passinglurker

considering stock does that too with the pb-ion and the popularity of ion gliders I don't think anyone will complain. what about making that frame piece hidden fairing and giving it a radial attachment node on its side instead of the bottom? You and I must be looking at different nodes. Ion propulsion needs both precision engineering and advanced electrics which is the node that gives you the deployable sun tracking panels and the radially attach Z-400 battery everything you need to make electric engines work. That would make advanced electrics the perfect place to put a pre-ion electric engine because there is no way to get the engine without the basic parts needed to run it and it leads right in to full ion propulsion at the next tier. With the exception of capacitors Near Future seems to prefer to save most of its toys for late tree and unless I'm running its own engines I don't need its massive panels. If you ask me while the world is certainly bloated with fuel tanks its a bit lacking when it comes to adding ways to generate power especially early-mid game. You go from 2/ecs with deployables which only make enough after you spam a little too suddenly 18/ecs with gigantatrons which are overkill especially if you put on two of them for symmetry unless you are spamming engines instead. No one has really made a middle ground that I have found(really you think someone would have come up with a simple 4/ecs panel a long time ago.)

TAC has different waste resources to match up with their life support resources so no one breaks those conservation of matter physics laws by eating a snickers. but this is kerbal afterall so logic is bent to suit game play all the time so they might just chuck the trash or outright pretend trash doesn't exist its your mod you are the one putting in the effort to code it, but I do know the ISS doesn't shoot trash out of an airlock cause its solid and as a result is a debris hazard instead they pile it all up in the cargo container that brought it there and let the craft burn up on reentry so its at least within my suspension of disbelief that the snacks and their trash are assumed to be considered part of the containers dry mass, but I could just be alone in thinking like this.

Out of curiosity why did you choose to give the snacks mass? the weight they add and their inconsistent rate of consumption might throw off some delta V projections(also where does the waste go? wrappers are not a gass they can't be harmlessly dissipated into space part of why I suggested massless snacks aside from their containers already high dry mass was that one could assume a snack less void was simply full of trash of equal weight without adding a second trash resource.) Unless you nerfed the penalty based on how far away the kerbal is that would get out of hand really fast, but if you nerf the penalty based on distance that would throw off the balance of any greenhouse mod like MKS that decides to support this.

why would a hungry kerbal cost you money? if anything you save money not feeding him. 1rep/day is probably because this is just a proof of concept so far it needs testing before it can be given a real balance pass.(also if that kerbal is a year out from resupply on the surface of duna that rep penalty adds up)

Actually I don't mind the low Isp and I'd certainly want it to keep its thrust the problem with the MPR-1 is its hard to find a place to put it to point it in the right direction as a thruster without it looking clipped through and ugly or like its supporting the weight of the rocket above it with its narrow body if mounted inline. What I'd actually want is either a 90 degree angled version so I can use it as a radial engine or some other attractive way to mount it. If you put them in the advanced electricity node they would at least come with that bare minimum to make them useable if the player is smart about what they are doing (E.I. use more than two tracking panels arranged in sail boat style instead of flower style to maximize the most efficient angles for tracking the sun, include a sizable battery buffer that can meet your needs for a minute or two, and play with the thrust limiter tweakable if necessary, and thats not including options other mods give like Near Futures capacitors which really see no love between when you unlock solar panels and until you start unlocking the power hungry electric engines) I also suggest the advanced electricity node because every mod and their dog dumps their tiny bits in the precision engineering node so its getting a bit crowded ;n_n. Is there a possibility you might include new power generating parts in future updates?

So its twice-quadruple the size but only one and three quarters times the stats?

Anything wrong with the penalty being purely symbolic outside of career mode? The problem with methods that basically make snacks electric charge for kerbals is first if you render the kerbal useless then he might as well be considered dead anyway, and second you can bypass the penalty by sticking the kerbal in a crew can and flying via probe, and outside of career mode you would have next to no penalty whats so ever. Having hunger affect the kerbals courage stupidity and badass stats might work but IMO I don't see a way to penalize kerbal abuse with any weight or bite to it outside of career mode and keep thing simple and non-lethal.

earlier in the thread I believe they said ~5 minutes you can find a more solid and detailed answer by using the search function there are only so many posts that talk about trains

buuuut... the mobile lab is available early enough to participate in all you of your snack resupplying activities. Besides you are not resupplying anyone till you get docking ports which also come frustratingly late. And if snacks are just considered part of the crewpod and the trash is not thrown out to prevent debris related accidents like I suggested then the snacks themselves are effectively weightless meaning the hitchhiker can makes a perfectly acceptable storage unit that is no more heavy or inconvenient than an equivalent LFO fuel tank. Finally if he releases this on a permissive licence there is nothing stopping you from expanding it with your own space fridge parts.

Now that I've had a chance to play with it I do say I like the changes. The parts being spread out more in the early tree and the parts being made more expensive probably don't matter so much in terms of balance when you consider career mode throws you so much money its hard to go bankrupt, and you'd probably unlock all your early nodes on your first pass through R&D, but it does make everything look more thought out and like its part of the stock game. So yes again I like the changes. Have you considered placing the resistojet and arcjet earlier in the tree? They technically are not ion they are electrothermal So there is no rule saying you need to research the node named ion propulsion first (Something that has bugged me about the other electric propulsion mod Near Future Propulsion was that is was awkward to tightly cram all those high tech engines at the end of the tree. They do have an alternate tree, but treeloader is barely maintained, and they don't want to put any engines before ion propulsion cause that's the most primitive kind of engine they got. Fortunately since you implemented electrothermal instead you don't have to follow that rule to look stockalike ) of course on the flip side of the coin there are not a lot of generator options powerful enough earlier in the tree so I could just be rambling nonsense. I'll have to get around to flying them and see what it takes to run them in practice.

