softweir

You explained that very well! I consider this to be a serious issue that is well worth reposting on the Add-On Discussion forum. No need to repost the whole thing, just link to this post in a new thread on the dev forum.

I only just became aware of this mod, and it looks like just the thing to tempt me back into career mode. Thanks for maintaining yet another mod! All this work is very much appreciated!

I don't know. I wouldn't expect them to do so, but errors can happen. *shrug*

Hi! Somebody asked about this just a page or two back. The answer is that the spaceplane parts were created by one of the Restock team, and as such already follow the Restock design aesthetic; you could say they have Restock built-in from Stock! Fairings can fail to shield contained parts if either a) the fairing's is faulty, or b) parts inside have drag cubes that exceed the bounds of the fairing. Either is possible - it might take some expertise and/or effort to decide which is the case in this instance.

This is a magnificent mod! The warp and impulse drive functions have had a lot of thought put into them, and the modelling is superb! I am very impressed! (My exclamation mark supplier is overworked today.)

That's some nice modelling! Good luck overcoming KSP's annoyances!

@Nertea: Amazing! Congratulations!

I like these part mods! Nice attention to utility and appearance. Good work!

Oh! No! I didn't! Cool.

So... No support.

Not a problem! *scurries off to download*

I am going for All Nodes Open in my (very slowly progressing) ISS build. (But Blasphemy: I am using larger multinode connectors so they can berth modules. So inaccurate!)

So cool! Brings back memories. Looking forward to a download link!

Surely that .txt should be a .cfg?

Curiously enough, the topic that was at the top of the topic list at the moment you posted talks about getting moar dV! Not that you should be surprised that getting enough dV into a rocket is hard - it's the primary bugbear of all Real Life rocketry. In general the fixes are: Use more power on your bottom stage so you minimise the amount of energy wasted in lifting the tanks and fuel of the bottom stage. You can achieve this by either swapping the engines for more powerful ones, or adding on bigger/more boosters. If you use LF side-boosters on the bottom stage, then play with using fuel-lines to cross-feed fuel to the core booster. That way, the core stage gets up to some altitude and speed with a full tank of fuel instead of getting there half empty. Yes, the boosters drop off sooner and that can feel wrong, but that way you waste less dV on getting them higher up. (you will need to compensate for the reduced power/weight ration of the core booster by starting with a slightly less aggressive turn, then turn harder once the side boosters have detached.) Use lighter engines on mid and upper stages. Lighter upper-stage engines require less energy to get them up, so the lower stages put more of their energy into lifting payload as opposed to lifting upper-stage engines. Higher Isp mid-stage engines can help get the upper stage and payload into orbit more efficiently. Play with just how much fuel you use in mid- and upper-stages. You may find you have too much fuel higher up than you actually need, forcing the bottom stage to waste fuel lifting that fuel. Counter-intuitively, it turns out that adding fuel to upper stage can be counter-productive! Above all, make sure your payloads have no more fuel than they need to do their job - adjust their fuel loads in the VAB to trim their dV to the essentials (plus a wee bit) before launch. For example: an imitation Apollo CSM with a full fuel load will be a real pain to launch:- NASA never launched the Apollo CSM with a full load as its engine and fuel tanks were severely over-specified! (Because history.) Experiment with using Real Fuels, and using HydroLox engines. Use RP1/Lox for the bottom stage to give it the best oomph without oversized tanks, and HydroLox for the mid stages to minimise their mass. If you want to play realistically, use hypergolic fuels for your payload engines, ie Apollo-style CSM, otherwise consider using HydroLox. Good luck!

Absolutely Fabulous! Downloading... One suggestion: For the docking ports with guidance fins, it would be nice if the fins were rotated 60° wrt the rest of the port, so docking can be achieved with the ports in common alignment °— ie top-to-top °— instead of at odd angles such as 60 and 180. The NASA IDSS has this 60° rotation, for instance. Aaand I just realised that could cause nasty incompatibility issues for those who already have the mod! Not a problem, I am used to overcoming this slight inconvenience!

