Tygroux

Could my Name be changed to "Tygroux"? Thanks!

Played a hardcore-modded install recently, and I think FAR is fine. What WOULD be a huge improvement, both in playability and realism is: -Bigger, better wings. (B9 does that) -Better brakes. (RealChutes help with drogues, I'm almost sure someone made a mod that increase drastically the stock brakes strength. B9 gives pretty strong airbrakes. (seriously, tried 6 of the double ones -reversed-. It's radical.)) -A 2km long runway. Doesn't kerbinside add that? I removed it because memory, but now that I fixed that I need to take a look. Increasing the aerodynamic failure threshold (that's somewhere in FAR options, the thing that decide when your wings rips off) also help a lot, and, as always, watching tutos on how to aerodynamic stability, sub/supersonic transition and orbital-speed re-entry helps a lot.

Not exactly a part, but I took the habit to call a simple 3.75m/5m fuel tank + engine booster a "GOTOSPACE" booster. Generally used when I'm sick of min/maxing my fuel.

Same thing here. The COM suddenly move (the camera center moves 1-2 rocket height below the engines) when my booster stage reach around half fuel, then the CX4181 module gets burned by the booster/re-entry/aerodynamics/G-forces depending on the config used. I tested with it at the top and middle of the rocket, and the rest of the rocket seems fine. It's just the script module (and anything attached to it) that gets ripped off by apparently infinite forces. It also seems to happen always at the same time: When my booster stage reach half fuel. Whatever thrust limiter ratio I used. I'm going to test it with other rocket setup, and edit this post with any finding. EDIT: Stayputnik core, KOS module, FL-800, engine. and stayputnik, KOS, Booster. The brutal COM move seems to happens at 60% fuel remaining exactly (in the first stage to fire). After what the KOS module is ripped off by whatever gets it first...

Err, I'm a bit lost. I'm playing a stock system with a bunch of realism mods (DRE, TAC LS, RT...), and am looking for real(scaled to stock) fuels and engines. I guess for real fuels I should use real fuels, but for realistic (role/Mass/TWR/ISP wise) (with scale in mind) engines, wich engine config should I use?

I assemble all of my big stuff in orbit (yeah extraplanetary launchpad!), so, like many, nothing I launch is big enough to destroy the KSC, appart from the metal supply itself. But given the launcher is extremely reliable, launched to the east and the payload is very small, the chance of it falling on something important are almost-null. That may change once I experiment with booster-launched shuttles... And/or add neverunload, for the lulz.

Bringing that launcher tower back in KSP 0.25. Not necessarily on the launchpad, but somewhere near the KSC. As a destructible building. Just so I an blow it up. And again. And again. And again. Andagainandagainandagainandagain. Doing it what it did to us. Oooh yesss...

Sadly must agree with this... I first really enjoyed this game, even stock. Adding some mods to improve the experience... I actually had some fun playing science(old career) mode, although I quickly went back to sandbox. The breakup was when I realized I stopped adding mods only to improve the experience, but instead to change it away from squad's vision... Guys, could we come back to a cool realistishic science-based game?

Yeah, the runway is bugged right now. I can't use any of my heavy-duty lifters or test my big planetary rovers because they cause the runway to implode under the weight.

This. You add a winch right beside your EVA hatch in the VAB, then when the time comes: EVA->Right click on the winch-> grab (it actually attach the cable to your backpack), then you're good. I need to test if it works with time warp... The only issue is that I don't believe it allows you to transfer EVA fuel, so if you run out, you're still stuck. Just... Not far from the ship. But I don't know if even RL safety allow an astronaut to come back without help. If you put the winch and ladder parts at the right places, you can probably manage it though. Or try to push the kerbal with another kerbal. And/or move the ship to the kerbal... (I did that once. You what is harder than trying to get a kerbal to the hatch of a spinning ship? Trying to get a hatch to a spinning kerbal...)

0.25: It was inevitabl... Whoops, wrong game.

"Okay, So, in preparation for our SSTO shuttle program, we will begin by launching a cluster-bomb ICBM at the runway's lights."

I'm using remote-tech, and I have a shuttle with a command module and its crew in orbit. Make the installation of those early relays far easier, until I can get a proper com station up and running, probably beyond minmus. I tend to set-up those everywhere I plan extensive mission. For now it's the kerbin system, then advanced outposts around gilly, Mike...

Not when I'm going for a spaceshuttle style... spaceshuttle (aka delta wing, no elevator), but otherwise I cut pitch on the wings, yes. I do need to use more the others tweakable though...