I used to do that all the time with the MRP-5's in the old version. I'd use them as an alternative to sep-a-trons for deorbiting. Unfortunately they are pretty late tree now I don't suppose I can bother you for a replacement in my quest for cheap low tech and throttleable retrorockets?

ThisThis right here is the sort of thinking that stops us from having unified resources. Different mod authors will interpret the kerbal universe in different ways and come up with a different Kerbalized table of elements, and then (for lack of a better term)bicker with each other about it. Basically you are looking for logic and reason where there is none the solution is to abandon all hope of figuring out if liquid fuel is supposed to be kerosene or hydrogen and keep things abstract. At that point where resources are named after their roles rather than their components their density honestly doesn't matter as long as everyone agrees on the same numbers.

I'm fine with the larger engines mono engines efficiency they are pretty late tree and they basically fill the role between chemical and nuclear, and if I remember when I did the math comparing the engines in 0.9.4 correctly the old large mono engines were completely out classed in almost every situation by chemical equivalents so its nice to see them given a niche instead of taking up space. Also they lead up to the the bimode thermal electric engines so their boosted efficiency creates a sense of progression. (The cost on the other hand is still oddly cheap at $80 for an mpr-5 not even solids go that cheep)

It doesn't matter if he is spazzing on his own or only spazzing when you give him orders having hungery kerbals effect the controls just sounds like a round about way of saying "they are effectively dead, but not actually dead dead, but since he is useless he might as well be dead". I think if this is supposed to be a stab at making a simple nonlethal life support mod then the bare minimum of the life support game play itch should be what is aimed for, and the kerbal sanity checks just sound to me like feature creep. basically there should just enough to encourage a player to take life support and crew accommodations into account with the least number of parts and mechanics as possible. Afterall the whole point of this thread is that the other life support mods were not simple enough for you right? once you have the foundation worked out and released on a permissive license your or others can expand on it with other compatible mods that gradually ramp up the complexity and difficulty to the users liking.

One idea would be just to make the snack resource really light or even weightless the only containers that can hold it would be already heavy pods, labs, and crew cans so it wouldn't be too unbalancing(no real need to think too hard about it but for the OCD out there just imagine that the weight isn't changing as the snacks are eaten because they are not dumping the wrappers and waste overboard cause no one likes space debris or having to say you lost your ship to an orbiting cheese stick wrapper going in the opposite direction, and emphasis on imaging this there is no need to add a second waste resource) I'm still not a fan of the kerbals going crazy and mashing buttons while hungry. A kerbal costing you rep you can crash into the mun to shut him up but a kerbal randomizing the controls can result in a unfixable situation which can result in a permanent rep drain when you accidentally use up the last of your fuel accidentally flinging him out of kerbins SOI.

Its possible to add a hatch for EVAing. Just model yourself a door with functioning hatch and ladder colliders and use a MODEL node in the part.cfg file to "weld" it on.

I'm going to stand by my belief that all that is needed is the rep penalty. The problem with forced controls is I can bypass it by keeping my kerbal out of the command pod and in a hitchhiker can all the time except for crew reports and fly the ship by probe instead.

I think it would be best to start with the rep penalty and see if players want more trouble then that after they try it lest feature creep sets in and the dev turns this into a kerbal sanity simulator.

when it comes to the techtree tank wise I'd put one of either the long or the half length tanks, and the early .625 decoupler in basic rocketry to give the lv-t5 something to use should a player go for survival first without putting any tanks or decouplers on nodes where they are normally not found. Also I'm not sure about lumping the kingfisher, the spinnaker, and the boost-o-trons all in the same node I think they should be spread out a bit maybe also put either the kingfisher or a throttleable hybrid version of boost-o-tron I in basic rocketry as your first unwieldy .625 engine(much like how they start you with large unwieldy 1.25 engines)I haven't really delved much further into the tree yet than that I had started a new game for the sake of this mod ^^

It might benefit an aspiring modder with more coding than modeling skills to put the abandoned jet engine on its own download rather than resigning them to the fate of welding stock parts together. You could have the RV-50 distinguish itself by retexturing it to be a linear resistojet RCS the stock multifuel RCS module at least works for linear thrusters. I think what they were going for was to discourage stacking a bunch of little tanks together and encourage you to research the larger tanks and use them. I'm not bothered about certain parts being generally and genuinely a better choice over others the thing that bugs mes just that many of the RLA parts just are not even in the same ball park at all when it comes to cost(no stock engine costs anywhere near as low as 80). This doesn't help with LFO but you could make a multi directional resistojet RCS by making it like an ordinary single fuel block with better stats and then adding a generator module to the config that constantly consumes EC like a sort of anti-RTG under the description that the block needs to constantly consume power to hold a charge in order to be ready to fire at a moments notice.

yup and it will lead to fun situation where you decide between taking the time to resupply or cutting your losses and crashing the kerbal into something. stranded contract kerbals shouldn't count though or at least should spawn with a supply of snacks relative to how far away they are

I think the simplest thing to do is have hungry kerbals just cost the players reputation at a fixed rate. at the very least it would seem the simplest to implement but I'm no coder

Just finished taking it for a spin its a blast so far, but on the subject of balance does anyone else find it odd that a lot of the early game probe sized parts are an order of magnitude cheaper than the 1.25 parts?

Well I'll certainly be trying this out and hope it sees updates or at least the ability to turn tanks into command pods it would be perfect for the after the fact spent upper stage debris recycling that I prefer to do over playing it safe until I can slap docking ports onto everything. Nothing says kerbal like a scrap rocket or slapped together from spare parts that were hanging around in orbit

hooray! this is one of my favorite packs I'm glad to see you are still kicking hoojiwana