MOARdV

Maybe I misunderstood the proposal, then. Here's the behavior I currently see: Once apoapsis reaches the desired altitude, the engines cut off (other than small burps to overcome drag). The ship remains pointed prograde until it clears the atmosphere. At that time, MJ plots the circularization maneuver and turns the ship to face the node. Post-circularization, the MJ disengages and the ship typically tumbles a bit because the maneuver nodes drifts during the last little bit of dV. What is different about the proposed behavior ("just to keep it steady")? Not chase prograde?

Okay, I'm a little slow catching on (not enough coffee yesterday. Or today, yet)... Are there going to be endcap parts and fuel tank cylinder parts so we can do our own custom lengths (using part welding)? (he asks hopefully) I could have a field day slapping 7 of them into a 6-surrounding-1 fuel tank cluster for my Hydra-3 main stage, although adapting 2.5m upper stages to it might look a bit odd.

The current behavior (I do not have the latest update, just your previous patch) is preferable - stay prograde until the ship clears atmo, and then plot the circularization burn and rotate towards the node, and *then* warp. The previous version of MechJeb (1.x?) stayed prograde until apoapsis, and then it failed to circularize because the craft takes too long to rotate to the correct direction. I don't want to have to spam monopropellant and RCS on launch stages just to handle that one maneuver. That's my opinion.

There's a mod that plays music in-game: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/46003-0-21-Muziker-0-1

I finally had time to go verify. Thanks. I haven't gone too crazy with slapping cameras on my rockets yet, but it's just a matter of time.

FYI, Spaceport has a PNG picture (one of the cameras), and my browser's filter is blocking the mediafire site, telling me the download is unsafe. Not sure what's going on. Maybe it's just me.

Out of curiosity, how many lights do each of these IACBM's have? It looks like they're not just emissive textures, but actual lights (eight of them, if I'm reading the lobes correctly), so I would expect that they get pretty expensive in terms of Unity's performance with multiple lights if you've got more than a handful of these on a station. Or have you not seen a performance problem with them? I'm using a pair of B9 lights right now for visual docking guidance, but this looks far more drastic in terms of the number of lights per docking port. It also looks really good - way better than a pair of little glow lamps.

The LOD changes could be handled by counting how many scans a hex has received. More scans = more detail (the exact details to be worked out). Using pre-generated images only works as long as the world doesn't change. I haven't looked at the data used in game, but the mapper could conceivably detect "changed" planets and invalidate its maps, maybe with a UI prompt warning that it has to regenerate the maps in question. If Majir is right and the PQS queries can run in a separate thread, those maps could regenerate in the background while the player is doing other stuff.

Bummer. Maybe the planned space station will need to hold for a little while longer in the VAB, so I don't have to launch docking port adapters later. Those thicker ports would be nice on the sides of the Karmony nodes.

Sweeeet "exotic detail". Good thing I'm not done replacing legacy engines with your engines in my lift fleet yet, since I may be changing fuel tanks, too. Will it fit the RD-275K, too?

I have been thinking the exact thing since Majir introduced the hexes. That functionality provides the basic mapping ("Have I mapped this region?"). It's not clear to me that his API supports this use model (initialize the whole map's data to 'zero detail', and increase it manually with each pass), but that would be the ideal. I stopped using MapSat after trying unsuccessfully to use the dev build (too much memory required, unless I kill the render and texture quality for everything else in-game), and I stopped using the previous version. Creating maps is too much of a chore, and it ties up my game when I would rather do something else (launch something, land something, build something).

It's a rocket! With a rounded bottom on the fuel tank... One thing I've noticed with these awesome engines - they heat up really, really fast, and I have to throttle them back to 80% or 90% to prevent overheats. Unless I strap them down with struts. A couple of struts to hold them to the engine mount, and I no longer see the "overheat" bar. The heat model in KSP is really quirky. And while I like the glowing orange of a near-exploding engine, I like getting those extra kN of thrust just a little bit more.

That is looking better. One question - any chance of a variant for use on the three-kerbal command pod? Specifically, either a hinged door or an ejectable flush-mounted nose cone, so my manned flights don't have a bizarre flat-top because of the exposed CBM? Okay, two questions: Do these visually mate up with the existing Fusty CBM? I realize that 1.25m docking ports connect together via the docking port module in the cfg, but the stock ports and Fusty CBM don't visually connect, and it's a bit jarring when one of my legacy space craft docks at the space station and attaches to the CBM.

The size is right for my applications, but that's my opinion. [ never mind editing suggestions, since StarVision made changes ]

Yeah, you did. But did I actually read all of that text before I hit "download" and erased the old parts? Pffft. No.

If StarVision doesn't mind, I'll post instructions here. Otherwise, I can PM them to you.

This is a nice update. It's also a good candidate for the .20+ part cloning - you only need three models / textures for the entire pack, and you can apply scaling to get the different sizes (even with the flat parts - you can scale X and Z, and leave Y at 1.0, and have parts that look identical to your models). It took me 10 minutes to do it here, and I'd be happy to share the config changes. Granted, the flag decals are not a heavy resource hog like some sets, but every bit helps. One request for a future update, if it's possible: a flag pole that lies flush that can be deployed (like the AIES CommTech CL-1 antenna, if you're familiar with it). I can't put the flag pole on my rover, since its lander / skycrane sits right above it. If I could fold the flag down, and then raise it once the rover drives clear of the lander, that would be awesome. Until then, I'll use the flat decals on the front and back of the rover chassis.

Yeah, I lost a probe relay over Mun, one en route to Minmus, and another heading to Jool because I forgot about the FTmN 90s on them, and my Mun lander uses 40s, and the 'old' 40s don't have the same part name. Ah, well. The perils of space exploration. No lives lost, this time.

You *would* have to post this during my lunch break. I wonder if my boss would notice a productivity drop this afternoon... Looking forward to looking at the newer and improved-er nukes.

I'll second Mr. Pseudonym. That's a nice, flashy paint scheme. Much more exciting than those bland black-and-white jobs out there. Even if it's an alternate texture I have to place manually in the right directory, it'd be worth it.

I'm fine with top and bottom bulkheads - I can always edit the config file to make a cloned part if I need a stretched cargo bay.

And, if so, any chance of getting a larger door? One thing that is sorely missing is a stackable round cargo bay with a 180 degree door - smaller doors make it very challenging to deliver a cargo that is tightly fit.

Just curious - Why not add a Flag Decal quad to the surface, instead? That would allow someone to use names, or flags, or whatever? I haven't seen anyone take advantage of that feature in KSP, outside of a couple of parts.

You could make it a single engine, but reduce the gimbal range proportionally to simulate the reduced amount of steering thrust. No sense increasing your workload if you don't have to. As for different engine FX, you list each engine's FX separately. I would hope there's not an artificial limitation like having to use the same FX for each one (I haven't specifically tried this yet).

The download counter is ... shall I say, inaccurate? As for comments, I'd love to comment on it, but I can't get an account that works on Spaceport. I had to PM a Mod for help to get this account working here. For some reason Squad's websites and my email server don't play well together.