Pecan

This is a silly thread (sorry, did I start that?) and I'd just like to point out that Polyvinyl acetate (erm: PVA glue) is an opaque white as a liquid but dries as a shiny transparent film. That might be fun to watch in these circumstances. It is also water-soluble, so might be fun to wash off later.

You may have had enough of this discussion by now but that's exactly the opposite of what I was saying. I don't think anyone is saying who the crew are is unimportant, but that clever pilots don't make engines better - they FLY better. Someone who flies a spacecraft gains experience in flying a spacecraft. If YOU are flying the spacecraft, they don't gain by it. Someone who lives in the ISS for 6 months probably learns less about orbital manoeuvres and piloting in that time than they would playing KSP! Someone who lives in the ISS for 6 months probably learns a lot more about weightlessness and whatever their job is than we ever will ;-0 Someone who flies a spacecraft for 6 months ought to be better at it than we are. NOT if they are just sitting in it watching the universe drift past. The only way you can simulate someone flying a spacecraft, since all the Kerbals are computer artefacts, is a 'mechjeb' approach in which YOU stop flying it and let them do it. As I said in my original post and many other people have said throughout this thread - experience counts, but it has to count for something internally consistent or it breaks the story. Yes, charismatic astronauts that earn more reputation. Yes, brilliant scientists that earn more science. Yes, brilliant navigators/pilots who can pull-off an against-the-odds, pinpoint rendezvous or lightning reaction landing when YOU couldn't. No, frankly, 'magic' engineers who somehow make a ship work '5%' better just because they're sitting in the cockpit. They have to DO something to make their experience count. For pilots and navigators plotting and executing manoeuvre nodes are the only sensible things to DO. You might not like the MechJeb in that but then I don't like the science in the tech-tree (or possibly the other way around). It makes sense though. It is internally consistent, as every story must be, it doesn't require any new game mechanics to implement and it provides an optional extra feature for those that want it (including me). Where in this is "who the astronaut is doesn't really matter" come in? In your scheme of things YOU are the only astronaut and Kerbals are merely puppets.

And much thanks to you and everyone for responding so quickly and positively Maxmaps. Hey! Your rep seems low for a dev ...

This. The trouble with FleetAdmiral's analysis: Is exactly that 'what about probes?' If the Kerbals AREN'T flying the damn things they don't have any influence. If it's JUST the player flying then engine buffs are as good as it gets, which means the Kerbals are magic passengers until it comes time to take a soil sample or plant a flag; and what relevant flight experience would they get from that? That's exactly why I and others perfer the MechJeb route - the Kerbals DO the flying, when you want them to. If you don't want, don't use them as 'autopilot' and they don't get experience (but you don't care because you aren't using them anyway).

Blast, you're right! I missed a perfect opportunity to say "Moar Boosters!"

Which is all to say, of course, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't". Given the vagaries launches (and descents) through an atmosphere it might be easier to just launch a sample ship a few times, average the deltaV used and label the planet with that figure.

The hidden thing in what everyone else has said is "200 units of fuel doesn't say anything about what you can do." A gallon of fuel in your car might let you drive 50 miles. In a Saturn V it probably wouldn't even warm-up the engines. The critical thing for performance is not just how much fuel but how light the lander (or other vehicle). That performance figure is the "deltaV" and is not shown anywhere in stock KSP. You need a mod like Kerbal Engineer Redux, MechJeb or VOID to show it to you. Otherwise, you can take your vehicle's mass with all the fuel, mass with empty tanks and engine Isp and calculate your deltaV yourself (spreadsheet/calculator recommended) using Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation (link is to Wikipedia).

Thank you. My ignorance of science/career mode has been a little reduced :-)

Be assured we're all fans anyway HarvesteR - thanks to all the team. I hope I was saying much the same thing in my first post in this thread:

Can you imagine Squad's story: "One day, Jeb built a command-pod in his garden. He sat in it until he was bored than got out and took some dirt into the house, where he told all his friends about it. +SCIENCE , +REPUTATION. Bob asked Jeb if the command-pod could fly so the next day Jeb got into the command pod while his friends lifted it up andput a fuel tank and rocket engine under it (no-one had invented a ladder yet) then he blasted into orbit. +FUNDS, +SCIENCE, +REPUTATION. ... Years later someone invented the wheel."

