Flight

Strictly speaking, a "steep learning curve" means something you learn fast. A "learning wall" would be something that you know nothing about, and it keeps that way until you suddenly learn everything instantly. However, people usually refer to a learning curve by comparing it to something you need to climb, the steeper being the hardest. But on topic, I think docking (intercepting, aligning, the entire thing) is the most difficult part for a beginner. Landing planes being in second place.

You can debate about game/simulator, but it's definitely not an emulator. It would have to actually take you to space to be an emulator. A simulator is a mathematical model that calculates the behavior or something. A rocket simulator calculates the behavior of a rocket, and can, for example, draw it on a screen and let you control its parameters. An emulator is a device or software that duplicates the behavior of something else, achieving the same results. A videogame emulator is a software that allows you to play games as if you actually had the needed hardware. A rocket emulator does not exist.

Not really a dream, but once I spent 16 hours straight playing a single game (Shining Force, back in those days), and after I shut things down I could clearly hear the game music, like it was a bit distant but right there. I actually went back to see who was playing, only to find the empty room. It was frightening.

It's probably an entire new game. V for Vehicle. Now you can build not only rockets and jet planes, but high performance cars, ships, submarines, bikes, helicopters, balloons...

OK then! A: Abort B: Blow C: Crash D: Destroy E: Explode F: Fire G: Grind H: Havoc I: Incinerate J: Jettison K: Kill L: Launch M: Melt N: Napalm O: Oil P: Pulverize Q: R: Raze S: Scathe T: Torn U: Undo V: Vaporize W: Wreck X: Y: Z:

Technically, a phonetic alphabet should contain words that won't easily be misunderstood or misinterpreted in a context. So, using words like Risky, Useless, planet names or spaceship parts would not be advised.

I was under the impression that the admin facility was supposed to be a "strategic decision" thing, not something to be used to tune (or remove) difficulty in career mode.

Yes, I was talking about Career Mode only. It has winning and losing conditions, and sort of "levels" to beat (the tech tree). I know they are very different type of games, but a button that makes the game 100 times easier should not be considered a "feature", that's my whole point.

OK, so according to this, Mario Bros should have a button to skip a level, and you can keep pressing it up to saving the queen and finishing the game right away. Hey, people will only press that button if they want, and they sould be able to skip levels they don't like. That's a feature, that's good game design. Right?

That's not the case here. It makes the science mode 100 times easier, allowing you to finish the tech tree in just a few launches. It's game braking, certainly not intended, and needs a fix. When you play an early access game you should report those things.

It's interesting how they made such an incredible engine for space simulation, with better-than-acceptable-realistic physics, good graphics, newbie friendly things like maneuver nodes and easy interface, interesting green guys that make you feel comfortable to sandbox around and explode things, and many other amazing stuff that makes KSP as awesome as it is, but at the same time they (in my opinion) failed so hard at basic game design when it comes to resources, progress, reward loop, etc. I wish they started science mode, tech tree and resource management from scratch

I may be wrong, but since KSP is not an n-body simulator, doesn't that mean that if an asteroid were aerobraking, wouldn't it necessarily (a) eventually fall to that planet or ( not decelarate enough and escape? In other words, I think it's impossible for an asteroid to aerobrake and end up on a permanent orbit of that same planet. Is that assumption correct?

Had to google why my rocket wouldn't launch, then I found out about pressing shift to increase throttle. After many tries, I managed to go to the mun and back, without using SAS or maneuver nodes. Oh, those days.

I try to use but everytime now the discarded tanks will rotate and explode. People have been talking about this bug other threads, hope it gets fixed soon.

What if SAS could only be enabled if the pilot was trained to operate it? It's kind of realistic. For example, real airliners have auto-landing systems, but even tho you only have to press a few buttons to activate, only trained crew are allowed to use it (because they need to be prepared to identify failures and react accordingly).

