Garek

There are currently two parts named RoboTruss Pro - 1.25m - both ARE RoboTruss Pros, but one is double the length of the other.

Jesse Cox made some videos with him playing (and failing) and some other guy trying to explain to him how space works After I saw that, I downloaded the Demo, quickly realised that a) this is awesome and the demo was far to limiting for what I wanted to do, and bought the game. That was back in .21

It's mostly a slow slide into spending far too many hours managing your mods and hanging around on the mod forums instead of actually playing or even doing something not-KSP. At least in my experience.

I don't remember any stupidness where I actually laughed, I have more of those "well this isn't going to work"/facepalm moments. Most recent example, wanted to test my new installation. Forgot to install KW, so I put my Capsule (+SDHI Service Module and stuff) on top of a Rockomax 64 + Skipper, with the intention of going to orbit. I was already flying about 45° east at 6 km up, with a horrible TWR, when I realised, this isn't going to space today. I'm still not sure if that rocket actually had a TWR so low, or if I forgot the throttle half way up. I could have, because my launch sequence was a bit broken by me realising that you can't have a rocket standing on a skipper, like you could on a Griffon.

There are, as far as I know, two ways of creating a subassembly: a) separating a sub-tree from your current vehicle grabbing your current vehicle by it's root in case a), the sub-tree, and in turn the subassembly can only be attached with the same node it was previously attached with. E.g. you have a stack of capsule, 6-way-hub, fuel tank. Now you take hub and tank and save them as a subassembly. Since you split the sub-tree off at the node connecting the hub to the capsule, the subassembly can now only be attached with that node in case , you should be able to attach the subassembly with any open node of the root part which can also be normally used to attach that part. In any case, keep some things in mind: 1) KSP crafts and subassemblies are always structured as trees, and attachment rules are mostly what you would expect from a (abstract and very simply implemented) tree, not neccesarrily from a spacecraft. E.g. there is a significant difference between a part being attached to a craft, and a part being the reciever of such attachement. 2) for some inexplicable reason, a part can have only two nodes with which it can be attached to a vessel, while a less limited number of nodes can allow other parts to attach to that part in turn 3) if you reattach a subassembly it basically behaves as if you had manually attached all the parts of it. Which also means that all open nodes of the subassembly, even if they can't be used to attach the subassembly, can be used to attach to the subassembly once it's reattached. 4) There is a mod, SelectRoot, where you can change the root of your craft-tree and it will rebuild the tree accordingly. It can really help with tricking KSP into creating the structure you want. 5) Just a word of caution: Unusual Roots, e.g. building a rocket from the engine up instead of from the capsule down, can lead to weird behaviour. Really, the crafts being structured as trees, with practically no editor support for reorganizing that tree, is a giant PITA. I can see why they save crafts as trees, and especially now with so much already built based on that structure I would not want them changing it, but a little bit more support in the editor and less hidden implications would be nice.

I would download and test, provided I find time to actually play.

If you even occasionally want to do IVA, you should take a look at Raster Prop Monitor. It adds displays with gigantic amounts of info to capsules. The mod pack modifies all stock capsules and some mod capsules, while some other mod capsules include RPM monitors already. FusTek Station Parts Expansion is a nice mod for building stations, although currently only a very old version and a prerelease of the new are available, so if you don't want to fiddle with config files/savegames you might want to wait until the new version gets a proper release. For the stock 3-Man Pod there are also at least two Service Module mods: SDHI adds an Orion-Style Service Module, Heatshield etc. (also: really useful parachute/docking-port combo), and Kerbodyne extends that with an additional stage and a LES. Kerbodyne also has parts for the Taurus Pod mentioned before. RealChutes adds Parachutes with a high amount of configuration and far better behaviour than stock (also, it's a dependency of SDHI). Most other mods I would recommend where already mentioned by others.

Just got Manjaro up and running, and thanks to this thread, I got 64Bit KSP running without a problem. Thank you! In fact, the longest part was finding out where to get xxd. In case another Arch Linux or Manjaro user out there doesn't know yet: there is a xxd package in the AUR, and apparently it's also contained in vim and gvim. Maybe I was just a bit dumb at searching for it. Now get all the mods!

