little square dot

No. Nope. Nooooooop. His willingness to take on such a demanding and dangerous job could be considered a sacrifice, but as for remaining in lunar orbit while others landed on the surface, definitely not. That was his job. I don't know why the fact that he is less recognized or receives less credit even enters into this. That's superficial egoic nonsense that doesn't matter one tiny little bit. He was fortunate enough to become an astronaut at an incredibly exciting time, flew on a Gemini mission, performed an EVA, and played a key role in the most famous Apollo mission. Sure, he had to stay in orbit....boo-freaking-hoo. That is not a sacrifice by any stretch of the imagination. You guys are crazy. Why do the last few feet matter? He had a way better view and a unique experience all his own. You guys are thinking only in terms of loss as though somehow he missed out on something, but nobody lost or missed anything. Did I mention that HE GOT TO GO TO THE FREAKING MOON!?!?!? =)

Thanks mate. Much appreciated. =)

eeyikes... sketchy might be an understatement. Just for kicks I tried to read their terms of service, but the link is broken, haha..

What's up peoples, I'm confused by the new fx ... I'm not particularly knowledgeable when it comes to modules, so please bear with me. What do the various emissions values represent? Why does the VAB Y-axis = the offset Z-axis? (I realize that this has nothing to do with the fx module... just curious. =) In a welded part made of two engines, is it possible to disable the fx and thrust on one of them? I made an engine in which I used a second engine model inverted as structural eye candy, but unfortunately it spits as much fire and thrust +Y as the intended engine directs -Y. I assume that this is because fx are applied to the all "thrustTransform"s, so I'm wondering if there is a way to create a dummy transform or something to disable fx on one. Ideally I would like to be able to redefine the transform within the MODEL{}, but I won't hold my breath on that one. Alternatively I was thinking that a second engine module might be usable as a dummy, but even if successful it would be way too messy and clutter/confuse the in-flight gui. Lastly, is it possible to scale fx? ie. is there a way to get a 2m Rapier to emit something less wimpy-looking than the petite little flames of the 1.25m version... if scaling isn't an option, are there large and small variations of fx like in the old system? I'm really hoping for scaling though. Thanks a bunch! Trial and error is slow-going in ksp... .cfg alteration, reload parts -------------wait-------------------wait-------------------wait---------------... repeat endlessly.

haha, nice. Let's just called them spacemonkeys.

Come to think of it, since 'astronomy' is no longer taken to mean the exclusive study of stars, instead inferring the study of all celestial bodies and their interactions, I guess astronaut is alright... for uniformity's sake.

That's what I'm saying doesn't make sense. Again, I understand the history... obviously these names aren't just pulled out of the blue, and of course there's always a logical explanation behind the various names we give to countries and their peoples, but how is it not unreasonable for English speakers to use Swedish to refer to a distinct, non-Swedish ethnic group? Given that the vast majority of the population is not Swedish, does not use the Swedish language, and are in fact quite proud of their distinct, non-Swedish culture, where is the sense in this?

oooh oooh oooh, can we string them together if more than one applies? ...like a Joviorbiscosmolunanaut.

That's a lot different. That's simply a common noun in a different language. This is exactly what happened.

Based on common usage, inclusion of the word 'space' would make sense, however the common usage doesn't make much sense... I guess that's the evolution of language. Ah. It's been 12 years since my last French class, so go easy. =) I took French and German at the same time, so improper capitalization of nouns is sort of my thing. I don't think that the age of a country has much to do with it though. I suspect that it's simply our aversion to change, because it's not as though memorizing a new name every now and then is a tall task.

I have no idea about most other languages, but this discussion is in English so there is a distinction.

I just mean that generally-speaking, the further down the wing(away from centre of mass) you place the engine, the less stable the aircraft. Drones and small aircraft can be pretty forgiving though. The problem with sacrificing thrust is that it only puts out about as much as a poodle as it is, which is only enough for a small space plane. I thought the drop tanks might help a bit, but they get eaten in about 10 seconds on closed-cycle.

