archont

CKAN is trying to download - 404 https://kerbalstuff.com/mod/344/TweakScale - Rescale Everything!/download/v1.52 Correct URL is https://kerbalstuff.com/mod/344/TweakScale - Rescale Everything!/download/v1.52.1 I've tried to add a hosts exception so it redirects to localhost, but got stuck on it being a https request. At this point, I'm spending about as much time hacking away CKAN as if I were to do everything manually. Any way to patch the metadata or get the hash (eg. 4EF16F05-) so I can manually cache it?

My mind is blown. I'm giddy with excitement, installing, will report back.

Inspired by Suarez' book?

I think my lander was too heavy and approaching too fast

How much does this weigh and has anyone gotten it into orbit yet?

Thank you very much, it would've taken me a while to figure that one out. Wouldn't suspect that mod to interfere with EPL.

I'm having a problem with the EL, wondering if anybody has an idea what it might be. I'm using the mods construction time, MKS, joint reinforcement, KW, karbonite, NEAR, SCANSat, Mechjeb, Fineprint, Infernal robotics, NavHud, ProcFairings, Stationscience, Partcatalog, ScienceAlert, SelectRoot, RCSBuildAid, the NearFuture pack, Active Texture Management and TAC LS. Whenever I try to load a ship, a null craft is spawned and the load menu closes without any selection being made. The null vessel doesn't inherit parent velocity and quickly flies away when I try this in orbit. There's only one launchpad available in the menu, and that's vab-0. I can't get a vessel to load into EL, it just spawns a null vessel and closes the load menu. Loading the null vessel results in a black screen. Debug log complains about this being an uninitialized object. Using EL 4.4.0. Previous version was wiped, so there are no file conflicts.

No, remotetech has a low ratio of meaningful gameplay to tediousness. Some ideas are worthwhile, like the requirement to have antennas on unmanned ships and a differentiation of antennas more meaningful than the insignificant broadcast duration. --- The idea of life support is great, because it also creates depth as far the manned vs unmanned choice is concerned. TACLS introduces three resources but doesn't do anything to differentiate them, or in fact balance them. A simple fun life support system would have two resources: 1) Short-term LS: ("air") bulky, easy to recycle, primary concern for small, short missions 2) Long-term LS ("food") less bulky, requires plenty of infrastructure to recycle, primary concern for big, long-range missions Snacks is an interesting twist, but by making itself optional by design, the additional difficulty becomes optional as well. Don't like it. --- Karbonite/Kethane/MKS/other ISRU mods/Orbital Workshop Those mods are basically a prototype of the mid/late game. The way I see the end-game, it's building an orbital drydock and assembling a mothership in orbit, homeworld style, then sending it off to another solar system. Squad needs to do some work on proper base and large-scale logistics before that can happen, though.

http://i.imgur.com/6WxRYSil.jpg' alt='6WxRYSil.jpg'> Tried inclinarion 90, then inclination 0, no results. Orbital period definitely is between 59 and 1d

I launched a 200-ton skycrane/workshop into Minmus orbit. It's the working end of a space station that'll be used to build my joolian mothership. Here it is, connected to a research module and the tug that brought it here It's 707 tons. I still have two modules to go, I think I can manufacture them in-orbit, though it'll require ferrying in MKS supplies. After that, it's onto the mothership. Launching payloads over 1kt from Kerbin is rather difficult.

I imagine the name makes sense in-universe, I'm talking about the usability angle though. Both Karbonite and Karborundum are fuels, one has a higher ISP and can be found on different planets. Because of similarity in name and function, I can see this being confusing to players who didn't memorize the names yet or players playing on high-PPI screens where fonts have lower legibility. Carborundum is the better naming scheme with the capital C helping distinguish the two fuels from the resource panel, though I don't think there's a need for a full hungarian-notation-ish "Karbon/Carbon" prefix in the first place. When going for resource names go for short names that sound distinctive and can be abbreviated easily. Say I'm making a resupply list. I write: h20, o2, food, lf/ox, xe, mp - you'll probably decipher all of those easily. It's harder to make that work with Karborundum. I'm giving this feedback because resource naming and organization were a particular usability gripe I've had with the old interstellar. It's a small niggle, but one that could become hard to dislodge after other mods start building upon K+.