I believe this is the most underated part of the game, and it deserves a lot more attention. We need Scenarios to feel more like missions (like in Flight Simulator X), as they are a great way to test our skills and knowledge, and can give us grounds for roleplaying under rules that are pre-set outside of our own imagination. They need to be immersive, event-driven with ongoing pre-scripted situations, and dynamic goals that can be completed step by step. How about an orbit launch with a 10 second countdown voiced-over from mission control, giving us instructions about stages, rocket inclination, and comic responses from the crew aboard? How awesome would that feel? What about a mission to the Mun, that "gets a problem" right after the deorbit burn, with some parts exploding and getting you without energy and low fuel, and the objective changes from "bring rocks" to "survive back home"? What other kinds of surprise-disasters can we enconter? Failed launches, small explosions that cast away our poor EVA guy, failed rockets that leaves you drifting in space with nothing but RCS propulsion left, etc. And all these could be scripted, voiced, and contained under a specific category (apart from our sandbox saves). And all with winnable conditions, to accumulate points or some other achievements. Missions would be labeled as Tutorial, Easy, Normal, Hard and Expert, and each one would be checked upon completion, to track progress. Some ideas for missions that would feel awesome with voice-overs and a few surprise-events: - Land a probe on the Mun that is already descending but carrying almost no fuel; - Get close to a sattelite and EVA around to fix it; - Dock on an existing station to bring supplies; - UFO has been spotted entering atmosphere, and you have to take off with a plane and intercept it; - Land a crippled plane; - Use an escape pod to survive a failed (and exploding) launch; - Grab and push an asteroid under a short time before it enters Kerbin's atmosphere and wrecks the planet; - Deorbit and land on a specific place at Kerbin so a sick kerboaut can be rescued asap; And so on... Maybe it's just me, but I think it would make far more room for fun, learning and challenge than anything else. Also, they could be mod friendly for community missions (or is that already possible?).

Kerboleons.

Good idea, but I don't think you should change physics. Maybe fuel consumption, collision tolerance, and things that don't force you to start learning to fly again if you change the difficulty.

I was watching a friend on a mission to the Mun. On his way back, just before reentry, he realized the lack of parachutes, but decided to go home anyway. The ship hit solid ground at 130m/s, engine first, which exploded. The capsule rolled to the side, but ended up intact, and our hero Jeb survived a freefall from space. He really is a BadS.

It is possible to go from a point to an other with a single heading, if you navigate through a rhumb line. However, it will not be the shortest distance over the surface of the sphere.

Me: Why do you go to space? Jebediah: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Jebediah Kerman, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am venture into space! Me: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a space program. Interplanetary voyaging derives from interest and investment from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony! Jebediah: Be quiet! Me: You can't expect to go to Jool just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! Jebediah: Shut up! Me: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was a kerbonaut, just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away! Jebediah: Shut up! Will you shut up?! (Jebediah slaps me) Me: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the program!

Once you get to less than 10km and a reasonable speed in relation to your target, it should take just a few more minutes to dock. You should chase the pink circle, but don't just burn to its direction. You have to bring your prograde (yellow circle) to it. For example, if your prograde is to the left of your pink target, burn to the right of your target to bring the prograde closer. When both prograde and target are together at your navball, wait until the distance is short enough, and burn retrograde to slow down. Bring your speed to 0 (in relation to target) when you are at about 100 meters from it, and then go on with RCS. There are other ways to approach, and there are many videos on youtube better showing how to do it.

If you're sandboxing it's all fine, I have a space station with 8 Kerbals there, producing nothing, but I like the role-playing aspect. I just wanted to know if I was missing a real need in terms of efficiency.

I've seen a lot of people talking about refueling stations, and the idea I get from that is launching a big "fuel holder" to be on a permanent orbit. Then you have to launch and dock lots of tanks to transfer fuel to the station, then discard the transporter tanks as debris, and finally launch and dock a final ship that will be refueled at the station and go for a mission. It seems like a lot of work, and the only reusable part is the initial station launch. Isn't a lot easier to put your ship in orbit, without big tanks, and then launch and dock the tanks themselves to it? It saves you the launch and maintenance of a station, generates less debris, and if each tank has a docking port on both sides, you can dock as many tanks as you want, and then discard them as they empty during your mission. So, is there a real need for fuel stations that I am missing?

Also, multiple runways, so we can travel from a place to another by plane. Maybe we would have to transport cargo and kerbonauts there before making it ready for a launch?