Madrias

Well, if you're willing to take design ideas from someone who has no idea of whether it's practical or not, I can give a few pointers from what I knew of the DSR we had. First, the cab end. I like the pointy shape, I get the practicality of it (the reason I like it, as it's function over form) but at the same time, I always felt it looked a bit odd having all that frontal space and only one Kerbal up front. If it were to be changed at all, I'd mostly want to have it internally reconfigured for a driver/navigator pairing up front. The driver should have as much an unobstructed view of the terrain as possible, while still giving the necessary gauges for basic navigation (speed, compass, altitude) and possibly one or two of those RPM screens. (Although I like having mechanical backups because I hate losing my nav data because I ran out of electricity. The navigator, however, should have multiple RPM screens, at least enough for the navball, resources, ScanSat navigation map data, and possibly Vessel View (or whatever it's called. I don't have it installed in my 1.0.5 install, but I've wanted it because it'd allow for a more sci-fi 'What just exploded' moment when driving from the cab.) At the same time, the Navigator should also be equipped with basic gauges. Between the Driver / Navigator should be a command panel, essentially with action group toggles, throttle, and anything not deemed immediately essential to driving or navigating. Honestly, the cab design doesn't really bother me too much externally, because it is function over form. It offers a large field of view around the front of the vehicle. Now, I'd like to see the modularity pick up here by only having the one cab unit, capable of holding 4 kerbals, with an expansion platform behind the cab. (It's the one that used to hold 3, but I'm pairing driver / navigator and also requesting enough room for an on-board change-over team. I think the 3 seater used to be the Cargo hull, I'd want it to be main) This will be called the A-Unit. Yes, there's significance to the train terminology here. The A-Unit should have enough room for one Module. We'd then need a second part, the B-Unit, which shares the same chassis length as the A-unit. (Note, the A unit should have enough room for a solitary module. The B-unit should have enough room for a module and a half, so by chassis length, I'm referring from nose to tail of the A-unit, not just the part everyone mounts tracks to) This B-Unit has enough room for a module and a half-sized module, offers no onboard driving systems, and just contains fuel and a battery, along with mounting points. So, what are the Modules? They're like the current Science Pod and Cargo Bay. The Science Pod should stay intact as it is, it worked well, although I think it needs more internal clutter, personally. The Cargo Bay needs a little modification, as currently, it's just a gigantic KAS/KIS storage box. I'd vote to keep that functionality, but also add some cargo bay doors (I can't believe I just discovered the DSR-3's cargo pod does actually have these!) to allow us to make a science bay where we put things that don't fit in with the main unit's theme. At the same time, we've removed the old Bus styled DSR, so we now need a Crew Pod. The old DSR-3 held 9 kerbals, let's fit 8-10 in the crew pod to give a full exploration team. Now, these are all Full-Size modules, they all take up a standard Module spot. Half-Size modules would be a Half-Size Cargo Bay, a Crew Pod with 4 Kerbals in it, a Mining Module, an ISRU module, and the Power Generation module. Power Generation, I think should be done as a multi-part-in-one kind of thing. I've always felt the DSR series is kinda that rover you get to once you've unlocked the mining and processing stuff, and you've got all the survivability things needed to make it practical. Power Generation should have some rooftop mounted solar panels (backup emergency power), some sort of main fuel cell (much like the ones we have, but more powerful, some sort of engine-generator (runs with Liquid Fuel and Air), and maybe a backup fuel cell that can run on monopropellant? Mining should contain the necessary drills and ore capacity, as well as all the necessary sensors for mining. It should also have its own radiators or active cooling. ISRU should contain, as expected, all the ore-reprocessing capabilities, allowing the DSR to be completely self-sufficient given a location with ore and the fact that the DSR should be able to keep moving as long as power isn't completely depleted. Now, I feel that the DSR is one of those rovers that was great when it started, and could get better if it had a few extra features. Which is why I mentioned what I did, because they were things I've come up with, but have no ability to do, to improve the DSR-series of rovers. Basically, in a nutshell: -DSR main unit is the Cargo cab, with 4 pilot capacity instead of 3. Vehicle may need to become slightly bigger to allow this. Alternatively, 3 pilot capacity maintained, but with increased use of RPM screens. -DSR components placed as specifically-sized modules allowing for more mission-based customization of the rover. -Amphibious water drive would be perfect to round out the new A-Unit vehicle end. -B-Unit trailer using attachment nodes for either Kerbal Foundries hitch, Infernal Robotics free-moving hinges, or direct connection. -Power Generation unit capable of extending the drive-time of the DSR through conventional means, without resorting to nuclear power. -Mining and reprocessing as modules to allow near-limitless drive time when combined with power unit. I know, I'm long-winded at the best of times, but I really do like the DSR series of rovers. I'd just like to see a few things added and tweaked on it to make it up-to-date with KSP's more modern version.

