Vexillar

I love these!

Because to keep the game balanced, the three "Russian" pods are introduced at different points in the Tech Tree, and their mass and other characteristics are different.

As @Geonovast already posted, Texture Replacer https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/96851-15x-texturereplacer-35-2112018/ provides the "engine" to replace the textures of suits and faces - though not changing the shapes. There's a fork of that called Texture Replacer Replaced, but AFAIK that's not yet been updated for 1.5.1. With that (those) mod(s), you'll also need a suit and/or heads pack to get what you want - either a suit that has an opaque visor, or use the reflection options to obscure the faces (at the cost of heavier graphics processing. With the new kerbal/suit model introduced in KSP 1.5.x, none of the old packs will work. Try these as a start: https://spacedock.info/mod/1986/[1.5] *New* Class color suits for Texture replacer and https://spacedock.info/mod/1988/Klassic colored suits for KSP 1.5 Alternatively, the Space Ponies mod can be found here: https://spacedock.info/mod/352/Kerbal Space Ponies . They're cute, but IMO even more cartoony than kerbalkind. Enjoy!

Hi, and welcome, @Huita Kerbals are... kind of built into... KSP. The stock parts, planets and buildings are all scaled to our little green chums. Yes, there are plenty of mods that replace the planets with the real Solar System, tweak the physical parameters to suit, add multifarious new parts and even change the colour and appearance of the Kerbals' heads, suits and visors (and even a Kerbal Space Ponies mod that ... well... does what you think it would). In stock, of course, you could just stick to un-kerballed missions...?

Great to see that this part is receiving some attention. There were certainly things that needed to be addressed: Fit with other parts - the top diameter needs to be made uniform with the other parts. Function: Either it should be a tank (even if empty by default), or it should be able to be filled with parts such as batteries, reaction wheels, small tanks, etc., etc. and provide aero protection. (If it is argued that we can now use fairings to provide inter-stage equipment bays then, OK, this part should simply be a conical tank.) Texture: The old texture was lacking - too little detail, colour artifacts, obvious "scratch" patterns that are fine for the primary use case (a single adapter on a large stack) but look odd if there is a need for multiple adapters in larger kontraptions. I can't tell if #1 has been fixed from the pictures; others clearly think not. #2 does not appear to have been addressed at all. #3, the new texture is much better defined, for sure, and addresses the multiple-parts-in-one-ship issue (even without using the variants for difference). The detailing on the cross-bars is much better. However, I think the outer surface is over-greebled. It looks like there would be significant surface drag [yes, I know that appearance doesn't really affect performance], especially from the horizontal ridges [and I also know about the golf ball effect]. My tuppence (2 cents) worth: Remove the row of large rivets. The small ones are fine. Remove at least some of the horizontal ridges. Tone down the vertical ones. Do my eyes deceive me, or are there some of the "handles" (as discussed on the lander can) lurking in the black stripe? I don't see why they would be there... unless the part has opening panels... I would accept there being another corrugation ring down there for stiffness, again if it wasn't too deeply defined. The orange stripe on the variant looks like textured insulation, rather than simply the "Russian orange" paint. Although I'd echo comments asking for an all-orange-insulated-tank variant, it seems odd to insulate a purely structural part?

Hi Geeb! Welcome to the forums. Like you, a lot of us here have learned a lot from KSP, usually the hard way . The fun is in finding out! (And I'll say to you what I say to the Project Managers I work with, who often feel that their very good English needs apology... No, I am very sorry that I cannot adequately converse in Deutsch, Nederlands, Svenska, Norsk, Magyar Nyelv, Polski or... basically any other language. You're doing fine!)

Something that has attracted only a couple of comments: a big thumbs up from me for the new hatch design. The overall look is a great improvement on earlier stock hatches (is this basically the new standard hatch for non-aerodynamic parts?). For me the roof hatch (that can be covered by a docking port if required) is a good solution. I understand the comment about the green light, but to me a green light makes sense... hey! hatch here! Safety! The only reservation is (as has already been mentioned) having the four handles: that does seem a little redundant. My Kerbals are a little clumsy, even when not wearing gloves, so I'd hate to think of them fumbling to enter the pod to escape a marauding Kraken!

Thanks for posting this! I'm hoping I'll be allowed to stay up late again to watch it again 50 years on. I can't believe it's that long since I sat, glued to the screen watching the grainy, contrasty B&W images, cocoa in one hand, teddy bear in the other. Nostalgia isn't what it used to be...

Less mass, better visibility, and way more versatile. Great work on the revamp. This was a part I always tried - unsuccessfully - to love. Generally I like the styling and the larger windows, though I can understand the comments. But I can't wait to try out the new version!

You can always pop Bob in a pod and use the Alt-F12 cheat menu to send him into orbit.

True... but most things in the Kerbal universe seem to be made of various allotropes of Explodium Nitride.

Somewhat late catching up on this thread... it would have changed Neil Armstrong's words just a little: That's one small step coming down, One giant leap to get back up!