Voted for standard, because it's the default size I use for everything not really specific. But my favorite variant would be the parachute version from SDHI, because now you can have a parachute and a docking port on top of a capsule.

Do you already have plans on how the Service Module would attach to the carrier rocket? I would like if there was a way to have it attach to a 2.5m Procedural Fairing without an engine shroud. Of course, that depends on what engine the service module will use, any plans about that?

In my opinion, this depends on which of them, if any, gets support from/for mods like RemoteTech 2 and Infernal Robotics.

Now I imagine Jebediah breaking one of those windows with a hammer to get into SPAAACEEE But seriously, I like this concept. It would propably be nice to have more area-types than habitable and navigable, e.g. Navigable (can go through, but not stay) Corridor (can stay, but doesn't do anything) Habitat (can stay and regenerates sanity/required for Life Support/....) ... (Command, Lab, ... but I don't know what those would actually do) That would allow us to differentiate between actual habitat units and stuff like the FusTek nodes, where Kerbals could stay and have IVA (e.g. RPMs walkthrough feature), but shouldn't for a long time.

Do you use Kerbal Joint Reinforcement? It ignores IR parts at the moment because it can't handle robotics moving stuff around.

It's been a while since I last looked at mixed mode C++/CLI, but at the time it was only implemented by Visual Studio/Microsoft .NET. I don't now if any other CLR implementation supports it yet. Also, mixed mode C++/CLI has all the pitfalls of native C++ concerning cross-platform. You would have to provide separate binaries for each platform, also separate for 32 and 64-Bit, and make sure they all work properly. Actually, since everything is x86-based now, you could maybe get away with one binary for 32 and 64Bit each, IF Unity uses the same CLR implementation on every platform and you don't call any native library function. EDIT: timmers, you're right, he doesn't have to support every platform. But it would be nice, and if he implements it now for a specific platform, and later decides to support more (mod popularity?), that would get really messy.

This looks really interesting. I won't add this to my current career save, because it seems impractical to assign the ribbons for missions that already happened. But for when I restart career the next time (propably .24?) I really look forward to using this

They're also working on more features and new models, which will make that mod even more awesome

If I understand you correctly, this would subject every part of my (rotating) vessel to a torque of angular_velocity / physics_delta, right? Is it just me, or would this create acceleration potentialy exceeding the g-force limits you have to deal with when using e.g. Deadly Reentry, with otherwise safe angular velocity?

It is possible to create a bearing by putting a ball of outwards facing landing gear inside a ball of structural panels. You could look for "KSP stock helicopter", they are usually constructed that way. Of course that is really unwieldy, especially because you essentially have two separate vessels to manage, so an actual bearing would be nice.

Just wanted to say that I'm using this pod for all flights in my current save. I don't have 2.5m rockets yet, and I feel far more comfortable sending two Kerbals out to Minmus, than just a single one in the Stock 1.25m Pod. It's awesome!

Yes, RemoteTech 2 integration would be awesome, I can't imagine how one would do powered probe landings without it. About the SMA, isn't that just the average of Apoapsis and Periapsis heights plus body radius? Of course, having it in the standard library would be nice.

Looks awesome. The nice thing is, real life has me so busy that those awesome parts will propably be out when I actually need them in my current career

There is a mod which just adds an alignment indicator to the navball. Something like "Navball Docking Indicator" or "Navball Alignment Indicator" or something.

I would suggest using Ferram Aerospace Research. It fits nicely with Deadly Reentry, TAC-LS etc. for a semi-realism playthrough. Also, fairings are actually counter-productive without it because of the way stock drag works. Of course, you would need to redesign some rockets (safe 1km/s of delta-v to LKO by building aerodynamically, consider aerodynamic stability) and adjust your ascent profile (never go more than 5° off prograde while in atmosphere).

I'm not sure since I never tried to edit planets myself, but afair KSP simulates planetary gravity without regards to the actual mesh, but simply from the center. So a donut-shaped planet won't work, because the gravity would actually pull you towards the (empty) center instead of towards the actual mass. Since gravity gets stronger the closer you get to it's origin, actually passing through a gravity origin would then propably break physics.

That crane gave me the idea of building a trebuchet with IR and KAS. Also, nice setup - do you actually reuse spaceplanes that way?