chaoseclipse01

Perhaps instead set up reliability decay to deactivate when you turn things off, like as in RW's, RCS, Engines, solar panels, life support, habitats, etc. (No sense in that stuff breaking when they're not in use) Then for anything probe related, when set into hibernation mode, have that so the MTBF increases drastically like how setting a probe to hibernate reduces EC (or Megajoule) consumption. This is more aimed at @ShotgunNinja than anything.

Not really. It would add in another button to worry about when building craft, but it would further reduce the need to bring so many Nitrogen canisters, on top of reflecting a real-world process into a mod all about realism. I used to perform Hydrostatic Testing on fire extinguisher bottles back when I was in the Navy. The process itself is pretty simple enough. It's just taking a container of any sort and pulling a vacuum on it, then submerging it under water, then testing to make sure water doesn't seep into the container (Water is used since H2O is a much smaller molecule than what air is), then pressurize the container with whatever you plan on filling it up to a multiple value of its rated pressure to ensure the container can withstand a worst case scenario of pressurization so that it doesn't randomly explode (Or in this case, to make sure the capsule doesn't rupture due to being pressurized in the vaccuum of space, and that leaks don't start happening right away).

Rather than reduce atmosphere leakage as a whole, why not add in an atmosphere leakage tweakable to manned command modules? As in, have a tweakable named "Hydrostatic Assurance" which with a quality of normal atmosphere leaks at the current rate you have set, and with a quality of high it reduces the leak rate to only 1/3rd. Have the higher quality leak checking cost more to help keep a balance for realism.

Here's something I don't really get about the Monoprop Fuel Cell. Why burn Monopropellant and Oxygen? Ammonia could be substituted in place of Monopropellant to do a better job as the SCO (Selective Catalytic Oxidation) of Ammonia into Nitrogen and Water Vapor. As in, 4NH₃ + 3O₂ + Heat (EC required to reach between 250ºC and 400ºC) → 2N₂ + 6H₂O This would be a perfect way to use some of the Ammonia production from the waste processor as well as being a water and Nitrogen generator, without the need to burn a very pertinent fuel source. Plus it requires less oxygen needed for the reaction. I'm really only suggesting this because the MFC not only chews up a lot of Monoprop and Oxygen to function, but if I don't use the MFC I have to lug around 60 Big Canisters of Nitrogen in order to have just a measly 2 years and some change of Nitrogen for a crew of 4 which really bogs my laptop down due to part counts.

That more or less renders Eve as being useless. Can't visit the surface without returning to Kerbin, and can only get partial science from Transmission. Absolutely zero incentive to spend any time going to Eve in the first place. Also, KSP doesn't model aerodynamic drag properly in the first place (Especially since wing surfaces fly just as good backwards as they do forwards). Setting the atmospheric pressure that high more or less inhibits any kind of craft movement, including rovers (Had one tear itself apart trying to go above a few meters per second). Also, I don't think Kerbals sprinting should be producing mach effects and randomly generating G's of acceleration from turning while sprinting. Also, like I stated earlier, even with Venus's air pressure, if you put a rocket on the surface, it's still going to generate thrust and obtain some type of vertical velocity, not have the atmosphere generate negative velocity out of your engine.

Yeah, I know about Venus having 90x Eath's atmosphere and all, in fact, Venus's atmosphere is closer to being a Super Fluid rather than being gaseous and a "gentle" breeze on Venus is equivalent in kinetic energy as a Category 5 Hurricane on Earth, but I imagine even on Venus if you put a rocket with 24,000 Kn worth of thrust on it it would at least get some vertical speed. Eve's atmospheric drag is so high it's like the craft is being held by launch clamps. With Kerbal Engineer installed, I was getting -175.xx mm/s^2 acceleration with the SpaceY 24,000 Kn SRB with 100% thrust. That's beyond insane. It makes it where landing on Eve and bringing your science back is impossible. I'm landing craft from orbit without parachutes or the 10m inflating heatshield with a landing speeds less than 10 m/s. Eve's atmospheric drag needs some tweaking.

