Boomerang

Thanks for the quick feedback! Though it sounds like it'll be back to renaming parts in the cfg and the like in order to sort things more specifically.

So for all the people around here who've obviously delved into the mechanics of the new parts lists, is this the most straightforward way we've got to arrange parts now? Pre-.90, there was mod called PartArranger that allowed you to reorganize parts within the old tabs while in the editors. It would save any changes to a text file and then load the parts lists off that. I'd love to have something like that for the current version, but it seems like this is the only real game in town now for an organizational mod.

Just one more person who'll be very glad to pick the Mark IV parts up again whenever they're ready. Awesome parts

What I imagine happening is that you haven't been focused on that craft for those 13 days. So long as your periapsis is above something like 25-30km and you're focused on another craft or in the tracking station, the craft will be 'on rails' and atmospheric drag won't be calculated. If you go to your sub-orbital craft and time warp, then each time you pass through the atmosphere around the periapsis, you'll notice your apoapsis drop due to drag and eventually the orbit will decay to the point that the craft crashes/burns up in reentry. This is done so that the game isn't forced to do active physics calculations on -every- craft that you have floating around the system. Edit - Also, at 66km, the atmosphere is going to be -very- thin and you're going to be traveling at quite a clip with that high of an apoapsis, so it will take quite a while for your orbit to decay significantly -if- you're even focused on it.

Purpose-built radiators would be nice as well, even if it's just a small fixed one and one or two expanding ones.

Never bothered, text posts suit me just fine.

The best aerobraking altitude depends on your incoming velocity, your desired altitude after aerobraking, etc. This calculator gives pretty good results though: http://alterbaron.github.io/ksp_aerocalc/ Never hurts to quicksave first through and I very much doubt that the calculator will be any use with the upcoming aero model, but you're good for now.

I'll second/third/x the notion of a middle finger for DLC. Especially for a game like KSP, unless they're going to lock out mods some how, I just can't see the appeal of paying for more planets or something when you can get the same thing from a mod for free.

I might use them, if they were designed in anything like an ergonomic fashion. Mostly I just miss PartArranger, that let me order my parts as I liked, within each catagory, sans the blockyness of the custom editor menus.

Someone made a simple plugin that follows through on Squad's original idea: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94396-0-24-2-EvaFuel-0-0-1 That's what I think about MP in pods, anyway. And it works fine in both .25 and .90

Also, while you're setting up your action groups, click on the 'Lights' category. All the lights that would normally be toggle on/off by the U key will be there. You just have to click their name in the left hand column to remove them from that list. So, for example, you can bind engine A and its corresponding indicator lights to the 5 key, remove those indicator lights from the 'Light' category, and you should be good to go. This also works for wheels whose brakes you don't want activated by the B key (to prevent flipping), etc.

As others have mentioned, there have been plenty of subtle tweaks to parts between versions. If you haven't already, flick on your CoM and CoL markers and check your rear landing gear position with relation to them. Could be that some masses have changed and your gear placement is now hindering, rather than helping your takeoff.

http://xkcd.com/1425/ The idea is fine, but unless you've got a decent notion of how such a thing might be implemented, you're better off not implying that it would be simple to do. It's a good way to rub people the wrong way, including the people who might take a look at ideas like this and try their hand at it.

Have the tanks oriented so that the long axis is vertical, then hold down your Alt key while positioning them. That'll force node attachment only and avoid the weird surface attach features that happen when you try to cluster things so closely like that.

I'll second the notion of getting Squad to pony up for the hiring of at least one modeller of Bac9's talent. As well as sorting out whatever in-house system they have (or don't) for making sure that the art is reasonably consistent and of a decent quality throughout. What we've got now isn't awful, it's not game-ruining, but it feels like we're looking at the result of a college-level group project for graphic design students. It's not bad, but some bits don't mesh well and it's not of a professional quality. And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect better than that. Even if they're placeholders, design them well.

