Reiver

I generally make a point of hooking up self-fueling fuel cells/RTGs. You have to pick the right spot to start drilling, and have the right crews on hand... but it can be done. @Nils277: Any word on the Science Junior module?

Thankfully, the toughened Cupolas make pretty good steerhouses. :)

Aw, just the one screenshot? ;)

A question - did you implement those curves as described, or come up with your own? I seem to be getting different optimal speeds to what I was suggesting. Not the end of the world, I'm just curious. Then again, if I could figure out where the power curve graphs are, this might be a really easy question to answer myself ;)

... could you have a certain strategy affect the choices of contracts offered? I have visions of picking Luna, and then being fed a bunch of the optional subquests, as it were. :D (I have no idea how to 'end' it, but an Atmospheric Engineering contract could be cool, too. For those jetheads out there.)

[quote name='Nils277']This is acutally a good idea. I will add mounts for landing legs on the two end-caps :wink:[/QUOTE] ...Two endcaps? I assume you mean the airlock as the other one?

Teeny tiny cargo bays are adorable... but what [i]for?[/i] I mean, 1m fitting .625 satellites is logical, right? I guess you're making aerodynamic science bays?

Oooh, a utility end-cap! I feel a little guilty about asking this, but would it be possible to have it have landing gear mounts on the sides? There's a lot of 'wasted space' on the model at the moment, and it would save making vessels longer just so you can mount landing gear at one end when you use it. :)

[quote name='satnet']Uploaded version 0.11. - Updated power curves by Reiver - Mk3 Emergency Power Unit (RAT + Fuel Cell + APU) - Orientation is now part of the charge calculation. - If a RAT is blocked by anything up to 2 meters in front of it the charge will be reduced. - Added a graphing function for power curves so they are easier to compare. - 1.0.5 Compatibility (Fix thrust reverser exhaust damage prevention).[/QUOTE] Fantastic :D I'll have to fire it up this evening and check out these curves - with the new speed limits, I wonder if it'd be possible for the RAT-1 and RAT-360 to engage automatically if power fails and you're at a certain speed? Or for the RAT-1 not to need power to deploy? Such devices tend to be on emergency backup triggers, after all; by definition they're used when the power fails. ;)

My main issue is with the biggest gears - they don't extend very far, which can be an issue for mid-wing designs. I end up using the stock ones instead, and the adjustable ones under the nose to get the things even. I do love that idea of the wheels being able to rotate to align forward, though. That'd make a huge difference for some of the tapered hulls.

The idea of tweakable nav lights in this mod fills me with the greatest of joys. I've been using your little point lights for it all along Then I'd just beg for a 'headlight' style peice - clipping spotlights into the front of my rover works, but doing it every single time does make one wonder if it couldn't be done better... I mean, the Mk1 Spotlight has the right light profile, but something designed to be flush on the front of a rover. Possibly square, like a car/truck headlight. Mmm. Tasty.

... well now, this is impressive. Kudos, man, you've done an incredible job! While I know you've written off (for the meantime) more advanced controls, I must wonder: how hard would it be to put in an altitude control to maintain a steady height? You've already got steady flight, after all, and this would let my support craft fly without automatically crashing all the time

Clever solution to the wheel/landing leg problem, Nils! Haha, now I have visions of their having a self-decoupling function... just be careful not to hit the wrong action group too early. If it helps at all, struts pointing 'straight down' are stronger than those held at an angle - so perhaps their fully-deployed position should be straight down rather than splayed out to the sides? This would leave them shorter, so perhaps the wheels are upside down before they swing into position? Just a passing thought.

Rumour has it that v1.0.5 might've dropped Do any changes need to be made after all? I haven't been able to get v1.0.5 running yet (Broken installs, woo!), but I'm working on it!

Nils: Any word on landing gear and base wheel height compatibility plans yet? Oh, and one final part idea: A utility-formfactor Science Jr. Now that you've got those lovely 4x1 and 4x2 2m round containers, I find myself wishing for a way to slap a science pod into 'em for my spaceships and round space labs (I'm also kinda wishing those parts didn't have the ends on them, so you had more flexibility with utility modules; now that you've got pretty base end-caps a cargo-bay style ends would let you string them together wondefully. Is this too late?)

Yeah, in the ideal world you'd have those curves decay neatly to zero, but with the current motor/physics model, that can have unintended side-effects, so we'll have to make do with hard cutoffs. Speaking of, there's a typo in that chart - the RAT-1 should be climbing to 0.8, 1.0, 0.8 again. The intent was the 'build up' and 'drop down' were to the same values; while kerbalised it helps people plan a little easier - a rapid climb, an even more rapid descent (for the two 'low speed' generators, anyway), and a more gradual hump in the middle, biased towards the lower speed. Because that's (very) approximately what those curves look like.

