Renegrade

Quick question: Opaki's (the largest of nuDres's muns) atmosphere - are we talking thick like Kerbin atmosphere, thick like Eve atmosphere, or thick like Venus atmosphere?

I did once read about some type of rocket engine that uses the atmosphere as additional reaction mass (not for combustion, ie not a SABRE). Not quite the same thing but it would have a similar effect, possibly. I can't recall if it was a workable concept or not though.

Well, worst case scenario is try, try again heh. @DChurchill's suggestion about girders sounds good, and I'm currently trying out cubic octags as legs in my stock game for other destinations. (landing legs cause phantom forces at times, which can de-orbit large stations and such. Not very fun!) Anyhow I look forward to the release of your Dres. I find myself thinking of different lander designs and things to do, which tells me that it's already moved up in my "interesting places" list. Maybe even to the top.

Is that enough power to run all of that?

One thing I haven't checked recently about ground bases: In older versions of KSP, having non-leg/wheel components touching the ground would every so often result in a part "clipping" into the ground and exploding upon loading/entering the active physics area. The old legs weren't exactly solid parts and tended to avoid this issue. Is this still a thing?

Ike. Or perhaps the new and improved Dres, which doesn't suck (unlike the stock Dres):

Uh, y'know, you could just consider that "deleting" the vessel is simply removing it from being actively tracked. Also, the game WILL eventually delete debris unless you set it to 'unlimited' for debris count (very, very strongly dis-recommended).... also I wouldn't worry so much about realism when you can very well have some bit of debris eternally orbiting Kerbin with a PE of 30km, never experiencing any drag even though it should be turning into a ball of expanding plasma at that point..

Well, having a direct control over the destination would be nice (ex. Duna vs Minmus), and I suspect that they're a bit non-specific (ex. I absolutely loathe the "return with space junk" or "rescue and return with space junk" claw missions, but I like the "rescue from orbit/surface" missions, even if they are kinda weird thematically. The moment I unlock the claw, I get bombarded with the rescue and return missions, since I almost always take every rescue mission, and they seem to be considered the same). Also there's a bit of "fighting the last war" going on there - I'm rather lukewarm about tourist and part testing missions, but they're amongst the first to show up in a new career, so I do take a lot of 'em, not because I want to do them specifically, but just to get the funds rolling, and it takes a while for 'em to stop showing up all the time. I'd like to see the station/base building stuff expanded too - I think we're missing opportunities there, especially for smaller expansions. Of course a lot of that would be even more cool with a stockified KIS/KAS system, but that's a completely different issue. The existing missions are nice (and contributes to an 'alive' feeling of the universe) but it always seems to involve fairly hefty expansions. Adding a handful of science doodads or such to a station/base would be nice, or perhaps something simulating an inter-station/base ferry like a small dockable craft or rover.. (Also if you see whoever put the Sr. Docking Port in T9, give them a swift kick in the butt for me, would you?) (Don't get me wrong, I like what we have currently, and it's constantly getting better, but I just think it could do with some filling out before being called "1.0"/release)

There were prior unity updates that didn't involve any big jumps though. Unity 4 was introduced with KSP 0.18 for example, updating from 0.17... That goes against my own preferences too, but, well.. Squad decided to let that pass unmarked. However, if I did mark such changes, it's the next number up that would be updated, I wouldn't skip numbers in sequence. ie, that would be more like 3.8.2 becoming 4.0.0 instead of 3.12.0.

I haven't had any issues lately with landing struts breaking. They did in prior versions though. My problems with 'em in 1.1.2 usually involve phantom forces / k-drive effects.

I respectfully agree with your disagreement; what you said below makes plenty of sense. My internal version number for this is approximately 0.28.2 heh To me, we're still in Early Access/alpha. Er, you mean what Squad will call 1.2? I'd just call that 0.29 personally, unless there's a lot more refinement. There's quite a few things missing in my opinion. The parts seem like there's some holes in the list (plus a lot of costs feel like placeholders still), the system feels kinda..unfinished to me, and lacking in detail. I think the adaptive contracts could be greatly enhanced, and the science tree is just .. insane. I could go on, but it would turn into a wall of text of terrifying degree.

You couldn't DRAG me back away from the RCS, performance, and UI improvements. 1.0.5 can die in a fire - it has no BTSM (that's 1.0.4) and is chug-city. On the other hand, I really do think we should still be in Pre-Release mode for 1.1 right now. It was definitely premature. I'm currently building my landers without legs as they experience phantom forces (significant ones) at certain times if they have legs. Engine bells and cubic octag feet for teh win! (also I liked Pre-Release, aside from the delivery platform goof-up) These parts are true. You can, however, rename craft in the save file via some judicious save editing. Also, flags can still be renamed via the tracking center (as well as EVA kerbals).

I, for one, welcome our new high-grav overlord! I'm quite interested.