I get the historical significance and the variety of factors at play, however in the present situation, all of those different sub-states have an agreed-upon name for their collective, aaaand we ignore it completely. That's what I find funny. It would be so much simpler (and more respectful) if we just learned the proper names as determined by the locals, and in the case of a different alphabet or some such issue simply create the phonetically reasonable alternative. back to the main topic... Does a sailor have to sail every square inch of ocean to be called a sailor? Don't forget that you're in space right now. We've collectively skewed the word over time to make it refer exclusively to the area of space outside of our atmosphere, taking the place of the term "outer-space", but it really is a misnomer.

baha, thanks. I'm starting to slip. (re: off-top preferences, I prefer posts that add something to a discussion beyond a spell check.=)

So have I, but if we had grown up in the Soviet Union we would probably be on the other side of things. I feel comfortable using astronaut, I like the sound of astronaut, but if I think about the term I can't help but see a grandiose, almost pretentious sort of self-glorification.

I think t makes more sense than astro but essentially means the same as cosmo. Unfortunately it's also the most awkward-sounding of the three, coming across as a sort of cheesy, gimmicky play on the words 'space' and 'station', even though that wasn't the intent. For the record, I do think that astronaut sounds the best. I just think it's too grandiose. I'm more a fan of simplification and consensus. Somewhat related side note, I find it amazing that every language seems to have unique names for countries and their inhabitants too, often that have absolutely nothing to do with the names as recognized by the inhabitants of said countries. This oddity is always highlighted at the Olympics. For example, german, German, Germany = deutsch, Deutscher, Deutschland, which has nothing in common with even closely-related languages like english or french(<-the French call Germany L'Allemand) This is repeated with almost every language and country. One that I only recently found out is that Finland is called Suomi by "Finns" who don't actually refer to themselves as Finns, their language Finnish or their country Finland. What? Suomi is "Finnish for Finland"? haha, it doesn't make any sense. Suomi is suomi for Suomi. Why not save ourselves the translation by simply referring to them by the name they call themselves? I understand the interesting historic relevance to the various names, but that's what history books are for.

I love your drone... looks very cool, but I imagine the wing-tip mounted engines make it a handful to fly? Try adjusting your angle of attack or using larger control surfaces if it's difficult to get the nose up without retracting your gear. I usually rotate my wings back slightly or keep my nose higher than my tail. Makes 'em lift-off with very little urging, smooth as buttah. =) It's possible that I messed up a number, but it could just be the nature of the rapier. I've found it to be a very finicky engine to use on space planes because of the rate at which the closed-cycle engine eats fuel. It's a balancing act, but I've made it to space with a pair of them powering a big Mk.3 airframe... no fuel remaining to circularize my orbit, but I made it to 74,000m. Note to self: reference decoupler module in parts that are supposed to decouple... *facepalm (thanks for catching that one)

Obviously, but it should have been expected. We'd be jerks if we didn't say something. Why don't you ask on a Star Wars forum. If it's out there, those people know where.

I think the Russians have it right. Obviously rampant nationalism suggests that there isn't likely to be a terminology change, ever, by either side, but the beauty of an inane discussion is that relevance is irrelevant! As a side note, it's interesting that having been born in the '80's and experienced the tail-end of the Soviet Union, I was lucky enough to have been subjected to a constant barrage of anti-communist propaganda in the Western (predominantly American) media in my formative years, so despite the fact that I now see as many flaws in capitalism as I do in communism, and despite knowing that I was essentially being brainwashed as a child, this doesn't prevent my brain from automatically throwing a red flag(<-unintentionally fitting) at mention of the word 'cosmonaut', even though I very much prefer the literal meaning of the term, haha.. communists! Bad!! NO!! So, Cosmonaut - Sailor of the Cosmos Astronaut - Sailor of the Stars Which do you prefer and why? (or do you simply enjoy the variety?)

I can't tell whether this is serious or not, but just in case I'm going to go on record as stating that this is probably a really bad idea... A) I used to love Star Wars. I read every book, I played every game, watched the movies countless times, etc, etc, and I was convinced then that I would be a fan for life. Now, nostalgia aside, I think it's unbearably awful stuff. Point being, tastes change drastically, sometimes over a very small period of time. You have to know and trust your tattoo artist, particularly if you're going for 'realism'. Almost accurate realism, ie. even slightly skewed perspective, and I mean almost unnoticeable = a really bad tattoo. I know plenty of people with bad tattoos (mostly from their teenage years) who really don't care at all about what others think, and seem to like their bad tattoos all the more because of their awfulness. If you're this type of no-regrets person who just couldn't care less, I say go for it! That said, I know more people with bad tattoos who hate them and wish they never got them, so if you're just having an impulsive moment, DO NOT DO IT! The vast majority of tattoo regrets are the impulse-tats, and impulse tats are almost exclusively done by strange artists, often in strange locales, thereby increasing the likelihood that the tattoo itself will be bad, even if the concept was decent. I'm not trying to poo-poo on anything here; I just want to make sure that you don't end up paying for a permanent regret. =)