I have a slightly different suggestion, based on the fact that this is what a power curve often looks like: Note the inability to do much at all, then rapidly climbing to peak power, and then dropping off once the safeties kick in and prevent it producing power at all. (The gradual drop-off from peak power is as the turbines have to start worrying about not spinning so fast; there's too much of a good thing when it comes to wind speed!) I've thrown together a (really) rough 'kerbalised' version below. I removed the power drop-off; you could put it in again if you like, but I figure flattening out the top of the curve so you have an 'optimal range' of several hundred meters per second would make it easier; having an 'optimum speed' that's pretty much right before power output starts plummeting while you decelerate could certainly add realism and a little bit of challenge if you'd rather it that way, though! A couple other notes: None of them would produce power before 30-50m/s; while a little unrealistic I'd be concerned about people building 'perpetual rovers' with electric wheels otherwise; they don't seem to respect drag effects and fun RAMs are far more power-efficient than 'real' RAMs, sooo... Note how you want a RAT-1 or RAT-720 for regular landing and versatile lower-speed power, but the RAT-360 can even power deorbiting manoeuvres at the cost of subsonic utility; while less specialised the RAT-6000 will pretty much 'do it all' unless you're specifically interested in one extreme over the other. (Given that in this model the RAT-1 and RAT-720 have much more restrictive power curves, you could probably get away with their having better power:weight/power:cost outputs; possible a titch more power for the RAT-1 and the RAT-720 being good value, or the like. I leave that sort of thing up to you. If you could rig their power to be dependent on airflow direction like intakes, that'd be even more fantastic, but I've no idea of how viable that is. Actually, even as I write this post I kind of regret not putting the gradual power-drop after the optimal peak, more closely fitting the top shape; trying to juggle an unfueled return vehicle to stick in the 'sweet spot' to keep power flowing into the batteries could add one more delicious headache to landings! Still, hopefully this gives a useful guideline? If not I could try something a little more detailed and less rushed; I've an early start tomorrow. EDIT: An 'advanced' version: This one leaves the RAT-360 as unique; presumably it's some sort of feathered turbine configuration or the like, but either way it doesn't hit the safety brakes like the other ones, and the RAT-6000 took notes. And now, really bed. I'll clean this post up tomorrow.

Minmus is actually easier; it takes more fuel to get the rocket there, but the actual base-landing is considerably gentler. With that said, the Mun is traditional...

Excellent plan! I would recommend Minmus or Eve, personally.

So, to confirm, the parts 'promised' (Not that you owe us anything, haha) for the next release apparently include: - The new central hub, which holds more kerbals - A cargo-bay type module (presumably like the service bay, but with unfolding roof) - A utility module 'end cap' Have I missed any? This thing is incredible either way

Pretty! Though 6 feels a little large given the space we need for 4 in a hab module, it could work This is in addition to the current cross-shaped peice, right?

Oh, I'm a big fan of the 'proper' airlocks now that we have them; they're neat I was more commenting that we don't really need to remove the 'emergency access' into and out of the habs/greenhouse/science station in the process. (Personally, I tend to just use the doors on the cupola and command modules out of habit, but the airlocks are pretty spiffy when you want a tidy endcap.) - - - Updated - - - Is it too late to request an end segment that holds 1 or 2 of your modules? It could have landing gear panels, too, for really utilitarian base segments.

And then throw it on CKAN, so people can be the ultimate in lazy? (Or more to the point, 'and get better visibility'... fine works such as these deserve to be seen! )

Promising. How much would RAT-1 cost & weigh compared to RAT-360 with that setup? I'd also be inclined to give the pair of them an 'optimum range' like the RAT-6000, even if it's just 100-300m/s or so, so that deliberately trying to use it to charge your craft is more convinient. The RAT-6000 could actually do with having a flatter taper-off in this scenario; it's meant to be the heavy-duty, does-it-all after all (Just to check - that chart isn't suggesting that the RAT-720 produces 1e/s whilst stationary, is it?)

While I wholeheartedly agree on having the 'extra doors' dispensed with now that we have 'proper' ones, I can't help but feel that the extra hatches on the science/greenhouse/habitats are justifiable - they make pretty good emergency exits in case of door failure or needing bespoke roof access. Note that even the Hitch-hiker stock part does have a doorway. Presumably they're less convenient than using proper airlocks for routine operations; but it'd be odd to have parts that hold kerbals with literally no escape.