Thanks for the input! Will try to apply that. I was about to post pics, and found out that the unstability problem was caused by a bug with the B9 large S2 cargohold, wich had an offset COL. I'm using mostly centered delta-wings, as I find they give the best stability at re-entry speeds, but encounter the same problem with every craft: Tthe SAS keeps pushing my nose down (or up...), despite the controls being perfectly capable to keep it stable. And MJ smart A.S.S. was just going crazy on the controls. I guess I will try the dev build then, thanks Wanderfound!

I'm trying my hand at SSTO spaceplanes and became pretty good at designing and piloting them... Except keeping both hands on the controller at all time at supersonic speeds to micro-correct continuously becomes tedious. I tried to use Mechjeb to autopilot the long boring part of the flight, but it keeps murdering my planes by going crazy on the controls when I'm supersonic. How should I go with that? I actually like my behemoths that takes 20 minutes to get into orbit, and another 20 minutes to come down, I just want to not have to babysit them all the time.

+1 to that. I have a cleanly organized bookmark folder to all my mods, with category for parts, utilities, gameplay, graphics etc. I also keep all the downloads categorized the same, renamed with version number if necessary, so I can cut on download/install time next time. Then, every major mod update, it's a full reinstall. (wich mainly mean re-extracting the KSP archive followed by 5 minutes of drag and drop to Gamedata). Right now the last version of MM, RemoteTech and B9 are giving me problems, but that was expected. When they get updated, I will just wipe the slate clean, right-click on KSP_Mods - Open all in tabs, quickly check if anything have changed, then quickly drag and drop from the zips to KSP. Wich bring me to: If all devs could follow the MOD_NAME_#VERSION.zip/Gamedata/mod structure, I would be sooo happy.

Or in other words: A true Kerbal player. STRAP ALL THE MODS. I'm being shy for now with only 20 mods, mainly because I'm going for realisticish mod experience, and these takes some art do get working together in a nice way. I'm still happily hitting 4gigs, wich would never have been possible with an acceptable ammount of details before, all that in full graphics! Now to get better atmosphere, B9, and all these nice little station parts to throw the numbers though the roof...

0.24 - MSI IR - 0.18 I must say, this is messing with my brain for a few seconds every time I read it.

People doesn't read past the title mostly...

I think the short answer is "no, because we are not ("we" being both modders and squad, and the community in general) balancing for players that try to cheat the system." Right now you can have infinite money and science with a bunch of SRB, a solar panel, an antenna and a thermometer. Scott and others have proven a thousand times that it only takes 2 missions to get the totality of the Tech Tree. And I would go as far as saying it's possible in 1 mission to someone who play the game the extremely non-fun way (but without cheats), using exploits. So if someone wants to setup a science/AM farm and then timewarp a thousand year, let it be. In general, if wants to use X exploits or use a method that doesn't imply playing Kerbal Space Program,then... Let them? If use the traditional way, having early AM farm and a science lab is a nice boost, but cost a heavy investment in money, time and skill. Putting a science lab in jool orbit is not easy ask if you play with TAC and remote tech, accept non-bug/retardmoment related mission failures, and try to avoid kerbal deaths. And AM is worth more in a single reactor than sold in funds to buy a thousands nukes. Unless you're whackjob in career mode. And if you spend an insane amount of time and effort to get a giant AM farm to sell... back a few line above.

Theorically, we could make a cave.craft using rockshaped parts, giving it inifite weight and resistance, and leave it there. And we could let ships fly inside it, settle a whole base even, attached to the ceiling using claws and/or KAS. We even already have proceduraly generated asteroids, and since it's not supposed to move we could have similar proceduraly generated ground features. So that's definitely not an engine limitation... And I would go as far as saying it wouldn't even be that hard to do. Now, the devs might have better thing to do... But while my knowledge of unity modding is null, I saw what have been done with Better Atmosphere, the cloud mod, planetary factory, RSS... So maybe that could give ideas to the mod community? EDIT: Thinking about it, I think that have already been done. I remember a guy making a mod that replaced the launchpad with an underground ICBM launch base, with underground bunker accessible by walking, rovering, and obviously rocket...

What happened to the TreeEdit project? I'd like to do a some Tech Tree Editing, but have no idea where to start.

I have a pretty neat design of automated rescue/one man transport vehicles. Basically an ICBM guided by a probe core and a kerbal instead of the warhead.