I'll check it out later, always felt like having 2 tiers of extractable fuels would add depth to the gameplay. And the tier 3 fuel will be Karbounicyte? This naming scheme is unsustainable from a usability point of view. Too easy to confuse the resource names - consider renaming it to something more distinctive while it's early.

Thanks taniwha, it's the first time I've encountered it. I reinstalled Karbonite and then the Karbonite-EPL conversion pack, the smelters work fine now.

I'm having an issue with the smelter. When viewing the part in the VAB builder, it doesn't rotate like other parts. It scales Here you can see the part as it exploded out of my menu. The part attaches and otherwise works fine once dragged out of the part selection window, but mousing over it causes this kind of behavior. I have tons of mods but the smelters, all three of them, are the only parts to feature this weird behavior.

I think contracts don't need to make sense, as long as they're possible to complete. Most contracts are pretty weird, in fact. Why would you want to test a 22-ton heavy booster in low munar orbit, of all places? You wouldn't, of course. Which means you'd skip out on the fun of building an ungodly contraption like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationary_orbit Wikipedia calls a generic stationary orbit.. a stationary orbit. Someone in this thread has suggested some players might interpret that as a lagrangian orbit (?) or one where your velocity is 0 (??) - but those interpretations make no sense. Splitting hairs I say. Both work, stationary seems to be more correct.

Speaking of immersion, consider the tone of the game. Having a contract to deliver a hot gourmet lunch for a kerbal chef of the planet contest, with 20 minutes to do it for example. I don't think a contract like that would be out of tone as far as stock KSP goes. There's also potential for additional difficulty - the lasagna is rated to withstand 10g, anything over that and the mission is a failure. We need more contracts that involve planes, there's currently little incentive to build them. Spaceplanes are feasible late-game onwards, but because rockets are simpler and faster to build and launch, most players prefer to use them instead. Regular planes are good for getting around Kerbin, but other than the single-digit biome science, there's little reason to. Arsonide - can't wait until satellite contracts are working properly. They're my main cash flow early game and so far I've had to cheat-complete all of them.

Contract condition "Reach the designated polar orbit..." does not trigger: The orbit is pretty close, I don't have the patience to do all the tiny 50cm/s burns to get it pixel-perfect. It would be nice if low-cost or early-game satellite missions had more permitted deviation - later tech makes it easier to fine-tune the position. Also higher-precision contracts could pay more vs "sling it generally northwards" This is the probe. SCANsat radar, Mechjeb case, KW rocketry tank The orbit is going "the right way". If this is a bug, can I force-complete the contract somehow?

Surprised nobody has mentioned this yet. There is no force no money and no power To stop us now and change our fate Before we rise Now every problem is destroyed We raise our hands and bodies to the peak Into the Universe - towards the stars we go Sending machines up to the sky

Correct. As I mentioned, life support is one of the elements currently missing from stock KSP. I've sent Eeloo missions that took nearly a decade, with a single kerbal stuck in a dinky mk1 command pod, because I could. Currently there's no reason to use unmanned probes - you lose EVA capability as well as EVA and crew report science for what is ultimately a small weight increase. This is a balance issue that will be addressed sometime in the future. The life support mod is still rough around the edges with poor UI integration - though it gets the numbers in the right ballpark. Speaking of sending science back - if I can pack a pod with 6 temperature scans, 6 soil samples, 6 goo results and 6 science JR results, I will. Once processed, do those science results override each other?

No, it's not fine. The science lab tries to solve a problem that we don't yet have and does it in a way that has severe drawbacks. 1) The science module is manned. Chances are you'll be bringing those kerbals back to kerbal eventually. If so, you might as well take the raw experiments. 2) Science tools are cheap and light, the research module is bulky and expensive. A set of every single science experiment lumped together into one module (including interstellar mod sciency stuff) is 0.635t. You'll break even at 6 sets of experiments weight-wise. 3) The transmit gain is pitiful for the effort involved. 15-30% science is peanuts, the 30-50% hit from not bringing the experiment is significant. Mun and Minmus would be good candidates for science lab stations, only that getting back to Kerbal from munar orbit takes very little delta-V in the first place. The only other place left in the system that is both far enough and has enough ‼SCIENCE‼ situations would be Jool. That said, we're still missing 3 crucial gameplay parts that will make the lab more useful: 1) Time constraints 2) Budget constraints 3) Life support