Pecan

Squad is primarily a marketing company. How they got into software development and the origins of KSP are well documented (although I can't find a link off-hand)* On the other hand they've put together a software development team and all the infastructure and built what looks like a pretty successful game in KSP. So: @ Squad: how was it for you? Will you be working on any other games? @ Everyone: What would you like Squad to do next? - It seems to me that one of the distinguishing features of KSP is that you can build your own vehicles, rather than only using pre-built ones as in Orbiter. - Lots of people seem to like messing about without space, using KSP to build planes; even replicas of 'Earth' prop-'planes. How about a build-your-own flight simulator? - Similarly, there's always room for another 'car' racing game. - Otherwise ... what? [* For those that don't know the origins of KSP, the short version is: "I'm resigning because I want to write a space-simulator game" "Don't go, we value you and new ideas. Tell us about it and you can do it right here"]

When you read a thread at the top of the page is a "thread tools" drop-down menu, which includes the option "subscribe to this thread".

NOT in KSP, which is the point I made. It is easier to make a rocket or even a spaceplane that is balanced and recoverable, in KSP, than it is to make anything like the monstrous, unbalanced, 'Earth' shuttle. The tricky bit, in fact, is making a rocket/spaceplane that is balanced and flies/lands well either with or without a payload, so in some ways it's simpler to land with one than without.

While I don't play career mode at the moment, and the recent updates haven't had much for sandbox players, I can see, understand and support what Squad are doing with the game. First was the basic simulation, so 'space travel' works. That gives us sandbox. But Squad have always said they always wanted KSP to be a 'space tycoon' game, not a simulator, so that added science mode for a structure you can 'win'. * I wanted to develop a logical sequence of missions, with appropriate, well designed, vehicles to tackle them, which I can in sandbox (link in signature). * The HUGE problem with science mode is the tech-tree, especially starting with manned spaceflight before the wheel, ladder or anything else is invented. Then Squad added career mode, with funds and contracts. Rather nice I think, since it gives a more-or-less sensible structure and progress to how you 'win'. * I want to develop 'the best' vehicles I can and explore the parts and physics provided, which I can in sandbox. * The HUGE problem with career mode is the tech-tree still. Squad are now intending to add Kerbal skill and building experience, which may well be fun. * I may well have done everything I want to in sandbox by then, so I'll start playing it. * Unless there's this HUGE problem of a tech-tree that starts with manned rocketry. TL;DR - Squad is making KSP fun for gamers who want to jump into space and 'win' a game with explosions, moon-landings and a bit of somewhat-realistic simulation. - I'm having loads of fun with the basic simulation and don't need to 'win' to feel I'm doing it right. - Absolutely nothing Squad is doing is taking-away my ability to have fun and is only adding options for those that want them - including me when I want them. - In any case, zero-niner is intended to revisit the things sandbox players like to mess around with. - So I'm very happy, even if 0.24 and 0.25 didn't add much for me personally.

There has already been a challenge for this, but not for a while. Remember that the vehicles can never get further than 2.5km apart, or the one you aren't controlling will be deleted as 'debris'. Please show us your completed example, as per the challenge posting rules.

Just don't try landing back on the pad - however gently you touch-down it'll still blow up.

There's nothing you can do with a shuttle that you can't do with a rocket, in stock KSP. There's nothing you can do with a rocket that you can't do more cost-efficiently with a jet-launched vehicle in stock KSP. Stock KSP is different to that mythical planet 'Earth' that so many people talk about.

Funnily enough I've just rebuilt the largest spaceplane in my tutorial to use the Mk2 parts. More capacity, better performance, less than half the mass. Is a four-seater at 8t any use to you?

Basically, yes. Specifically, if placed ahead of the CoM their lower drag-coefficient helps stabilise a vehicleand keep it pointing forward. They don't work "as they should" though, in streamlining things because that's still not the way KSP aerodynamics work.

In that case you might like to know that there's a new challenge for IR craft that deploy by 'unfolding': http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/96769-Deployable-Craft%21

Sorry, I won't be in this time: a) 0.25 is new, I need to update my tutorial. writing another one with Wanderfound. c) Also because Kethane and no KAC, MJ or RPM, but I can understand you have to draw the line somewhere. ETA for below - another tutorial, that is, not challenge :-) "World of SSTO" will be our opinions, and disagreements, about what constitutes the 'best' single-stage launch vehicles (probably, we're still working out exactly what we want to say, I have to finish updating the existing one first).

Anyone tried the nacelle, etc. in 0.25 yet?

Huh? Kerbal Engineer Redux (KER) never used to change anything in the editor or chane building in any way. Are you thinking of Editor Extensions with centre-snap or am I just out of date?

Any excuse for the landing pad being similarly susceptible? It is (should be) designed for full-thrust rocket blast at launch, having minor thrust returning shouldn't be a problem. If it is the whole SpaceX vertical-landing idea has to go. However unrealistic part-strength is I also can't imagine any universe where rockets are stronger than their launch-pad such that it's the exploding pad that destroys the rocket, not vice-versa.

Spaceplane + is NOT part of stock KSP. Porkjet's spaceplane + parts were modified for the new Mk2 parts - that is, officially, what the lozenge-shaped parts are called. Mk1 are the 1.5m aircraft parts (including the 'inline Mk1 cockpit', previously known as Mk2), Mk3 are the 'shuttle' shaped parts that still aren't much use (but are also scheduled for replacement).