That's one of the possibilities I was hoping for I'll definitely be checking your Dres mod out when it's ready. I'm more interested in that than most places around Jool now. I'd say about 4400 overall if it's a vacuum world, given radius=950000 and mass=2.6523e+23 -ish. Tylo is like 2239-ish and (airless) Eve 3637-ish by comparison. I've heard that Eve is still like 8k or something crazy with the atmosphere present, and it's going to severely restrict your choice of engines to ones that can work at 5+ bar. My concern for "Dres2" would center more around "would landing legs work here?".

See? There you go, that's a lot less boring than current Dres. Although...also quite scary. One thing you might want to keep in mind during system construction is that there's kinda a dearth in planets in the 0.4 to 0.6g range (moho/duna/classic dres are like ~0.3g, tylo/lathe are 0.785g).

No Onedrive here, but I don't get frequent CTDs either. They do happen, but are very rare (like, once every hundred hours on average). Usually involving staging, loading a ship to launchpad, and once in the editor. One thing I'd check for anybody with frequent CTDs is the typical system upkeep stuff like drivers. Video, sound, and input being particularly suspicious for game issues. One caveat though: a more "up to date" driver isn't necessarily better. The Big Two video guys tend to crap out drivers that get worse with every version. I'm running nVidia drivers 358.50 - the current is 365.10, but some of the drivers after 358.50 are bad enough to cause hardware failure. Also, back when the 320-series drivers were released, I got frequent SYSTEM reboots until I rolled back to 314. The issue was resolved sometime after the 320s (long before 358.50). It's thusly important to do a little research when dealing with drivers these days.. you don't want one with a bad reputation, especially if it's causing trouble for Unity-based games.

As a workaround, you could delete them. Inactive vessels are still updated, and consume system resources. Not an enormous amount of resources of course (much less than the active craft.. much, much less), but it's still a non-zero drain. Deleting the vessels clears away this drain. The only advantage to keeping 'em is the potential of being Kessler'd by one...

NB: Docking ports also exist as a controllable point and require no power. And can dock. Some of my docking craft actually have the ports in the bottom (that's a workaround for having a centered goo on the top, or an EAS "craft", etc).. I just 'control from here' the port and dock away happily, without having to worry about drivin' backwards. I'm not sure how they compare to actual probe cores in terms of aero.. but they do have another advantage: they can be surface mounted directly. Well, except the big one. Also the Jr. port is fairly early, around the tier of the original octo.

Oh oops, that's a good point. I do hope renaming flags eventually does come back, as I do make that mistake still and usually fix it via the tracking center.. By the way, kudos on the U4->U5 upgrade. I know how much work it can be and how many issues can crop up from going from one major API/library/middleware/whatever to another. There's been some bumps and are still some outstanding issues (argh physx integrator issue!), but it's been much smoother than I expected.

I accidentally made a sub-surface rover earlier. It was supposed to test something splashed (possibly the rover wheels), but the rover, constructed mostly of girders, wheels, and a few batteries, sank like a stone. I explored underwater for quite some time. I updated the design to have an empty FL-T200 tank as a flotation device, and it floated that time and let me complete the contract. It was an interesting experience.

Uhoh..renaming flags is a bad idea? :S I tend to call flags "Mun <biome>" instead of "<actual celestial body> <biome>". Bad habit from when the Mun was the only extra-kerbin place with biomes "Mun Greater Flats"... oops

^ this is the one thing that alarmed me. I was really enjoying the pre-release process (leaving aside the "one CDN platform" issue, and it sounds like from the recent devlogs that that won't be a problem next time), and I feel like Squad and the 'kommunity' were making good progress, and I don't understand why it was broken off suddenly and release was rushed out the door. You're doing that wisdom thing again!

Don't worry, I don't think they would intentionally remove it unless they had no other choice. It's probably related to the change that prevents EVA Kerbals from being renamed. (Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by BUGS EVERYWHERE;lkdjsafjdsfkajd)

Hmm, I haven't tried reloading, although I did notice it wasn't quite as bad when I first enter the scene. Landing, returning, and re-docking does tend to provoke it more violently. My landers are limited to micro-struts and docking jrs due to the 20% progression I've got on the save (mmm grindy). I want to set up some test cases in a pure stock install, but running out of energy for tonight (it's like 3am here..). Bug http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/9619 is probably related.

Yep, my lightweight-ish stations in my "Eleventy Hard" save are definitely seeing a similar effect around Mun and Minmus. it's actually dangerous for the Mun station. (as per below) Er um, you mean this bit? Not sure about 1.1 (it SEEMED okay), but re-creating my mini-stations in 1.0.5 did not show the same crazy levels of acceleration as 1.1.1. My bitty Minmus station only gets about 0.03-0.05m/s^2 accel tops, but my larger Mun research station can reach accelerations up to 0.15m/s^2, which is more than enough to drop the PE below terrain collision level while I load up the (op~) MPL with a handful of results. It might be some weird interaction with the landing struts, as was suggested in the 1.1.2 thread by another user (the station doesn't fly off when it's not docked with a lander, and those all have landing struts) Other than that though, 1.1.2 has been stable for me, and the gear seems to be behaving better, and I do like the new sliders for wheels (although it would also be nice if those were available "in flight" as it were..)