I'm glad to hear these will make a return! The Rollcage is, from what I remember, excellent for making seat-of-the-pants flyers, and the DSR was awesome, although I did dislike that there wasn't enough stuff to run along with it. I could build the base vehicle or the science vehicle, but that was it. If it's not too much to ask regarding the DSR, could we perhaps see a couple different main-unit configurations, and possibly a trailer unit that could be set up with DSR-styled parts for power generation and science bay? I know the tracks and wheels have to come first, and I know that the DSR is... well, it's very detailed and an awesome design, which means adapting any ideas I've just come up with is likely to be difficult. I'd just love to finally be able to drive the DSR, with science and power generation unit, as my "Let's drive around Kerbin" vehicle. Which, I suppose, means that it'll have to float, and that I'll have to find some way to deal with water propulsion, but that shouldn't be too hard once we have tracks.

I could come up with the date with a couple calendars and a cannon... But otherwise, the ETA is "When it gets here."

If the Kerbals didn't want things to explode, why did they build everything out of Explodium? After all, exceeding impact tolerances doesn't result in a crumpled tin can, it results in a Kerbin-Shattering Kaboom.

Microwaved popcorn is... Well, let's just say I don't eat it. I've been doing stove-popped lately, and can't get enough of it. As for the wheels, I'm just keeping relaxed on this. I'm in no great hurry.

The generator's actually fairly easy to put in the vehicles, it's just another generator module, with the output resource set to LiquidFuel, and the amount generated set (in my setup) to 1/2 of the amount needed for the Engine to work. I'm actually really liking these new wheels and vehicles. The roll torque is just about perfect, and while I've beached a couple vehicles (I've learned not to drive slowly over sharp changes in terrain, as it's very easy to high-center a lot of different vehicles that way), I've yet to have one land on the roof and be undrivable. Usually, I take the fun little tumble down a hill, end up on the roof, and hold Q or E until I roll onto the wheels. Haven't tested the Atom yet, but it looks like fun. A little EVA seat road rocket. Actually glad to see essentially what makes a pre-built rover in this. After all, your wheels seem to do well on a lot of different terrain, so one of the things in the back of my mind is to go drive an Atom around the Mün at some point. The other thing I really want to do is off-roading on Eve.

How have I not been using this for all this time!? I've always wanted cars, real cars, in KSP. Plus, these work okay with the new wheel physics, at least, better than expected. Most everything else I've tried either bounces around like crazy, rolls at the first sign of a corner, or proceeds to flip out and explode at the slightest hint of a bump. Plus, you have a patch (can't call it a fix, though I'd love to) for the unnecessary "wheel blocked" crap. I have made a slight adjustment for personal use, and that's to put in a generator that constantly replenishes liquid fuel... at a rate much slower than the engines consume it. Means I can drive further for longer, because the only thing I have to do is shut the engine off, park a while, and 'gas up' my car or truck. Actually been enjoying this so far. It's nice having cars to wander around Kerbin, especially with Kerbal Konstructs and Kerbinside giving me places to actually drive around and drive to. Also, I like that (at least the truck, from the number of times I've used it) the vehicles have just enough reaction wheel torque to pull a gentle, lazy roll back to their wheels. Makes things much easier when I've pulled an oops and sent the truck tumbling down yet-another-hill. Also liking the fact that while the wheels do occasionally break (I've done some stupid things in these so far, including driving way-too-fast offroad), they aren't exactly difficult to fix. They don't pull the whole little "Leap 10 feet in the air on Kerbin, then pancake and break all the wheels again" thing like wheels used to do in pre-1.1 versions. (I suppose that's one good thing about the new wheel system, I guess.)