Wooo, I'm away for a day and there's 37 pages of this. TL;DR I'm afraid, so I'll just respond to the OP and the post immediately above (as I start typing): In reverse order ... 1. How do you know? 2. "Even" a 5% payload-ratio increase would be very significant in rocket design. (Bearing in mind there could be significant things I haven't read throughout this thread, so feel free to give me a slap-update ^^). OP: 1. No, I don't like the idea for the commonly-stated reasons that component performance isn't changed by pilot ability and that it would make sharing .craft files problematical. If we properly understand what Mu said. 2. What I would like to see is >>MECHJEB<< !! (Way to start an argument if it hasn't already happened in this thread) because ... No sane space-programme would expect everything to be worked-out by eye, on-the-fly. So we need the statistics. The ability to plot a course and fly it accurately IS something a skilled crew would be expected to do better. So experience counts. Plotting and executing manoeuvres more accurately will automatically result in more efficient operations. So there's no need for artificial 'cheats'. Navigation and steering can easily be adjusted for 'experience' without affecting the physics of the vehicles themselves. So .craft files and technical/performance specs are standard. It'll stop claims that 'MechJeb is cheating'. So everyone can have fun their own way. 3. The way I would see it working is this - If you want to fly yourself you do. If you want to 'hand off' to IVA or ground-control you do. While controlled by vehicle or ground crew (for unmanned probes) 'autopilot' is working - with a randomised 'reaction time' and error in the navigation node placement, burn start/end times and steering based on their experience. Presumably, you'd train 'ground crew' pilots in much the same way as 'astronauts' so there shouldn't be any additional complexity there. You could extend this to 'intelligent' deployment of solar-panels, disabling/enabling electricity-consuming equipment, pumping of fuel between tanks/docked craft, etc. but that's probably too much trouble for both the developers and the players. 4. This adds experience and autopilot to the game for those that want it in what I think is a logical and seamless manner. It would even be possible to link autopilot functions to the tech-tree, still affected by experience such that, for instance, ground crews may initially plot manoeuvre nodes (something that should be worked out by ground control before or during the mission anyway) but not execute them, because the radio/telemetry isn't sufficient for remote guidance. Conversely flight crews could initially execute nodes (because they're in the vehicle) but not plot them because they don't have the computing power, astronavigation information and team of physicists/mathematicians to work it all out. In both cases 'reaction time', or initiative, would dictate how quickly they could react during 'critical' manoeuvres such as docking and landing. ETA: Oh yeah - and messing about with funds, science and reputation is all fine since they don't change physics. They don't add anything that strategies don't though either, so experience should do something different.

Rockets are fine, it's what I spent my first week or so on 0.25 testing. The only listed differences are in the size of the Inline Reaction Wheel, which won't affect anything but the way something looks, and the mass and drag of the Cupola, which will improve anything using it. Planes 'might' work, but there were a lot of changes to wings and control-surfaces so, at least, they'll benefit from a re-design.

Aerobraking is a part of the solution but need not be all of it. If you're coming in too fast in the first place burn retrograde as well, possibly starting well before you even get into the atmosphere.

Chapter 7 (and 8, to an extent) of the tutorial in my signature if you want to see what I recommend. You build a space-station exactly the same way you build anything else; start with a command pod or probe core and stick whatever you like on it. The only difference between 'a rocket' and 'a space-station' is that the station is meant to stay in orbit indefinitely. You will certainly want batteries and solar-panels, possibly RTGs. If you haven't used docking ports yet though I'd recommend you practice that with small ships first (eg; Chapter 5). The standard and juniour ports fit pretty sensibly but the senior can be tricky as it looks pretty much the same from both sides - make sure you fit it with little window on the outside. 'Low' orbit is pretty much just outside the atmosphere (70km) - most people use 70-75km. 'High' orbit is, technically, geo-stationary (in KSP; Kerbin-stationary or whatever other body you're orbiting) or higher - that is, the orbital period (time it takes for a complete orbit) is the same or longer as the rotation period of the Earth (whichever KSP planet/moon you're orbiting). More accurately known as a synchronous orbit this is attractive for communications satellites, but is only really relevant in KSP with RemoteTech or another mod. All that said, in practice most people in KSP usually say 'high orbit' meaning 'anything significantly above low orbit'.

There is a common rulebook for challenges: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/24898-Challenge-Submission-Guide. Following such is known as socialisation, failing to do so sociopathy, or just anti-social behaviour. Empathy.

0.25 update complete. Please continue to report typos, etc.

Once you understand orbital mechanics most things are easy to do if you throw together a huge, expensive, high-tech, laggy machine. The ultimate challenge is in how efficiently - low mass, cost, tech and part-count - you can do it ;-0

There are two versions, basic and aggressive. If you aren't using basic then you're using aggressive.

:-( I am feeling deprived. 0.25 seems to eat quite a bit more memory and my old machine never met the spec requirements anyway. Now I've finished stock testing (*phew*) I'm re-modding but so far I've had no luck with Kerbinside. Absolutely not your fault or problem, just mentioning how much I miss this! (Something else will have to go - soon)

Yep, after re-testing stock KSP this was one of the two mods I needed, along with MJ. MJ only gets in there because I'm testing and need repeatable flying, KAC's there because, well, I don't want to have to use a stopwatch and notepad all the time ^^.

Love your work. Testing ...

Any issue with 64 bit is more likely with 64 bit than with VV. Works fine in 32 bit, confirmed.

Stock turbojet and (usually) RAM intakes - I forgot FAR nerfs the jets to be more realistic, sorry.

:-) Try ProbeControlRoom so you can do it with unmanned craft too. RPM is just so pretty, too! Can't beat an array of instrument displays.

Why do you go so slowly? Alright, this thread is all a windup but I usually get my jets to >2,200m/s at 30km altitude, with intake spamming (8 per jet). ETA: On the way up, that is, of course. Re-entry can be all sorts of wierd since I don't use DRE.