I'm having a small issue with Eve. Well, a rather big one actually. I tried looking around if anyone else was having my same issue but I couldn't, so I'm posting here. Eve's air resistance is so high it's impossible to take off from the surface with anything. I can't even crash anything into the surface because by the time anything makes it to even 4000 meters above sea level, the highest velocity I can achieve is 11.4 m/2...firing a 6000 Kn engine straight at the ground. I tried going into sandbox, setting a SpaceY 3.75m SRB with a probe core and nosecone and that SRB has 24,000 Kn ASL of thrust and it can't even lift off with just a 1.5-ton load on it. Also, I decided to put some Kerbals on Eve's surface to see how their sprinting works. Sometimes when I have them sprinting and make them take a sharp turn, I'll get a small mach effect and them turning while sprinting will generate 4G's of acceleration. Also, rovers don't seem to work on Eve either, they tear themselves apart trying to move. Either way, the air resistance for Eve needs to be reduced, it's a bit OP at the moment, once you land something you aren't getting it back, found out the hard way sending a low-cost probe I had intended to have come back using Eve Optimized Engines and it couldn't even lift off. Also, I ended up getting rid of scatterer and the cloud generator because they kill my laptop's framerate, however the atmospheric effect is so heavy it's causing me lag to look at Eve from orbit, where do I go in the files to tone down the atmospheric effects? I tried looking through the Eve config file...but I honestly have no clue what I'm looking at.

I just attempted to play with it on 1.2.2, Module Manager notified me while doing the initial load-up that the current version is not supported for KeepFit and to use 1.2, looks like KeepFit is due for an update to work on 1.2.2

I seem to be having a small issue with the ISS inline Solar Panel (ST-GEN-DSP-ISS). I also have Kopernicus and Kerbol Star System installed as well. For whatever reason, the solar panel absolutely refuses to align with Kerbol. I tried switching to different control points on my stations and none of them are working. The only place I can guess the panels are aligning to is The All, which is where my Radiators all want to seem to align to as well, and it's slightly annoying. It doesn't affect Electrical Generation however, I'm still getting the 132 EC/s I should be getting...but my station looks funny with 6 of these panels all rotated to where their tips are facing the sun as supposed to facing their broad-sides to the sun lol. I figured I'd post this here first rather than go straight to GitHub, maybe I missed a fix for this issue, or that this is a known issue.

I got the dev version of KJR, that fixed everything, the tip of my arm is completely free now. However, is there any way to stiffen the IR parts a little bit? Even when I have the arm fully stowed on my SSTO, the arm flexes and stretches while flying inside the cargo bay, it ends up throwing the COM off my craft due to how far the arm slides back from the front of my cargo bay and results in some slight stability issues. But at least my SSTO still made it into orbit without too much of a problem, it's just a slight annoyance.

One problem with that though. Not about having KJR, I do have that. But I made a test craft with the OPT K parts, literally a single 6m fuel tank, two 6m cargo bays, then another fuel tank. No landing gear or struts of any kind on the test craft. Arm tip still welds into place on the craft. Or does KJR still cause that issue with IR even despite a craft not even having landing wheels or struts of any kind?

I literally just made an account to post here, but anyway. I'm having a small issue that's becoming a pain in my neck. I designed a robotic arm that's 12m long unextended that folds up rather nicely inside the OPT K Body Cargo Bay...but the problem is no matter what happens, the tip of the arm becomes permanently attached to the inside of the cargo bay, but only the tip of the arm. All other arm segments operate just fine. I tried looking through this forum, on Curse forums, Reddit, and even YouTube to see if someone had the same issue as what I was having, but I haven't been able to find anyone even remotely having the same issue I have. I've even tried leaving the cargo bays open, with the arm fully extended at nearly 24m directly above my SSTO when taking it out of the SPH and the tip of the arm is welded in place at that height while the rest of the arm struggles to operate, and generally ends up exploding due to the stress the arm shredding itself apart. It's driving me a little batty because I want to use the arm to piece together space stations. If worst comes to worst, I can show screenshots or small video clips of what keeps happening to me. It's not just the OTP cargo bay either, it does it on any cargo bay or payload device. Essentially, my build is this: Gantry Rail as the base, Rotatron, 180° Pivotron (the one that folds in on itself), Basic Extenditron, repeats at Rotatron to Extenditron four more times with the last one being the Basic Half Extenditron, then a Rotatron, then the magnetic clamp (I do have KIS and KAX installed for that part to work properly). I double checked to make sure it wasn't the magnetic clamp either, whatever the last part is on the arm, it becomes permanently welded to my cargo bay, any cargo bay.