It's nice to see at least some people backing off the rhetoric a bit. We're not arguing over whether something ought to be red or blue, but rather whether it ought to be sky blue or more of a teal. Personally, I think it's fair and reasonable to expect an upgrade to how things work without approaching FAR/NEAR levels of difficulty. I realize that either of those are a must-have for many people, but the Mach effects of FAR and the lack of predictive data in NEAR would both make building anything more than basic planes more difficult that Squad has meant them to be.

Maybe it's something I'm doing wrong, but the last couple versions of this I've downloaded don't seem to contain all the folders that the first couple did. Upon unzipping it, all I get is a folder titled Filter.Extensions-1-x. None of the icons and definitions and such like before. And when I drop that folder into Gamedata I'm not seeing the new categories in the editors. Let me know what I'm doing wrong?

It would have to be an opt-in difficulty option. RemoteTech is one of my absolute go-to mods. I love it. But I also wouldn't wish it on someone who's entirely new to the game. I'd hate to see someone playing around with a probe for the first time, only to lose control when it disappears over the horizon from KSC. It adds plenty to the game, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that having to worry about comms on top of everything else is too much for beginners. So now you've only got people playing on higher difficulty settings using the feature. And considering all of the wrangling and perpetual bugginess that RemoteTech has required from it's authors over the years, I have to imagine that implementing a stock-quality version of it would be highly time and effort intensive. All for a feature that plenty of people would end up avoiding entirely. Keep it to a mod. People who want it will find it easily enough when they've mastered the basics and are ready to take on additional challenges in their game.

As someone who's toyed around with FAR and NEAR both and ultimately stuck with the stock aero model, I'd like to see: -Drag shielding on parts within cargo bays, perhaps on parts completely within the collision box of other parts as well -For shape to matter when it comes to drag. Broad rockets don't need to be impossible, but nosecones should be beneficial and awkward pancakes should behave, well, much more awkwardly -To have a reasonably calculated center of drag, as well as an indicator for it in the editors, a la the CoM/CoL/CoT As far as atmospheric density goes, if it's a choice between the 'soup-o-sphere' of stock or the thinness of FAR, I'd rather they stick with the former. While not terribly realistic as-is, I feel like greatly reducing the atmospheric density would require a boat-load of balancing to be done to the game across the board, in order to keep stock about as challenging as it is now. That means looking into nerfing all engines, probably reworking the scale height of the atmosphere, and seriously considering how practical we want spaceplanes to be. Most people are going to seriously struggle building SSTO spaceplanes if you take them out of the stock atmo and drop them into something like NEAR. That being said, if there's an option to mildly reduce the atmospheric density without hugely changing flight behavior and without having to rebalance most aspects of the game, then I'd be alright with that as well. Essentially, like many people, I'd like things to behave in more reasonable ways within atmospheres. However, this is meant to be a game, rather than a simulator. I don't think it's terribly reasonable to expect a very nearly realistic aero system when things like the sizes and densities of celestial bodies have been handwaved around so much make room for generally realistic behavior in a scaled-down system. Make the stock aero system behave more reasonably than it does now. But leave a highly-realistic system to something like RSS and the RO suite.

That's avoiding the issue though, not fixing it. Yes, there are ways around it, including going back to adjust with the rotation tool, but the problem of not being able to use the initial snap attachment is still there. It's nothing game-breaking if you figure out what the problem is, but already it looks like people are assuming that you can't attach anything to PWing parts because it's not working with snap.

Same issue here. I've avoided PWings in the past, but between larger plane parts and what a cluster the parts list has become, I finally gave in. Didn't know if being unable to snap parts to wings was intended or not.

I'm really hoping that someone reboots PartArranger or comes up with something else that lets us permanently arrange parts in their native menus, but until then, this is going to be super helpful.

Looking forward to this. PartsArranger is MIA for .90 and something like this would at least make some inroads towards cleaning up the parts list.

I'm fairly certain that the game won't start the 'life support clock' on an adrift Kerbal until you get within physics loading range. So it can be up there for a few weeks or months, however long the contract is good for. Just don't get within physics loading range and then leave the Kerbal up there without bringing it home.

I'd love to see this updated for .90. I haven't played around with it tons, but using it with .90 doesn't seem to generate a config file or anything.