Pthigrivi

Im not having any trouble getting to orbit... re-entry though... whoo! Id better shallow that .... out.

Interesting! Thanks RIC!

Yeah noticed this right away. I... actually think its real and legit. I have no problem designing around this if I plan on saving lower stages.

Oh Id love it, I just think we need much more than that to really pull science from where it is to something really fun and engaging. There's a thread about that here.

The story of regex.

Kordolius nice job on all that homework. I still like this idea, I just worry it adds unnecessary complication and some really difficult balance problems. Can I ask you how you arrived at your mass numbers? Have you considered what happens when you mis-match basic and advanced engines? If that not a thing thats ever advantageous, then why separate them? There's also some complicated math thats gone into the pressure/thrust curves, and Im worried that something thats already a touchy thing to feel through.

Oh sorry man I didn't see your response. Yaaah... hm. Maybe I prefer your version? With an important caveat: I really think Kerbals should just automatically level up in flight. The whole return-to-kerbin requirement is a bit of a drag and hinders multi-world missions. For instance you could send a kerbal on a Jool 5 and they'd stay level 0 until they came home. That seems intuitively wrong, and I think encourages missions as one-offs and doesn't allow for more complicated missions. Its also a contributor to leveling grind. I haven't even noticed if this has been fixed but especially annoying was that you only actually received credit for the farthest you went on a mission--like if you left kerbin and landed on the Mun you'd get experience for landing, but not for reaching orbit or for orbiting the moon first, which means you'd have been better off sending that kerbal on 3 tedious repeat missions rather than one ambitious one. If it were the case that kerbals leveled as they go, as I think they should, then your version would offer a lasting and important advantage that would also feel immediate and understandable.

Oh its intuitive, but the effect will be compounding. If the numbers are too high and you have pilots leveling pilots you could quickly end up with an easily abused mechanic.

This actually makes me a little nervous. Like if you dock to a radially mounted docking clamp will you be able to right-click crew through it?

Oh thats fine if you're just moving small probes around (although engine mass fraction wise I don't even know if that makes sense, just use ions, right?). If you're trying though to move asteroids or mounting big Jool missions its not always ideal to have 20 MK1s with fuel-lines going everywhere. Im not using quad couplers, most often it only takes one or two LV-Ns. Its putting together enough dV to do anything interesting and trying to pack it for launch and aerobreaking that makes using bigger tanks necessary.

I'd been using the existing LF tanks. One issue is dry-weight--you're essentially carting around crash-tolerance weight for an engine thats best in a transfer stage. The other issue is form-factor. With no 2.5m or 3.75m LF tanks you end up with a lot of awkward MK3 designs that don't work with interstage fairings.

Are people having trouble with that? Im running stock on Yosemite and I have to say it runs beautifully. Anyhoo obviously not. There are some really great changes coming in it seems crazy not to upgrade.

I made some suggestions very much in that vein here.

Ive been think about this, and its a tricky one. I mean you could just make fuel-type tweakable and eliminate a ton of parts, but something wants me to keep them separate. I actually liked the NFP H2 tanks so much I installed it and deleted all the other parts just to have them.

I hear this suggestion a lot but I tend to think the solution isn't to remove science but to improve it so that people don't feel the need to skip it. Its a shame because experiments could really be some of the most fun parts of the game. The grind really is an issue, and Im sure sure it will be addressed at some point.

Yeah man I really like the premise, though the bonuses are probably a little high. I could see 25%, 50%, 100% and 200% total boost for each level respectively.

Yah we've talked about this over in the suggestions forum, but to me adding more experiments without taking the grind out of the existing ones kindof just adds to the problem. Mapping would be great, but could simply be what the Gravoli detector does.

Yeah the real thing about autopilot is that it takes the player out of the game. Clicking 'land' and then folding my arms up and watching the screen doesn't sound fun to me. If things are to be automated they aught to be really basic so the player is still engaged with whats going on. More than that they can provide important information you cant get anywhere else. If for instance Pilots gave predicted landing sites with a T-minus on mouse-over and engineers gave remaining delta-V and burn time you could really tighten up your suicide burns checking as you go. Ive always advocated for the ability to cross-train kerbals. I had a post about it here.

Not a big deal guys (though jesus for 30 pages you'd think they killed off Jeb). Hopefully they just decided to wait for 1.1 and maybe throw the VTOLers a few options before they add the turbine/compressor extension.

Man Im pretty effing jazzed for buoyancy and aerobreak fixes. Ive been waiting on a big Jool mission until it comes out. I'm also pretty psyched to see what Bob has come up with for heat.

I'm surprised more people don't use small rocket motors for VTOL. The TWR and responsiveness seem like obvious advantages. You'd only need a small amount of LF/O for the short time you were taking off and landing.

Not sure I like it as a solution, just thinking about the options.

Has it been suggested that the turbine hides after placement? So you'd see it in the VAB, it would help you know where the COM was, but once placed it disappeared, either into the innards of the plane or into the imagination of who ever's using placing it.

Yeah but they'll presumably be much smaller, eh? We'll see but I imagine that wont be a hard aesthetic hide.

I may agree with Regex on this one, (the simplest solution is to use the new smaller jets until we get a lift-fan) but dude Azimech, your stuff is ri-effing-diculous.