......please no NASA logos, please no NASA logos, please no NASA logos, please no NASA logos....... (^^immersion killers^^)

So basically, just reassign all fuselage sections currently under Utility to Aero. I debated doing this initially but opted to march in-step with Squad for uniformity's sake, which in retrospect was probably a bad idea because their parts are all over the place. I will reassign them. A revised pack containing corrections, revisions and a few Mk.1 parts that I cobbled together should be up tonight or tomorrow. Cheers.

I'd be very curious to hear how the parts perform with FAR... I have a feeling that FAR will emphasize my noob scaling of the aerodynamic parameters. Really though, any testing at all would be great. Ideally I would like the parts to be usable for everyone, FAR or stock. It would be great if I could get some feedback re: the VTOL fuselages as well. In order to make VTOL work in atmosphere I gave the engines some punch at the cost of efficiency, however this means that they're a bit OP for low-G bodies. Of course engine thrust can be limited by the player, however the efficiency still suffers. I'm worried that atmospheric VTOL use might be more gimmicky than practical, and maybe I should decrease power and increase efficiency? On the other hand, it might be that giving spaceplanes the ability to land on low-G bodies is the gimmicky thing to do. I know that it's doable with a refueling support system of some sort, but tbh it's a bit of a hassle and not likely something that I would do... maybe the VTOL's are just all-around gimmicky, haha.. I'm so out of my league with this stuff. Rocketry is so much simpler.

First-off, thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. =) As for the Mk1. parts, I didn't create a Mk.1 crew compartment because there is no conceivable way for a crew compartment to be crammed into a 1.25m fuselage, and given that so many 1.25m options already for resource tanks, batteries, sas, etc., I didn't see much point in adding more. I can throw something together though... the mk.1 fuselage is definitely the easiest of the three to work with. Yeah, I plan on going over all of those little details before releasing the pack. Several of the parts need revised descriptions and stats too. re: mk2crewCabin in Utils and Mk.3LFO in Propulsion, I'm just following Squad's lead. They placed the Hitchhiker container in Utilities and the fuselages with fuel tanks in propulsion. Do you think they should all go under Aero, or in Propulsion like the stock fuselages? Unfortunately this is necessary in order to accommodate the IVA's. If they weren't rotated like that, you would be staring upside-down and backwards at the cockpit, or upwards into a big empty sky rather than down and slightly forwards. The cupola IVA is +Y and the smallLander +Z, and I don't think I can alter that without messing with everyone's IVA configs. I explained this in the part description, as I am aware that some people might be turned off by the zany default angle and the rotation requirement, however they attach normally, and look perfectly fine when attached. What it boils down to is we can either have the nosecones and deal with having to rotate them, or scrap them altogether, Haha... yeah... well I gave them a little boost in order to get a Mk.3 design into orbit. A pair of Rapiers just weren't up to the task, but I wouldn't say that the XLR is that much more powerful. Rapier Air-mode / Closed-cycle 175 205 XLR12 Air-mode / Closed-cycle 190 220 Alright, thanks man. I'll see what I can cook-up on the Mk.1 front, and maybe knock the XLR's down a peg or two.

Haha, yeah, well... I've downloaded enough crap to understand the mentality I s'pose. I don't think it's reluctance to use up bandwidth so much as the 'hassle' of dling, restarting KSP, determining the files are crap, deleting them, then having to vent displeasure on the forum that makes people cautious... (<-even though all of that shouldn't take more than 10 minutes, but whatever.) At least the attitude suggests a willingness to cooperate... I once started a 'stock node revisions' thread in which I posted probably 20 revisions to clear-up the gaps, eliminate clipping etc., and node corrections can be ridiculously finicky, time-consuming things, and always mind-numbing, so I was quite amazed when I asked if anyone could think of parts that I had missed and received the following reply: Haha... now ^^THAT^^ attitude is much more difficult for me to understand, and unfortunately quite common. Good for a laugh... in a sad sort of way.