AlexisBV

Kind of necro'ing my own comment from 2017 regarding the Impactor Probes strategy description, it is misleading, because it doesn't consider Mun or Minmus as valid targets, and it could be misunderstood to invalidate the landing requirements for the other planetary probe strategies. First of all, it doesn't accept Mun or Minmus as valid targets. I think it's the if (body != home) line under Util/CelestialBodyUtil.cs that's responsible for that filtering out. If it's intentional, so be it, but it should be clarified in the strategy description, instead of leaving the player on the hook for a huge cancellation penalty when they realize they have to go out of Kerbin's system to fulfill the strategy. I understand you might want to filter out Kerbin itself (even though it's a celestial body), but the home moons should be legit targets. The other part of my comment regarding the progression, is that if you complete this strategy before the other "planetary probes" strategies (land a probe in 3 biomes of a planet), I was concerned I wouldn't be able to take a planetary probe strategy since one of the prerequisites would be lost ("Must not have landed at [planet]"). To clarify this I did some Hyperedit shenanigans and it appears a crash doesn't count as landing, so the other strategies are still doable. Not sure how this could be made less ambiguous in the descriptions however.

Did some research and could not find an answer, so here's my question: is there anyway that brakes on a rover can be applied automatically if connection is lost? Specifically in conjunction with MechJeb's rover autopilot. I know the autopilot has "Brake on energy depletion" and "Brake on pilot ejection", but even with both checked the rover just rolls away with no brakes if it has no connection... I was hoping that "brake on pilot ejection" would work, but I guess it's looking for some other flag.

Would just like to mention 2 things: 1) This is one of my must-have mods. It adds a sense of purpose to the game which makes things that much more motivating! 2) I feel like I just got bait-and-switched with the Impactor Probes strategy. I just finished the Kerbin system exploration and was ready to start interplanetary (with probes). The impactor probes seemed "easy enough" in that it requested impacts on three different celestial bodies. Now, I pretty much figured that Kerbin itself wouldn't count. All the other interplanetary strategies requested more sophistication than a simple impactor (landing in biomes, etc), so choosing the impactor probes strategy seemed like a fair first step. HOWEVER, doing that would kill the interplanetary strategies since I'd forfeit one of their prerequisites (must not have had a probe flyby). OK, I though, we can still make this work: It's 3 celestial bodies. Probably not Kerbin. Ok, well, technically there are 3 celestial bodies that are not covered by the remaining strategies. Minmus, Mun, and Kerbol! Much to my distress I only found out after I accepted the strategy that those 3 bodies don't count. Now, my only choice is to either cancel the strategy (which I cannot afford), forfeit the other planet probe strategies (not cool), or impact 3 Joolian moons (since Jool doesn't have a probes strategy). I wish the description of the Impactor Probes was a bit more explicit on what's considered a celestial body for the purposes of the strategy, and what's not. BTW, Kerbol should be a totally legit target

I didn't see any comments regarding DPAI specifically on 1.2.1... Is a rebuild necessary or does it work out of the box? CKAN still reports DPAI 6.5.1 as being for 1.2.0 (so it's getting filtered out from the "compatible" list on my 1.2.1 install). Also, I really like the log scale, mentioned by Andersenman

I hate to be the one to say this, but I think you forgot a NSFW tag there. #cannotunsee

Quick note to the github maintainers (@JPLRepo ?) : In the github wiki, the forum thread link needs to be updated, it's still pointing to the old closed one.

I would imagine attempting a suborbital rendezvous would fit the bill (e.g. ascent of rescue mission, or rendezvous with an asteroid with Pe < 70k)

You're assuming we're actually broadcasting radio or TV signals about KSP (Wi-Fi doesn't count). I'm guessing most of the KSP content is shared without high power radio broadcasting That being said, I really doubt KSP would ever become what Hypercosmic is projecting. No developer would ever put in that amount of work to sell a $40 title. See what has changed in Microsoft Flight Simulator over it's 20+ year life. Lots of eye candy, but the flight model didn't change much, and aircraft systems wise, FSX didn't put much on the table that wasn't already done/possible in MFS5.0.

Intake airflow has much less damage potential because it's coming from the whole 180+ degree hemisphere in front of the intake (assuming a circular intake). The exhaust on the other hand is much more concentrated (and hot!) and therefore dangerous, limited to pretty much the diameter of the nozzle when immediately behind the engine (though the danger area expands as you get further away, as the jet expands through mixing with ambient air). I doubt there would be much realistic danger to anything firmly attached to the craft near the inlet (save for maybe a flimsy extendable antenna). However loose objects/debris are another story.

I guess you previously exposed it to air, therefore voiding its warranty. Tough luck! On a more serious note, what you're expecting is probably just not implemented. Watercraft are a fairly new thing in KSP, and the "S" in KSP still stands for "space" (though "space-subs" sounds even cooler)

That's what I read.

The fish would probably disagree. I didn't see anything about impact on ocean life, but judging from youtube videos on the effects of lights at night + firecrackers, it's probably non-negligeable.

Just to make things a bit more complicated, it doesn't matter where you place your magical torque factory reaction wheels only if the module is either massless (which would make generating real life torque a bit... difficult), or didn't alter the assembly's moment of inertia. In other words, by adding a reaction-wheel-mass to the rod, you're actually changing the assembly's moment of inertia. Depending on it's geometry and mass, placing it at the end or in the middle would make a difference if the resulting moments of inertia aren't the same.

Regarding things taking time to research, there's a mod for that. It's called KCT. It also adds a timer for building stuff, so no more insta-rescue missions, you have to plan ahead. I tried it out, and though the UI could use some polishing it's a good mod. However I uninstalled it - I figured it added just a bit too much of a burden for my personal taste and my limited availability. As for failures, I also tried out KSP TestFlight, another good mod. I ended up uninstalling it as well for the same reasons (and what I think are ridiculously high failure rates in the default config) I agree that altitude/landed/not-landed is quite simplistic in terms of situations, but on the other hand you might never get enough science to unlock stuff if it's scattered over 65 thousand situations...

FWIW I've played console games for years without any ability to save. Those were the golden years of the NES. Not saying KSP is that type of game, mind you, I just thought I'd mention it. Speedrun to Jool-5 challenge, anyone? Hard mode: no saving allowed!