Exsmelliarmus

That was wonderful! I was on tenterhooks the whole time, while still enjoying the serenity of space! Great work, as always!

Cool, pwolf, I don't think I'll be of much help, but I'll do my best, as I'm sure everyone else will as well. So, at the moment, are the two vessels merely told to be x distance apart, or do you have them in matching orbits? Also, how difficult would it be to allow one vessel to split into two, and have one player control each half? Because, honestly, that would be the majority of how I would use multiplayer - eg. Based on early shuttle designs, where one half boost to orbit while the other half lands at the runway?

Yeah, timewarp isn't like trying to get an airplane to fly. It's more like not being able to fly, and worrying about the autopilot, so you don't have to fly long distances yourself. Also, on the multiplayer issue, could unity's floating point inaccuracies make it impossible, or difficult, to merely have both ships being calculated on both computers at the same time? What I mean is, is there a chance that if both computers are doing the positional calculations based on burns, that there may be a few inaccuracies, and that, over time, the two ships will be in completely different locations in either client, simply due to the low amount of positional accuracy available? And finally, I would much rather be able to play with friends in LKO than not being able to do any MP because we can't get over the timewarp issue. In all honesty, long voyages are mainly solitary, anyway, and I don't know how many friends would want to timewarp to Jool without getting bored/losing interest.

Exactly, which is why I suggest that rather than rendering the landing, it merely calculates if it 'would' land safely, and if it would, allows you to recover it.

Is there something odd about the way 0.21 renders planets? Because I can't seem to find them as easily as I used to, and apparently buildings don't show up from orbit, either. Can anyone confirm?

How about we agree to STOP talking about timewarp on this thread AT LEAST until we we have a definitive understanding on how non-timewarp multiplayer will work. It would make figuring out what IS an update, or a new development, as opposed to more timewarp talk, much easier. Or, alternatively, have a look through at least one timewarp thread, or even this thread, and if it has already been posted, don't post the idea again, even if you came up with it yourself, then discovered others had already talked about it. Sorry to come across harsh, but the OP is making actual progress, while we are merely rehashing the same ideas over and over and over and over again. OP, keep doing what you're doing. One question, are the two computers talking directly to one another, or going through a server to access world time, position etc?

Any news? I'd hate to see this brilliant shuttle become the next Buran!

Yeah, that'll give a really good reason to use a glider/spaceplane as opposed to just a capsule. What would be nice though would be allowing reuse if parts at only minor cost - for example, if I keep launching the same rocket, only with a different payload, you don't have to buy it every time but merely pay a percentage of its cost to repair it.

I think it would be useful if, in career mode, as stages are ejected, before they leave physics range, the game quickly calculates (possibly on another thread) the weight of the stage, the momentum it will have and, if it has parachutes, the amount of force the parachutes would generate, as well as the time it would take before splash (or crash) down. Then, when the stage leaves physics range, it can be deleted, as long as it is under 20km, as per usual, only to be recoverable from the tracking station x seconds after it is ejected, x being the previously calculated time to impact, provided it was able to survive. In this way, reusable/expensive components would not have to be scrapped because they are not part of the upper (focus) stage, reducing the cost of launches, and making stages less expendable. What do you guys think?

Sorry if this has been asked already, but would it be possible to make it so that parts attached to the interior of the payload pay move with the doors? I don't know what sort of code-fu would be necessary to get it to work, but it would be the icing on an already delicious cake!

Amazing work! Just a question, will the SRBs have a separation gimbal feature, that can be used in staging or an action group or something, so that when the SRBs are jettisoned, they fly away of their own accord?

If you are on a mac, command z might work instead. Otherwise, don't know what the problem with your game is. To be honest, it would be nice if they did improve the control z function a bit, though.