Welcome to KSP, you've probably already seen other people demonstrating a lot of things. Doing them yourself is very rewarding but, as others will tell you, you can easily spend all your free time with this game!

Yes they do, but it can get a bit cluttered.

Mun flyby is the easiest mission, followed by Minmus landing. Beyond Kerbin-system Ike (Duna's moon) and Duna itself are the next easiest to reach. Moho is the hardest planet to get to (highest deltaV requirement and all that) but has the most frequent transfer windows. Tylo is the hardest to land on (highest gravity without an atmospher), Eve very difficult to take-off from again. There is also no transfer-window for Eve or Eeloo for quite a long time. Go to Dres when you can, it doesn't get much love ^^. (You might not want the tutorial and designs but if you download the PDF from the link in my signature there is a table of deltaV requirements for various missions in Appendix 2, right at the end).

Yeaahhhh! 0.25 Changelog (readme.txt in the install folder), with annotations: Destructible Facilties at KSC: Even gentle landings with heavy vehicles make the launchpad/runway explode. A completely negative 'feature' except ... Added a new Context Menu to Facilities at KSC which show extra info...: Is quite nice. New Explosion Particle and Sound FX: *sigh*, yeah ok, if you must. New Difficulty Options Menu: not applicable in sandbox. Administration Facility: not applicable in sandbox. Strategies: not applicable in sandbox. Crew Transfer: Hooray! Spaceplane Parts Overhaul: Well, you know, there's good and bad in there but on the whole it's an improvement. KSC Vessel Markers: Oooh, cool :-) NavBall Vectors: Very nice. Added ... the Learstar A1: I LOL'd, then deleted it along with all the other stock craft I can't hide in sandbox. MapView Filtering state is now persistent: Excellent. Added a Full Throttle Key (Z): Even more use than I expected. I'm 'blipping' the throttle full/min to maintain Ap during launch-cruise. New "Space Center" Button: That's really handy too. Added MonoProp gauge to OMS engines: Still haven't had any need for OMS engines so, ok. Added 'Return to Editor' buttons: Not seen, presumably - not applicable in sandbox. VAB and SPH scenes now show visible KSC facilities in their current states (as in destroyed): *sigh* again. Hold ModKey to override surface attachment: Not yet used, but nice. Crew Management: not applicable in sandbox. Scenery: Er, right, "worldspace triplanar mapping", got it. R&D: not applicable in sandbox ... but wait "Science Results in Sandbox Mode"! Excellent, it is quite fun, even if it's pointless :-) Misc: Probably nice for those that know what it means. Bug Fixes and Tweaks: Can't complain about any of that. Some are more important or useful than others of course and it seems a shame to pass-off such a lot of work with a little comment, so I'll make it a good one - Thanks Squad. Seem to be more things I like than not, so that's good, but mostly a, 'yeah alright' update. Not every release can be a spectacular.

1. Goo is an unknown substance it is your task to study under different conditions. 2. A 'plane with enough range to circumnavigate so it can land at any point and still return to KSC (the Space Centre). 3. Erm, don't know. 4. When you have the science lab you can 'clean' goo containers and re-use them, so you don't have to carry one or more for each biome you are visiting. 5. About from being hundreds (thousands?) of mods, there are a hundred different categories. Some just display important information, some change the universe, some make it look better, etc. etc. Personally I really like: SCANSat (orbital mapping instruments) because it adds a useful and interesting purpose to satellites. MechJeb (information about everything (and autopilot, if you choose to use it for that)) because there's a lot of numbers you need that the stock game doesn't give you. Kerbal Alarm Clock (an alarm clock! - can't find the thread at the moment) because once you've got several flights in progress it can be easy to miss something. For unnecesary but making things a lot more immersive you can't beat Chatterer ("totally useless, totally fun" - adds random, meaningless, 'radio traffic'), RasterPropMonitor (IVA instruments - links with SCANSat and MechJeb amongst others) and Kerbquake.

Just landed a 400t (at almost dry) SSTO rocket on the launchpad. Drogues reduced descent to 11m/s, residual fuel reduced it to 5m/s. The launchpad blew-up. (Initially the launchpad blew-up when I tried to launch the thing in the first place but launch-clamps keeping it off the ground got over that).

Aha! I didn't realise the old parts had been made lifting bodies (these are old designs that no longer work, or no longer work as they did). Hehe, the SP+ lifting bodies are giving a different - but entirely sensible - problem in another way; I'm having to re-learn by re-entry and transition to flight stats because I keep overshooting the runway. Those things don't like coming down do they!

As commented at the time that piece is an example of bad, lazy journalism, sadly typical of the Grauniad (sic).

By the way, I'm sorry I'm not actually contributing anything here yet but I'm trying to update my tutorial for 0.25.

Apart from the spaceplane + parts the major change was that landing-gear now has mass in-flight. Since, as a rule, I like to put gear on the bottom of my 'planes that should lower the CoM and make the planes pitch-down. Oddly enough though all the old designs now have a tendency to pitch-up under thrust. One of my - small, slow, stable - designs is now too twitchy to fly while at least two others won't even take-off (CoM has shifted forwards and they don't have the lift or pitch authority to rotate on the runway). The rest of the fleet - some 10 planes - seem to be functioning more or less the same as they always have.