Yarrula

The only mod I use is Kerbal alarm clock. It let's me run multiple missions without having to worry about missing a maneuver node. Being able to coordinate launch and arrivals makes it feel more like a space program and less like one guy screwing around by himself. I used to use mechjeb and ker when I was learning the game (many hundreds of hours ago) but I don't need them any more. I have a pretty good feel for what the stock parts can do. My VAB guesses usually turn out pretty well.

I never use the super tiny lv-1 engines. The smallest one I'll use is the spark, it's simply too versitile for satallites and probes. If I need anything smaller, I'll go ion instead.

Thanks Squad. I know there's been a lot of talk, good and bad, surrounding the latest release. I just want to say I appreciate the hard work you (and the QA testers etc) have put into 1.0. It's a blast to play and I've been having nothing but fun. Keep up the good work!

Save the decoupler and just use an action group to cut the chute when the test is done. But I usually go the SRB+recover route myself for those contracts.

Since they're throttled back to 67-75% thrust using tweakables, overheating has never been an issue for me. Adding a couple more parts, control fins etc would also help with that, I think.

If the tutorials are contracts, a player should be able to decline them at any time with no penalty, even if they were previously accepted. You may not want to do those contracts every time you start a new save. Otherwise +1, I agree.

I built my SRB first stage once, then saved it as a sub assembly. It has 7 of the largest SRBs from the NASA pack. I tweak the thrust depending on what I'm launching. Since that covers about 90% of my missions, I'm ok with the occasional one-off bit of construction when required.

I never liked asparagus designs, as they just didn't feel "rocket-y" enough for me. I like 2-3 stages to LKO at most, each dumping as much as possible at once in a glorious display of explosions and sepatrons. At best, I was onion staging, dropping the outer ring of boosters all at once. I like the fact that the stock parts give me the choice whether to go complex and fuel efficient or overly large and simple. We CAN have both. It all depends on the size of your payload and patience in setting up stages of radial decouplers.

I agree with using a timestamp. yyyy/mm/dd/hh/mm/ss, with as many decimal point seconds as required to capture the frantic hammering of the screenshot key as someone is documenting their best explosion ever.

I kind of like this idea. Ask the player to send all the basic science reports you start with, to at least make them aware crew reports, eva reports, surface samples etc exist. Alternatively, if this is included in a comprehensive tutorial, I think that would be a better option. Science is a critical part to progressing in the career. Making the mechanics of gathering science points a mystery is not an ideal way to run a space program.

To the best of my knowledge, I can't resize the navball, without also blowing up the rest of the UI to nonsense levels. Give me a bigger navball. It's the most important part of the screen.

I too, want a sandbox with all they toys. Many others have suggested and asked for this as well. Best workaround I have seen is edit the files to give you enough science to unlock everything before your first launch, then run a science only game as a sandbox.

I would like them a lot more if the orbits had more variation to them. Inclinations of 0-45 degrees, AP and PE anywhere from LKO to beyond Minmus etc. As they are, I think they're solid, but not exceptional. I still accept everyone that's offered though. My space program always needs more recruits.

I have not seen any contracts for asteroid missions yet. Has anyone else? We have all these great ARM parts, and an entire update devoted to asteroids, but no contracts yet? For shame (Unless I just haven't received them yet?) I would like to see contracts that reward rendezvous and docking/grabbing asteroids. Capturing asteroids into stable orbits around Kerbin/Mun/Minmus could also be part of the fun. For me personally, by the time I'm ready to tackle such a mission, I'm already swimming in funds. I think these contracts should reward lots of science and rep, with little in the way of funds. Of course, that part is open to balancing and debate as required.

I second the mothership/lab combo in orbit. I've done this several times and it's always cheaper and more time efficient than launching new landers and science instruments from kerbin. My method is to transmit and recover one of each experiment from each biome. My lander's have two material labs, two goo, and one of everything that doesn't need a lab to reset. All science results are stored in the lander's capsule for recovery later. Everything that can be transmitted with no loss (eva reports, crew reports) is transmitted. I have to hit up 5 or so biomes around Mun or Minmus to make this the better option in the long term, rather than bringing multiple goo experiements, but once you leave Kerbin's SOI, the Lab really starts to shine. It'll get even better once other planets get their own biomes. I am mystified by the transmission boost part of the lab though. I never use it. If I go through all the trouble to haul the lab and some kerbals out there, I'll just recover enough samples to make up the difference between processing and not processing the experimental results. I want that transmission boost for things I don't plan to return, which means that I need to consign two kerbals to the empty black in perpetuity. I'm not that heartless, yet.