I'm actually starting to get excited here.

How did... Never mind. An off-the-wall comment made when I was dead tired inspired an idea. I'm not even sure I want to take credit for making driving places even harder than it already is... Well, maybe if, and this is a really big if, we get some high-grip wheels/tracks to counteract the lack of traction later on, I'd accept some credit for the accidental idea. Obviously, the big focus is repairing the wheel colliders before anyone even thinks of grip adjustments and tracks/wheels with extra grip (like little spikes on old-school snow tires) to counter the slicker surfaces. Though I can think of a perfect balance for using high-grip tracks or wheels: They're 50% slower. Which one becomes more important when exploring an unknown world: Speed, or Grip? And before anyone goes to slap me with a fish, I know that the repairs to the wheel colliders come first. And I've got a mean swing and a shark to hit back with.

And they're doing so on rollerblades.

I know. KSK mentioned the Mac version above, I offered a Windows alternative that works in the event of not having a Mac.

Well, another decent thing to consider, if you need to write about the Mün, is that alt-codes work, too. At least, they worked for me.

That does sound a bit interesting. Essentially active suspension, always strong enough to hold the weight we're building onto the vehicle we've made, if I've interpreted that correctly? Yes, I know, I'm trying to simplify programming to an engineering side to view it as I can see it (I do know a little programming, though only in BASIC, and even at that, it was a while ago) and actually understand it. Still, it sounds like there's a prototype you guys are working with, and that's good to hear that it appears to work. Either way, it's good to see a bit of progress.

Thanks for volunteering to get right on that! Means we can expect this from you in, say, 3 days time?

While you weren't the first to bring us tracks, you brought tracks that were highly reliable, screw-drives that work in water, anti-lithobraking devices that allowed us to float a few meters above the surface and travel at obscene speeds, and a variety of wheels that never gave up and never surrendered, no matter what we made them move. I'm hardly surprised it became so popular.

Possibly treat it as a structural failure? Same as if the part was destroyed by overheating, essentially. I don't know code, so I don't know exactly how difficult it would be to do, but basically having the 'missing' parts go missing when the ship's loaded. Means if you planned far enough ahead, you might be able to save the Kerbals, and if you didn't, you've got a ship dead in the water that looks like it was used as kraken bait.

Pay 10,000 funds to unlock your 10 action groups for 1 month. Pay 500 funds to revert flight to Launch. Pay 1000 funds to revert to VAB/SPH. Feeling broke? Buy 20,000 funds for only $19.99! Oops, you killed a Kerbal? Say goodbye to 30,000 funds. Buy Kerbal Life Insurance for 40,000 funds and not have to worry for a whole month about accidents! Sorry, but you'll need to pay extra for those nuclear engines and RTG's. Need more science? Pay 10,000 funds and receive a month's worth of Double Science! Triple your reliability by funding your scientists. Only 30,000 funds to stop rocket explosions for a month. Otherwise, expect random failures on a 1-in-10 chance. While your game is loading, we're gonna make you watch ads in 1 minute intervals. If your game takes 1 minute and 1 second to load normally, you'll get two unskippable 1 minute ads. Every time you get a loading screen, expect the same thing. These ads will be totally irrelevant to your content and may get you weird looks from those who hear them playing. They'll start at MAXIMUM VOLUME and cannot be muted or turned down. Want the ads to go away? $19.95 and they're gone... For this month. Enjoy. (I tried to go more the freemium route. Everything's obtainable provided you're good enough and willing to put in the grind. At the same time, there's annoyances you'll have to put up with along the way, and incentives to buy stuff.)

