Tybot

I checked and the download page does seem to load scripts that my browser blocks from being from unauthorized sources. It's probably some sort of monitization/ad delivery the site has set up that isn't up to par, rather than the download itself. But you can't be too careful when it comes to file sharing sites.

Is FAR/RS updating a hurdle for releasing or a prerequisite to recompiling?

Well that's quite intriguing indeed. RPM is awfully nice mod in and of itself, so sticking with the current feature set will be a lot easier with the knowledge that you're working on a successor in the background. All the power to you.

Vested interest in both of these being updated for 1.3...

I can live with that.

Do you anticipate Model Rework needing an update to work with 1.2, or will the heavy lifting be taken care of by IR proper? I'd miss the parts for those weeks but if you're just talking about adding new features I can be happy with what we have for a while.

Can you elaborate more on how this would work? Are there actual win conditions or is it an RP setup?

I'm familiar with coding fundamentals, I'm a web developer by trade (more front end than back end). Might not match 1:1 but I know enough that with some time and practice I'm sure I'd get there. It was actually the hardware side of things I know very little about.

Making custom electronics is a growing interest of mine and the first thing I thought of was setting up KSP peripherals, but I don't have any experience in such things yet. Was thinking of looking up learning resources for Arduino boards and the like. What kind of learning curve can I expect? Do you have to have a significant minimum level of knowledge before it starts becoming practical or is it less intimidating than it looks?

Not using RC, but I'm talking about landing at ~14-15 m/s when SR anticipates 5 m/s. Pre 1.0 the amount of parachutes I was using in that example probably would be right, but not anymore. Again, not too much of an issue anymore because I can use other calculators to get the accurate descent rate, but it does mean that getting my spent stages to be recoverable is a lot easier than it should be.

Is it just me or is the parachute effectiveness a lot more forgiving for stage recovery calculations than actual reentry? Like it's using the old atmospheric model or something? For a time I was using it to also estimate the landing speed of my landers but anything heavier than a Mk1 pod was hitting the ground too fast. Then I realized that Stage Recovery was underestimating the speed under parachutes. Using another calculator such as RCS Build Aid reports the correct speeds, which fixed my lander designs. But Stage Recovery still lets me get away with using a handful of parachutes to successfully recover even huge stage assemblies. Kind of takes the motivation away from trying powered landings. And before anyone asks, I'm not using FAR or RealChutes or anything of the like.

KSP is both one of the best games and one of the very best communities I've ever been a part of. It shows the very best of what gaming can be. Thanks for being a part of it, and good luck in the future!

Did you do the same thing with B9?

Good god, now I have to ask. What are you using all that science on? Do you have mods that make use of all of that or do you like abusing administration strategies?

Good to know. In the short time I was able to test last night it didn't really happen all that often and didn't find it all that obstructive, but if it starts to get on my nerves I'll give this a try. Also have to say, love the username.

Good call. I played with it and settled on changing it from 0.02 to -0.1. That puts it at about neck level. It's a tiny bit odd to see their hands come in front of the frame during the idle animations, but that's a small price to pay for the greatly improved angle. And I can still see out the windows just fine. Thanks for the idea!

I'm just now discovering how awesome controlling everything via IVA is! One thing I've noticed is the Kerbals in the front seat of a Mk3 cockpit sit too high to effectively use most of the monitors. You really have to crane the camera down to see them, and are at such a steep angle they're hard to read or impossible to even reach all the buttons. I can somewhat get around it if I have a non-tourist kerbal sitting in the rear two seats and zoom in. The simplest fix I can think of would be to drop the front seats down a bit so eye level is lower. Any other workarounds that people use?

I never realized how much fun controlling everything via IVA is! I have noticed some small issues, if anyone else can corroborate. For me the Heat and Drag Lift modes just show a static model, and custom display modes repeats Disco Mode and Part Selector all the way down the RPM screen. Has anyone noticed anything like this before I start tearing apart my local install? Correction edit: Drag actually does show the color model, it was Lift that's not rendering, and display mode thing seems to have been a fluke.

I'm only now getting into my first serious playthrough with Station Science, but you can extend things out with a science lab. Do the experiment, send the data to the lab, and while it's processing clean it out and do it again for the instant retrieval/broadcast science. It's not infinite but its enough that some opt not to because they find it unbalanced. I've got CTT installed which extends the tree out a but so I don't feel as bad doing it. But eventually it's still going to force me to set up stations around other bodies to be able to rerun experiments. Which is good, I want that. Try getting creative. Send a station to a planet with moons with docking ports you can attach engine modules on with later missions that'll let you push it out to other bodies in the same system. Or send a mobile refinery with it to refuel it that way.

I have a fresh modded install going, but I'm not seeing any contracts being generated. I have a station equipped with a THNKR Lab waiting in orbit. This is with the latest update to Contract Configurator so that may have something to do with it, but I do have other mods and contract packs and none of them have needed updates to get the contracts to work. I would share more info, if I knew what was useful.

Is this something that's confirmed in active development? I can't find any discussion or development on it.

So I recently started a new themed modded install after taking a break for a few months. A lot of it revolves around UKS/MKS, but I opted for TAC-LS as I wanted the increased challenge and complexity I remember it having. But after learning more about where USI-LS has come, it seems like it has added more options to bridge the gap since I last used it? I really wanted to make supply chains, sustainability, and ISRU an important part of the game, and from what RoverDude is suggesting when pared with UKS/MKS, USI-LS has more depth towards that. It is a relatively new career but still far enough along that I'd rather not start over if I could avoid it. Has anyone switched LS mods mid-save? Does that break anything besides saved craft? I'm in between manned missions and just before making permanent stations so if I'm going to switch, this is the last and best place for me to do it. Also I hear whispers of a new USI-LS version in the works so wondering if it's best to wait for it or not.

So, while this is certainly convenient, correct me if I'm wrong but there doesn't seem to be anything in place to offset the reduction in difficulty? Is there anything keeping this from being unbalancing?

Was playing around with this tonight, checked to see if it were a challenge and lo and behold here one is. The main hurdle is that you can only go so fast in the water before the resistance makes my pod go kablooie. Still, it\'s fun to float around. Even more so if you make the motorboat sound with your lips.