So I thought, I wonder how much the new parts have changed in terms of performance? To get a rough idea, I created a simple craft consisting of: Mk1 pod, Mk16 parachute, TR-18A or TD-12 decoupler and a Hammer booster. Engaged SAS and launched straight up. Here are the results: KSP Version Max. Altitude (m) Max Speed (m/s) Max G (G) 1.0.5 95,194 1,246 11.1 1.2.2 124,248 1,358 12.2 1.3 123,655 1,357 12.2 1.4.5 1 113,334 1,320 11.8 1.5.1 2 146,457 1,440 12.8 Note 1: Using TD-12 decoupler, 1kg lighter Note 2: Using TD-12 and new version Mk1 Pod Results are very consistent between 1.2.2 and 1.3, I guess the 1.0.5 is down to the old souposphere... though I now forget when the atmosphere was changed. 1.5.1 must be down to the new pod model being "slippier", as well as the lighter, smoother TD12 decoupler. What surprises me is the 1.4.5 result. I'd expected a slight "improvement" over 1.2.2/1.3. Would the time of day (atmospheric temperature) have a significant effect?

Negative years? Have you uncovered a hitherto unannounced upcoming time travel capability? To the Tardis!!

Welcome back. With shiny new hardware, you can now enjoy KSP 1.5.x's new shiny... er... hardware!

Crashed into the Sun? You certainly don't have a problem with delta-V, then... Basic "Kerbal" (simple minded) method of doing an interplanetary Hohmann transfer: 1. Get your ship into a stable orbit of Kerbin. 2. Burn prograde to escape Kerbin into a stable orbit of the Sun (far enough from Kerbin, but not too far). 3. Set desired planet as target. 4. Check where the Ascending / Descending nodes are on your current orbit and plan a burn normal or anti-normal at the node to align your inclination to the target planet (An Dn down to 0 degrees or NaN). Execute the alignment burn. 5. Choose a point on your current orbit to plan a burn prograde (for planets further out than Kerbin) or retrograde (for planets further in) until you reach the orbit of the target planet. 6. Swing the planned burn around the orbit to try to get a close approach. 7. Do your transfer burn. 8. Wait. (Timewarp time, usually). 9. When you get close to the target planet, if you don't have an encounter (are going into an escaping orbit of the target), select velocity relative to target and burn retrograde to match your speed to the target until you do. 10. when you have an encounter, you may choose to do a course correction burn to align your escaping orbit with where you want to go into orbit round the target. It's best to orbit in the "right" direction, i.e. with the planet's spin, especially if you're planning to land. 11. When in your (escaping) orbit, burn retrograde to the orbit to achieve capture. 12a. If you're planning to land, choose your time and place of landing, switch to velocity-relative-to-surface and burn retrograde as necessary. 12b. Don't forget your landing gear, parachutes and ladders as required. 12c. Please take care of our planets, don't hit them too hard when you get there.

Planes certainly fly better with 1.5.1. No other issues observed so far. Nice one .

Space is big, yes, even in the miniaturised Kerbal system. So I kind of like where you're going. But (apart from learning real-life international relations) the thought of running a defence budget alongside my research program is disconcerting. And what if I'm out at work when a harmless non-friend happens by? I find lots of unidentified debris lying around my depleted anti-lander battery and some red-faced (or would they be dark green?) kerbals explaining that they thought it was a threat? Hmmm... convince me some more .

Like... have a warp drive like facility? That could solve some problems.

Just my own opinion here... I'm not about to tell everyone else how they should play. Have your own fun! That said... I don't really see how multiplayer can work within the game as it is. Aside from all the time synch issues and server infrastructure, etc. etc. etc., me myself and I simply don't want to spend (real world) time carefully building and honing a workable ship, planning a mission, crewing it up with my favourite, faithful Kerbal Krew, carefully guiding it into the perfect trajectory, waiting.. waiting... (no timewarp)... till I get to a nice, equatorial orbit of Jool... ...then have some Griefer deliberately smash it all to bits. Nope. Not going there. However... a separate game or game mode where we could import our ships and fly around, meet up, build co-operative space stations, yup, I'd kind of like that. But there'd have to be a completely different underlying gameplay that either: prevents "bad" players spoiling it for the rest - which would mean what? Indestructible ships? How would that work in-game? It would certainly make landings easier, but then what skill would there be? Can my Kerbals get in someone else's landed ship and fly it? What would the "owner" think of that? where there's much less investment (real world time, Kerbal time, funds, Krew) involved and we accept that every time we send a ship out there'll be someone who wants to destroy or steal it. ditto but the whole aim of the game is shooty-shooty kill kill so it doesn't matter. None of those seem too appealing to me. Like I said, just my opinion. Other views are valid.

Val looks well pleased with her new suit on the opening menu.

There's something weird here. My FLT-400 and -800 show the legacy texture in the VAB (with no alternates) but when I launch the new textures show. Going back to VAB any parts already on the ship now have new textures and switchable, but adding parts repeats the behaviour. FLT-100 and -200 work as expected. So - different players see this on different parts, all from a fresh clean install? --------- OK - sort-of ninja'd by @TriggerAu's post above. Fix already underway. Thanks guys

Tried this and was about to agree (at one point the pod was stable, falling sideways even with the parachute partially deployed), but then repeated with the same ship and situation in 1.4.5 and got similar results.

So far, so good... looking forward to trying out all the revamped parts and modifications. The new suits look great. Just one thing... am I seeing things, or is the old HECS model still there alongside the new one?

Hi @zherdev. Welcome to the forums as a non-lurker now . Looking forward to whatever it is you have cooking for ... >cough< ...