Everything's going according to plan...

Stayputnik for scale (can't start with a sub-assembly) This SRB only first stage has lifted almost every mission of mine. I tweak the thrust between 67 to 75, depending on the weight of what I'm trying to throw. It usually burns out somewhere around 15,000 and well over sane terminal velocity. The liquid second stage takes over from there to make the AP at the desired height.

The most I've spend is about 335K on a Minmus mission, complete with orbital lab, lander and return to Kerbin orbit. None of it was recovered, but the lab and lander/return ship are capable of being resused. As I've been playing with the no revert/no quicksave option for this career, it was quite nerve wracking to hit the launch button on something that large and untested. The launcher had some serious wobbles to it, but the rest of it worked like a charm. Here is the resusable ship. It was a bit underpowered, and horribly overengineered. 10/10, would fly again. I'm planning a larger, 3 or 4 engine version for bigger trips.

I'd say what marks a serious player is the confidence and skill to build something complex, like a multi-staged mission to duna, and have it work correctly, the first time. No reverts or quicksaves required.

No difference in the end result between a mod and spreadsheet, really. It's the difference between detailed planning that tells you your dV and just winging it. Neither one is wrong, per se, but there is a definite financial advantage to the planning option. My question is when someone plans things perfectly, then flies it perfectly, is it really a balance problem in the game when they end up with large surplus cash reserves? That should be the expected outcome that goes along with making no significant mistakes.

There have been a lot of posts recently discussing whether it is too easy to earn Science or Funds through contracts. Given the popularity of mods such as MechJeb and Engineer, I suspect most players are using one or the other. If the Devs balanced the game with just the stock interface in mind, would information mods like these drop the difficulty via reduced trial and error? For example, if you know your rocket is going to have enough dV to go to the Mun, it stands to reason that your profit margin would be a lot greater than someone who guessed and over-engineered a margin of safety, resulting is too much fuel/weight being brought along. Obviously, the more skilled the player, the better that guess will be. I don't use mods anymore, because I can't be bothered to update them and I like the guesswork engineering portion of the game. With that, I have not felt any financial strain. Sometimes, I fail launches, but I have been reverting those to the VAB and trying again after some tweaks. I do like the ability to make huge, ridiculous stations/contraptions, which wouldn't be possible without the budgetary surplus that comes along with the contract missions. Personally, I'm enjoying the heck out of the contracts. It feels a bit like abuse when I leave a probe in orbit to pick off the "transmit science from X" contracts, but it hasn't stopped me from doing it. That's a valid reason to have stations now, which I like a lot. Given that there are nearly as many ways to play KSP as there are players, is trying to balance the game for any particular style a futile waste of time? Someone will always be unhappy. What do you think? Do mods play a role in a player's ability to amass a stash of cash? Or does the revert option skew every mission towards profitability regardless? Should every launch ride the razor edge of profit or does the joy of lobbing mailsail-based boosters into orbit on a whim gloss over the ease of making bank? Let me know!

Is it just a quirk of the procedural contract system that you are finding all these contracts for landed parts and science? My contracts for landed parts give mostly single digit science rewards. It would take forever to try and finish the tree like that.

4.2 Million +/-. I'm just finishing up the Tech tree with a few Minmus missions. Since I revert failed missions that crash at launch, money has never been an issue. I'm trying a new career with the no quicksave, no revert to launch options. It'll either make me really conservative, or I'll be spending more. Time will tell.

I also sling them underneath. It's the only practical way I've found to keep everything in balance no matter the fuel burn for various landings etc. But, since I can't build rovers worth a damn, I usually don't bother. Also, there's very little point to having them around. Once you get there, there's nothing to drive to anyways.

I don't think that the contract system is broken. It may not be polished to the final balanced gleam that some would like, but it does work well. If you know what you're doing and can wring every last drop of science out of a biome, of course progress is quick. Your experience at the game allows you to progress faster than someone who has never flown into orbit before. I haven't found that the science reward part of contracts to be over powered. The most I've seen is 150ish science for testing some part in orbit of the Mun. I can get 10x that by landing a tricked out science lander on any biome on Minmus. It's a nice boost to get those final few points to unlock a node, but I wouldn't call it a primary source past the first few tiers of parts. If you revert failed flights, of course you never lose money. I haven't got a solution for that issue yet. If your launches always succeed because you know what you're doing, you don't waste money either. I see that as a feature, not a bug or balance issue.