I've actually been playing since ~0.13. Also, I found someone posted the shots I was looking for on another thread, I am just wondering where they came from, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/14906-Intra-Vehicular-Activities/page2

Hey, I've been looking everywhere but I can't seem to find any images of the in development (pre 0.17) MK 1-2 pod, and am wondering if anyone has a link/images? That would be greatly appreciated, as I am interested in seeing the internal structure. Thanks, and hope I posted this in the right place!

Although surely the game resource cost would be less than having to render physics for all the rovers you need to have parked along the runway to make it work. Even just 20 or so lights would be immensely useful.

Even with a weaker and a stronger docking port, the only thing that is changing (in real life) is the compression on the structure. So even if the weaker magnet was pulled towards the stronger one, and pulled the weaker magnet forwards, what is pulling the stronger one forwards? Either the magnets want to pull together, or pull apart. They can't both move in the same direction as you propose.

It all makes sense now! A random (and off topic load of questions), but do Kerbals name Kerm seeds? Does Santa-kerbal sit in a rocket in a polar orbit, constantly de orbiting presents over populated areas? Do Kerbals use compasses for navigation, or do they follow the stars? And, most importantly, what snacks did Jeb have in the Moho 1? Sorry if I got carried away, I just love being able to talk to a really good writer!

I think this story would make a great ebook! If we could get someone on this forum who is talented at art (unlike myself), I think some simple, handdrawn illustrations would really add to the atmosphere and style of said book - eg. The Moho 1 launch from 5km away, or the first picture of kerbin from space, etc. Nothing that really requires any specific details, or would mess with what the author and the readers pictured, but something nice nonetheless. But seriously, I've read lesser writers than KSK who also happened to be published authors with a decent fan base. BTW, random question - is the entire planet of Kerbin united, or have we only been hearing about a small part (country, continent?) of it? If so, is there a chance that beyond the Rockomax competitors and Kerm culture (forgot what it was called), that an even greater complication/challenger will arise? If you plan to write about it later, don't bother spoiling it, BTW. As always, I present to you the most annoying/stressful compliment - keep it up!

If you need a commotion to catch a Gronnek, wouldn't a rocket launch be putting the Gronnek 'into' the bag? Seriously though, this world you're building will need an Encyclopedia of its on - kudos on making me think about Kerbal culture beyond 'put them in the rocket and point towards space!'

Fascinating chapter, as always. Keep it up, KSK, that was literally the most involving thing I've read all week!

Also, if, like has been suggested, a museum was implemented, you could see a list of all your mission patches. The patches could also show up in the tracking station, and you could group ships into specific missions.

Loving that testing rig - also, a little surprised but glad that you switched out the (mostly useless) radial engines for a good old ... Well, something pretty anyway- I wish the radial engines weren't so inefficient, and powerless, but as it stands, their only real benefit seems to be aesthetics. Also, seeing the beginnings of a cargo bay, perhaps? I tried to build one with I beams and plates, but the spontaneous explosions and beauty (or lack thereof) drove me away. Can't wait to see how you solve the problems! Funnily enough, that RCS/Battery setup is almost identical to my own! Great minds think alike, perhaps? BTW, how are you planning on testing the aerodynamics? Just a few glides with a test aircraft, or perhaps a rover body with an intricate arrangement of trusses so that as it speeds up, the shuttle lifts up?

That truly is a thing of beauty! How well does it glide? And where did you put the fuel tanks in the orbiter itself? Ingenious use of clipping, or just witchcraft? Also, on an unrelated note, it would be nice if the devs added a north-south runway, to make those polar landings a little easier.

BTW, really digging the new (more realistic) wing design. That's some brilliant usage of those swept wings! Although for the 747 flights, you should add an aerodynamic cover over the engines. Now, we just need cargo bays in the stock game!

Really impressed, shamelessly ripped off your design for my own payload capable (mod) shuttle. It would be nice if the 3 main engines were more powerful though, so that the shuttle didn't need to use its OMS engines for ascent, both for realism and because the radial engines are so inefficient.