Bloody_looser

Nope. There's such part over there though.

Well, body lift is bugged in 1.1.2 and it's missing actually. 200 funds is a way too large sum? IMO Mk2 short's cost is totally fine, since it sturdier, has better heat tolerance and provides lift - well, supposed to. With all that features it's just 0,04 tons heavier than mk1 - it's weight of two LV-1 engines. Everything seems balanced enough.

It provides body lift, and it is an advantage. If you look closer at the model you'll see it's mk1 tank in a structural fuselage.

You've made me question that. Moar nodes point still stands though.

@Nils277, FYI @RoverDude's Malemute rover geology lab still doesn't fit into the garage. Edit: Nevermind I screwed-up installation somehow. Also, can we have moar attachment nodes on the inside of the garage?

My belief is that it's SQUAD who defines what is stock. There're mods for pretty damn everything. And yep, they cover planned but not yet implemented features of the core game. SQUAD is really nice to us all and provides continued development. You're preaching for stopping the development right away. Or even that they should've stopped like two years ago - planes, wheels and even landing legs were once only in mods. SQUAD shouldn't have them implemented either?

That goes both ways. Opposing new features since they are 'breaking' your gameplay is exactly the same attitude. It's Squads game after all.

Oh, I remember the whine about atmospheric heating. Those were the glorious days of raging butthurt flowing through the internets. So, implementation of comms systems can have several scenarios: 1. It's too easy => whine, whine waste of development time, I'll use mod X. 2. It's too hard, with delay and occlusions => whine, whine you killed my fav game Squid! Gimme back my 5 bucks paid 4 years ago. 3. It's an official mod => whine, whine mod X is better / 'it should be stock' movement emerges 4. It's stock => whine, whine make it a mod / [combination of the first two points] Well, Squad announced it as an upcoming stock feature. It's mostly done, antennae modelled (their models have caused butthurt sparked discussion already), and the whole concept is ready. Yep, IIRC it'll be toggleable and will depend on difficulty settings. IMO it should be stock. It won't break (technically at least) any savedgames.

She's called Valentina and she's orbiting Kerbin. Oh, wait... You've overmodded. /thread

Yes I am. Recently I've been cheating on KSP with real life. It's kinda sad.

@DStaal, you've missed the part about 'the whole game-simplification'. We can imagine interchangeable heads on the same ol' drill, can't we? Drill-heads argument is valid, though it puts us on a slippery path to separate drills for various ice caps, Minmus,Duna and bodies with liquid water (though chemical composition of Laythe's oceans is a subject for another discussion). Glad to hear about OSE. Well, I totally understand your reasoning. Thank for your answer. Your drills are convenient (and damn good modelled) so packing another one is not a big deal. P.S. But ... But we do have 'one part that can do all the stuff', don't we? It's called ISRU unit. P.P.S. Great update btw. Rescaling garages is really appreciated.

Actually, no. They are exactly the same, taking in account the whole game-simplification and the fact we're in space. Whatever we're drilling into - water, rock, 'ore', ice-cream, etc - comes in a solid form. Do we really need some different head to drill through ice or through rock?

@Nils277, do you still have plans for adding parts for OSE Workshop? Also, what's the reasoning behind having different drills for ore and water?

Farewell, Felipe, and best of luck. Thank you.

Exactly. I've worked my ass off and really looking forward to a vacation in July. And I dare anyone to complain about that.

@Archgeek, I'll definitely do that.

Updated op with broken craft and the same working one.

Well, I ran further tests. Some phantom lifting force applies to SRBs sideways (and all over the place). Rebuilding exactly the same the lower stage from scratch solved the issue. So we have .craft file incompatibility there. And it's kinda not good, y'know, we're kinda in 'released' game.

Are y'all blind? SRBs are strutted on top and bottom. Thx, will provide moar info to the tracker. Like it's a bad thing. P.S. The rocket doesn't even have parts, mentioned in 1.1.1. changelog. Phantom forces are not a 'change'.

Well, I've got a really trusted rocket design. It looks like that. Now it is shaking violently right after launch and disintegrates. Yep it worked just fine in 1.1 and before. What happened? Broken craft from previous version https://www.dropbox.com/s/zg01hy15d7sk5cz/Researcher%20prot_%20early_broken.craft?dl=0 Flyable craft with lower stage rebuilt in 1.1.1. https://www.dropbox.com/s/gxct84acw13lk27/Researcher%20prot_%20early.craft?dl=0

Parts, attachable without tools (i.e. bombs and foundations) still ask for a tool and won't attach. Anyone experience the same stuff?

Navball made me suffer a lot, until I found a mod for it. Let me point you to it. P.S. And go give some rep to @sarbian for his wizardry.

It's called 'continued development' and it's a thing nowadays. 90s are long gone, when release was a 'release' - basically abandonware - and users only got a hotfix patch distributed with some gaming press (and only if they were really lucky). About SQUAD not being a game-dev company. Well, they are. Look, dunno, at Paradox and their Crusader Kings 2. It's now in 2.5.whatever version. 1.0 and this one are two different games. Yeah, and saves are not compatible across versions. At all. But Paradox distribute previous major versions via Steam's beta system, and SQUAD should also consider this IMO. So, stay cool, don't be butthurt and enjoy the calming poster. P.S. I'm too busy playing the game to whine about bugs on the internets.

That's a nice joke, sir.

It's a bad joke. I like it.