Lupi

That's not a solution to the problem I presented. I like the yellow line, I just feel that two of them on the RT-10 is a bit ugly! They're good, but they're too much of a good... and they're monoprop color, which could be confusing to players.

I'm of the mind that nothing's complete until it's shipped, and in kerbal's case, until several hotfixes and updates have fixed the bugs it shipped with. Completed in theory, but no plan survives first contact with the objective. Female kerbals were "complete" in 1.0... except for that "funny" ragdoll glitch. Fairings were "complete" in 1.0 as well, except they just got redone a little in 1.4.

Personally, i think repeating the yellow stripe twice on the Hammer is weird. I get it's probably to use as few textures as possible, but can we perhaps see what it looks like with one less stripe, maybe the top one? Maybe we could just make the stripes narrower, and like MOARdV says below, toy with the color.

What, you're *not* supposed to do that? Also, the striping thing is alright, except when it isn't. The jumbo-64s texture is/was wrapped funny for a while: Here's more of that jool probe, it turned out pretty nice.

Oh, I know! I do it myself a ton! I was more specifically talking about that more dense checkering, with little squares instead of big rectangles! Maybe it would look good on the shortest 1.25m tank. I'm super down for a Fl-t400 with the diagonal stripes though

If you guys would like to show your support for the changes I suggested above , I've just logged them on the bugtracker. Vote, and add further suggestions in the comments if you can think of any! https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/19480

The level of high-contrast detail on them is a bit much; if we're trying to get away from that with the existing 1.25m tanks, let's go the full way.

I personally think that the tanks there are a bit too same-y with everything else. I'm getting tired of the 4-stripe thing being the only option. I really did like the simple whiter texture on the Making History 1.875m tanks; perhaps we could go from there and take inspiration from things like the Redstone, Juno, and other early rockets. Like that smaller band of checkering, the massive whitespace, and those diagonal stripes. I personally think that would be a lot nicer than what you've shown for the current texture, and would make sense for the 1.25m tanks. They're early tanks for early rockets, sorta, so why not take inspiration?

Something the devs did under the hood broke my mission. It has taken me 3 days to fix it. I go to submit it, it uploads a duplicate instead of merging. I would really like to know how to fix this.

If anyone cares, the whole company imploded. Coming from one of the employees, Summer, it was never anything more than 3d models and optimism. He moved on to other things, like buttering up the Corridor Digital guys into using "his" (disputed) models for that scale of spacex rocket video

using -popupwindow in the launch options will do this. WHether you're doing it from steam, from a window shortcut to the exe, whatever.

It looks like it might be a timing issue on your part? the inclination is the same, the LAN is just off. I'm not sure, didn't see that in any of my testing.

Oh cool, Mission of the Week! Please let me know if it's buggy or broken, i haven't tried it in 1.4.3. I thought i fixed everything, but you never know. Also, I'm considering doing another mission in this vein. Polar once around spy-satellite launch mission with a space shuttle, where you land at Dessert. Thoughts?

Yeah, I got a crash course in that over the past few months of havin' to help out.

In my experience, not very good at marking issues complete sometimes, but that doesn't mean they're unseen. There were a lot of things I reported/left as feedback that I saw addressed here, even though they were never updated on the bugtracker past being a "new" issue.

The tracker makes it extremely easy for developers to track issues, it's an all-in-one stop for them where they can prod at things with an easy list. It's worth getting over the initial disdain for it.

End nodes aren't their own kind of node, any node can be an end node. You have to click the final node(s) in your mission, and on the pane in the right, check the box that says "end node." Then, in the "mission end" dropdown in that same pane to add flavor-text for the end or whatever. You can set up trophies and stuff in the Briefing panel, as well.

Kerbal Space Program/Missions. I believe if you put the zip there, the game auto-unpacks it, but i could be wrong.

Same, actually. If you look at my mission file in the editor, you'll note that only one of the ships is tracked after docking. No matter what I do, my Soyuz craft loses tracking. I worked around this by having it the game look for any vessel, putting faith in the player not to go for a splashdown if they wanted bonus points, making the landing just a style-points deal. If that fails, the mission progresses through crew recovery.

If this is based on the early build I gave you, I rebuilt it since then! I'm tryin' to see if google's caption translate is any good so I can give feedback! it's getting every third or fourth word. (at best) That staging was intentional, as Soyuz hot-stages (it fires the upper stage engine before the main stage is finished. It's why there's a heatshield). Also, as you saw, the launch escape tower fires after the fairing separation because it glitches otherwise. It starts at night because I had the orbital parameters figured out for the exact beginning of time, which unfortunately has Woomerang in shadow. If i were to rebuild the mission again, i would change that, but at this point, I just want to be done with it. It was quite entertaining trying to figure out what you were trying to do, lol.

If my mission file can help you dissect what the mission builder does, feel free to make full use of it! I think it would be wise to keep with exported missions, and let people just comment their scores either on the post, or on the forum thread for said mission. Maybe down the line, a "submit score" option for registered users on the mission's page, where you submit your final persistent.sfs after hitting 'save and quit"

The gear action group is just to remind you so you don't somehow lose power. They're both chock full of batteries, so that shouldn't happen, but G deploys antennas, fuel cells, and solar panels for the craft.. It's very good to know this mission completes for others, even if the scoring for orbits isn't quite behaving yet.

I built a Saturn IB and a Soyuz-U for my Apollo-Soyuz Test Project mission:

The part names give their sizes, as like 6, 12, 18, 25, 37, 50. Also, decouplers are yellow striped on the inside, and stack separators are just grey

Anything docked to a node is a test that will be run when that node is fired. I've actually got an example I can share, from my mission: You'll have to open it in a new tab to see it readably, but look at "OKTP Docking" where it has 6 nodes docked to it Those 6 nodes are each testing vessel mass, because I provided both ships for my mission so I can figure out how much fuel you used. As it stands, the first node that qualifies will be the one the mission proceeds through, so you have to start with the very stringent tests before moving down to more forgiving ones. As such, i'm testing first to see if the player is overweight (ie, docked while attached to an upper stage), then testing for 0.5%, 1%, 2.5%, 5%, and 10% fuel use in that order. When one of those applies, it proceeds to apply a score (or lack thereof), and goes to the next node. That's just an always-true node, with speed challenges docked to it the same way. That one's testing for"gametime between the liftoff of the second rocket and docking, in a similar order. 30 minutes, 45, 60, 90, 120. More simply, you can use 'test accuracy' nodes to award points for getting into a good orbit, beyond what satisfies the main node. In that case, "test accuracy" operates on the remainder, so if your orbit has to be 99.5% (low kerbin orbit needs that percentage cranked way up), you can add a 50% test accuracy node and you'll get points if you're 99.55% accurate, i think that's how that works. Could be wrong.