' for tracking. Click it and the asteroid will be tracked, identified and become 'real'.

Exactly the same parts are available in both buildings ;-0 For your original request ("starting with launchers 101 ... a station ... landing) see "Exploring the System" in my signature.

Another vote for OBS here. Next question - what do you use to EDIT your videos, recording in the first place is the easy bit!

Exactly. Re-read what you wrote about the reasons you use rovers, then try to reconcile that with all your reasons why KSP is wrong. The two positions are incompatible; resolved by the simple fact you don't want to use satellites and feel the need not only to blame KSP for that decision but also to tell the rest of us we're wrong.

Dres, it's never crowded with tourists.

1. Find your start mass and thrust - that gives you initial TWR 2. Find engine Isp - that gives you units (can't remember the mass of 1 unit off-hand) of fuel burnt per second 3. Per second; reduce mass by {fuel burnt according to Isp}, recalculate TWR

KSP probably isn't for people who give up easily. v1.0 WILL BE a free upgrade, as they all have been. Ok, so you paid a small amount of money to try a game. What 'troubles' did it cause you? Squad have also said free upgrades will continue past 1.0. Please check your NDA. If you're talking about the aerodynamics we're about to get, you probably shouldn't be. If you aren't, then you don't know how good or bad it'll be. That KSP isn't like some arbitary other programme doesn't make it 'no comment', it makes it different. Obviously we're all wrong to enjoy it though, thanks for telling us, 'cause we hadn't noticed in our thousands of hours play. What example is this 'best' flight-simulator meant to set? If it's a flight-simulator for pre-built craft, why are you sure it's crunching more numbers than KSP? There is pretty much zero chance KSP will ever be written from scratch in a high-level language (assembler would be an example of a low-level language). I think the rest of the market has plenty of room for software with fairly simplistic graphics. Good luck when you find Space Kerpow 27, or whatever you're looking for.

The thread for that mod is here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92630-0-90-B9-Aerospace-Release-5-2-8-%28updated-30-12-14%29 Just about every interesting mod has its own thread in the 'Add-on Releases' sub-forum. It's generally best to ask in there, where the people who use the mod will see it.

A very good question. Do you know, I've never even looked at those stats until now! I think I've been taking too much as 'obvious' from my previous experience and reading, in particular assuming that the right-click 'more information' for parts didn't tell me much I didn't know. Now I think I'll have to do some more research and include a section, or whole chapter, in 'Induction To Construction' on what all those things mean. At a guess, because I haven't tried it yet: Crash Tolerance (in the main information window) is the speed at which you can land without damaging things. 10m/s for the micros, 12m/s for the other two. Impact Tolerance, I'm guessing, is the force needed to destroy the part. Suspension Spring: The mass one leg can support ??? Suspension Damper: Amount landing-force is reduced for the part to which leg is connected ??? As for 'Align Foot Up', only false for LT-2, can't think of the words to explain it (need more coffee) and 'Suspension Upper Limit' I have NO idea! Off to work ...

The thread for that mod is here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/59545-0-90-Extraplanetary-Launchpads-v5-1-1 Just about every interesting mod has its own thread in the 'Add-on Releases' sub-forum. It's generally best to ask in there, where the people who use the mod will see it.

:-) Try it some time. See Chapter 7, Section 4 of 'Exploring The System' for a 42-part, 40t payload example which I usually launch with MJ. It uses ten orange tubes of fuel to put one in orbit, which is pretty awful, but the point is you get it all back, of course. Not as good as spaceplanes for cost per tonne, but even there vertical-launch jets without the extra mass of wings, wheels, etc. are easier and more efficient.

Well Minmus IS the easier mission, so it should come first.

I'm surprised you found SSTOs complicated, in many ways they are much easier than staged rockets. Low part-count, robust, simple construction and straightforward, fast flights are countered by their high fuel needs - for about 400m/s deltaV more than a disposable launch vehicle. Spaceplanes are the exact opposite, of course. Hard to build, hard to fly, can't lift much without hundreds of parts but hardly use any fuel. It'll be interesting to see how much all of that changes in 1.0, which may also make some of the stuff in Add-on Development and its sub-forum Help and Support obsolete, but most of it is more stable - being about the programme structure not specific functions.

What happens when that scatological stuff hits the rotors?

Sorry, but either you're arguing in circles or we have a language issue. Most of your statements read, to me, as "This is an objective fact, true for everyone under all circumstances". If you wish to state them as subjective truth, "In MY games, I find this is true" that's a different matter. Career mode gives contracts to place satellites in orbit, therefore KSP gives an incentive to use them. No mode of KSP rewards using rovers and repeat-landers are generally faster and more reliable so, logically there is less incentive to use them. John Wanamaker said, "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." In KSP, which "2/3 of the possibilities" people choose to ignore depends entirely on what they're doing within KSP. Clearly we have very different ideas of what we want from a simulator, a sandbox, a game and, consequently, KSP specifically.

Idea 1: Ignore the asteroids. If you don't track them they just disappear ^^. They're there to be tracked IF you want to do ARM missions. Idea 2: Pulling is always more stable than pushing so put the claw at the back. Idea 3: Use anything but a spaceplane, if you have the slightest interest in efficiency. A SSTO rocket or spaceplane is fine for delivering the intercept vehicle to orbit but why clutter-up space with all those useless jets, wings and wheels by carrying them all the way to the asteroid and back? A SSTO rocket will at least have all the space-based parts and power you need for shifting big rocks around.

It's fairly common but parachuting down to land on Kerbin and: Planet disappears in a blue dot Quickly quicksave Explode at landing altitude, since the planet's gone Restart, Quickload No/tiny parachutes Explode at landing because of high descent rate

Chapter 6 of 'Induction To Construction' - link in signature

The answers to the same question you asked yesterday are here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/112495-Calculating-Specific-Impulse-in-Atmospheric-and-Vacuum

The only 'extra' .cfg I have is one that adds MJ to all command pods and probe cores, just so I don't have to do it manually every time.

First, there's nothing wrong with the way you choose to play, nor the way other people choose to play. In different modes and with different mods from you satellites are indeed useful, even vital, so it's only the style you prefer that makes them useless. Now the reason I actually replied (because I think the above is obvious and non-controversial) is that you'll find it takes sooo long to drive anywhere with a rover that a station with a lander making multiple landings/ascents or 'hopping' between close biomes is much, much quicker than any other method. The 'station' only has to have the lab and spare fuel though. Have fun.

See My Signature. The Drawing Board really is THE best place to look for tutorials, as the others said. Of my own two, you may already be a bit beyond 'Induction To Construction', a better flight tutorial would suit you more. 'Exploring The System', on the other hand, won't teach you to fly but will give you designs for everything from flying in atmosphere to launching small satellites, visiting the moons, other planets and landing everywhere. Your own designs will be better, because they're yours, so treat the ones in that just as examples of what can be done. Have fun. :-)

Have a look at 'Exploring The System' in my signature - the PDF download version, appendix 2: Summary Of Mission deltaV, list the requirements to fly to and orbit each body, that plus landing or landing only (for when you're using a station/lander configuration). Note that the problems with Eve are the huge gravity (+12,000m/s dV required to re-orbit) and the rarity of transfer-windows. Oddly enough, although the transfer windows naturally apply to Gilly too, the gravity issue there is the exact opposite; staying down is more of a problem than re-orbitting. There you can even land/re-orbit a Kerbal just using the EVA RCS pack.