These new parts are amazing! The detail is very impressive! I have a wee little wishlist* : Habtech2 bulkhead endcaps. These could be used to cap off non-Habtech parts when they are inserted into station assemblies, to make a better visual fit. One of the Rockomax parts (IIRC) does the job physically, and when the metallic variant is used it doesn't look dreadful:- but it could be much better. I guess this would almost be a cut-n-paste job for you, though even that can be an irritating job when it comes to high-detail modelling. I would also like some structural tubes that match the Habtech style. *NB: My wishlist is in no way your command! I am very well aware that you have a long list of priorities, especially getting those mulish solar array truss elements working! Thanks for all the amazing work you do. There are other station part mods to be found, but none look so convincing.

/jocularity I like that, a lot. It's neat! But I think I will use pico ports instead of claws.

And finance rocket building with it.

I disapprove of a "procedural everything" paradigm for KSP, but I approve of procedural wings! LEGO wings are one of the reasons I completely gave up on planes. Having said that, in the early days of KSP I was desperate for procedural tanks: LEGO tanks made of just a few smaller tanks were food for the Spaghetti monster (a distant relative of the Kraken), and having rockets bending to banana-like shapes as they ascended was no fun whatsoever! Not that this has been a problem for quite some time, and looks like being even less of a problem with KSP 2's even better physics. I am hoping that KSP 2 will have plenty of engines which have variants for ground level and vacuum, with realistic changes in expansion nozzle size, along the lines of SpaceX's Merlin engines.

This is something I had been considering; I like that you have put it more succinctly than I could!

One of the annoyances (to me) of KSP's career mode is the three currencies - Science, reputation and money. Most especially annoying is the artificial link between scientific discovery and technological Research and Development! In The Real World, it is social and political enthusiasm for space exploration that opens the purse-strings for tech development and rocket building. This arbitrary clutch of currencies has helped drive me away from career mode. (The use of a tech tree is the other gameplay mechanism that has put me off career mode, but that's another suggestion I am cogitating.) The multiple-currency model is one much-used in many games, but I feel it isn't a natural fit for KSP. I would like to propose an alternative, single currency: Enthusiasm. Kerbals are profoundly enthusiastic! They make rockets because of enthusiasm, they go up in rockets because of enthusiasm, and they create new technologies because of enthusiasm. One can easily imagine that a population of Kerbals would become increasingly enthusiastic about spaceflight every time they learn of new rocketry achievements, new scientific discoveries and the creation of new colonies; and that enthusiasm would drive them to produce the means to advance the spaceflight industry. So: as a game-play currency Enthusiasm would be earned by: Rocketry achievements such as first Kerbal into space, first Kerbal into orbit etc Scientific discovery, whether made on the ground, in flight or in space Getting Kerbals back to Kerbin (or a colony with space for them to reside) safe and sound Even bigger, badder explosion with no loss of life would add some Enthusiasm to the pot (To earn Enthusiasm an explosion would have to be even bigger than the last Enthusiasm-earning explosion - you have to break the record every time.) It's OK to lose a new, bigger rocket, so long as your Launch Escape System has worked. Social achievements such as creating habitation for Kerbals off-world Enthusiasm would diminish through: Building rockets - it's back-breaking work! Researching technology - it's mind-numbing! Deaths Enthusiasm could be represented as a simple number, but I like the idea that it could additionally be represented as a graphic displaying a number of emojis of Kerbals who are emotionally invested in space exploration, with varying degrees of interest, enthusiasm and excitement. It could be described as the results of a continuous opinion-poll of the Kerbal population. I feel that this mechanism is a natural fit for the game and would reinforce one of the standout aspects of the game: the personalities of the Kerbals.

What, so he'd be face-down during liftoff?

Hum. Are their eyes now symmetrical? Classic Kerbals had smaller left eyes! I liked it:- it rather nicely added to the goofy effect.