Force field, perhaps? Allow the natural light to flood in, save on power generation requirements because they have to run the field anyway?

The runway explodes under the weight of your SSTO. Your aircraft starts tap-dancing down the runway because the gear aren't aligned properly. You're playing an older version (0.90 or earlier) and used a few too many control surfaces. You've used Ant or Dawn engines to try getting your cargo plane in the air. You've used a Rockomax Mainsail on your light sport plane. The aircraft you're flying needs those Thumper solid rocket motors for additional takeoff thrust.

Sounds like the Titanium needs to be given an unsavory nickname like "widowmaker" "Grim Reaper" or "Death From Above" given how many things can go wrong and cause instant death. Still, those are the most fun crafts to fly, so I don't blame you.

I use a lot of z-100's, because stuffing them inside of a Structural Fuselage just makes sense. Cap the other end with a few RTG's and you've got a tube full of power. The ones I hate the most... I'll have to go for the z-400. It's big and bulky, and doesn't fit nicely anywhere. It also doesn't have any redeeming functions, like the tiny alignment lights on the z-100, or being stack-capable like the others. So it realistically just takes up a stupid amount of space, and if I'm going to waste space exposed space on batteries, I'll tweak-scale the z-100.

That actually works!? I'll have to consider it for other craft I typically use, but consider that one written down. Cargo Ramp as Airbrake. I suppose the only thing I can mention is that I like placing things like RTG's and batteries clipped inside the Structural Fuselage (MK1) because it de-clutters the ship and makes sense. It is, after all, a big hollow tube. I've got one or two saved as sub-assemblies that can just be picked up and attached on the fly, containing a number of RTG's and a number of batteries. (For example, a Power Tube with 8 RTG's and 4 batteries with 100 charge each is a PT 8-400. A power tube with 4 RTG's and 1600 EC total is a PT 4-1600. If I ever make one that exceeds 10,000 EC, it'll be a PT x-10k (or equivalent charge rating) because I try to keep subassemblies from being cluttered) Another thing I used to do, before the 1.1 updates, was trying to build rovers into the service bays. Took lots of mods, but I had one or two self-contained folding rovers that could stack-detach from under my landing craft and slowly wander around a planet.

I never thought of that! Now I'm gonna have to start doing that because I've had my share of running out of action groups because of those bloody chutes.

I've got a save somewhere that has a couple asteroids floating around in parking orbits, but not as fuel stations. I was trying to smash a couple big space rocks together, but never got around to finishing orbital corrections to actually put them on proper collision courses.

Shallow descent angle, heat shields if they're necessary, and drogue chutes help for early deceleration. Main chutes to slow down, and I like to configure mine for sequential deployment (groups of two, firing at 1000, 600, 400, and 100 meters above ground level) to ease deceleration forces so I don't break stuff quite as easily. Shed as much weight as you can early, especially if you can do so while shedding speed (burning off your fuel on reentry approach) because the more mass you carry with you, the more heat you'll experience, which puts you in more danger. Now is the perfect time to dump any unnecessary stages you're carrying, because you're coming down for a landing. On a less serious note, I prefer landing probes with aggressive lithobraking after they've served their usefulness, beamed their useful data across, been undocked from their science package, which was placed onboard a crewed lander, and been docked back to their main drive unit. (Yes, a lot of my probes actually have 3 probe cores. What can I say, I like having the knowledge that if something terrible happens to the lead core, I've got two chances more to make it back with the precious data. That, and transferring a probe-cored science package around just seems much cooler than trying to stow an entire probe onboard a ship, and this way I get to watch at least one thing explode per mission.) As for spaceplanes, keep your nose high, face your underside into the heat, and hope for the best. Remember, there is no shame in using high-altitude drogue chutes and an action group to cut them free. There's also no shame in having emergency parachutes in the event you're trying to land somewhere that otherwise looks like it might break your plane.