Search the Community

This is a pretty simple thread, you just talk about what you did today. It can be in games, but not ksp as there is a thread already for that. I went to our local mall because I have money from Christmas and wanted to see what I could get. I looked around, my indecisiveness led to me not getting anything. After that I looked for DnD books at a book store near us. I didn't do much else, a lot of sitting on youtube. I also have a bit of a sickness.

most of the diagnoses ive had have been of questionable quality. getting an actual psychiatrist to sign off on what you have so you can actually get services is the hard part (they will hand out meds on the spot though, treating symptoms only). you can wait six months for one appointment, and thats not enough time to get an idea for whats going on. how to fit 40 years of failure and trauma into a 30 minute session. and that's even if you are willing to talk about it with a complete stranger. still not comfortable talking about certain things with my therapist who i have been seeing for a couple years now. the word of a therapist also carries very little weight with the bureaucrats.

Including Iridium Next, New Horizons, Haven-1 and soon many more! (Check roadmap for what is coming) Join me on Discord! (DEV talk only) Tundra Exploration pics: Tundra Technologies pics: Planned features Roadmap Known issues "No tank type named 'RR_CryoMLOX' exists" means you have RR but not CRP, or you have RR, CRP, and WBI classic stock, and the WBI feature isn't working right. Make sure you have RR 1.16! Required Mods Kerbal Reusability Expansion (For the F9 legs and grid fins) B9 Part Switch (For part switching) Module manager (For all your module manager needs) Recommended Mods FreeIVA (So you can fly around inside Rodan and Gaira-1 parts! Modular Launch Pads (For those awesome towers) Waterfall (For those amazing plumes) Smokescreen (Realplume NOT required!) Flight Manager for Reusable Stages (For landing your F9 first stage) Omega482's Stockalike Structures NTR (For your Ghidorah landing needs) Basic DeltaV - Basic Orbit by DMagic (For better understanding of how much fuel you have to land all your crafts safely back) Tundra's Space Center (To launch from LC-40!) Near Future Solar (For the Solar Panel plugin if you want full 180 degree tracking) Not supported Mods Atmospheric autopilot FAR (Version 7.0 looks to perform a lot better) Beta versions on GitHub A very special thanks to @Beale, @CobaltWolf and @Nertea for the help and advise they gave me to make something awesome. And @DiscoSlelge for creating those awesome patches! And a massive thanks to @ValiZockt, @Rock3tman_, @Nessus_, @JadeOfMaar, @Starwaster, @neistridlar, @SofieBrink and @Infinite Monkeys for the help they gave me making this mod perfect! Changelog: Any of the configs are distributed under CC-NC-SA-4.0 License. All Textures/models/plugins are distributed under All Right Reserved License. SootyShaderLoader is based on the custom shader importer by shadowmage and modyfied by DMagic with custom modules and settings.

While I was walking through the National Museum of the United States Air Force last Saturday, I was reminded of all the KSP replicas of those same aircraft. Some of them looked like they can be done with pure stock parts and no DLCs, while others (mostly the older ones) need mods that come with more parts. So, I started this thread for everyone to showcase their replicas of the aircraft that the four large hangars (plus the Missile Gallery) have on display. The guidelines for this showcase thread are simple: You are free to use any and all parts necessary, including ones that come in DLCs and mods. Vehicle has to be functional. Which means pictures/video of the craft in action. Similar performance stats are a plus. EXCEPTION: if the craft in question could not move on its own (as in it needed to be attached to a larger assembly to go anywhere) then the functionality requirement may be waived. e.g. the Apollo 15 command module. You'll only need one picture of your best replica (or half-assed; it shouldn't make a difference in that case), since it's useless unless attached to the rest of the spacecraft. If you want to make the rest of the rocket assembly, fine. Only the capsule made it to the museum, and that's what I need. Vehicle has to look as close as possible to whatever real-life craft you're trying to copy. Therefore, it is highly recommended that you have photographs to reference. Build something not yet claimed on the checklist (link below) first. EXCEPTION: for craft that appear more than once in the museum (such as the Superfortress and the Twin Mustang), you may only sign off on one of your craft's variants. Leave the rest of them for others to claim. e.g. I only do one Twin Mustang; the one in the Korean War section in Hangar 2. I'll leave it to someone else to get the other Twin Mustang in Hangar 3 and claim it on the log. If you want to show something that's already been showcased on this thread, fine - but you don't get credit for it. I don't care if you built the craft 7 minutes or 7 years ago, so long as it's yours. If you have an old stash of aircraft replicas that you're willing to showcase (and can work), great. Weaponry (e.g. guns, bombs, missiles) not necessary, although I won't object to them either. If the original aircraft was manned, so is your replica. If the original aircraft was unmanned, so is your replica. I won't object to a probe core for your manned aircraft if it doesn't deviate too much from the aesthetic, so long as you include the appropriate crew module/s. You don't need to match the passenger/crew capacity of your original aircraft, so long as your replica comes close to looking like its real-life counterpart AND it's functional. e.g. if you use one or more Mk. 3 Passenger Modules for an Air Force One variant, as long as your aircraft makes a convincing replica I don't mind you exceeding or falling behind its real-life counterpart's passenger capacity. Those things weren't designed for carrying a lot of people anyway; just provide comfort for the president and his staff. (SIDE NOTE) Whoever builds the Douglas VC-54C "Skymaster," I'm not requiring you to install an elevator in the back to load polio-stricken passengers in and out. If you do and the plane still flies smoothly, even better. The one housed in the museum was designed specifically to transport then-president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who needed a wheelchair. Craft files a plus. Below is the link for the replica checklist: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tA9IGsSCQIuTFjw9eNHYcgv8JboCxKiAy9ep5-nflR0/edit?usp=sharing Here are the instructions on how to use it: Pick an aircraft that has not already been built Like I said earlier, if you want to build something that's already been done here, don't steal credit from the original kerbalnaut. And for duplicates, you can only claim one of the type. Once you're done, write: Column D: Your KSP Forum name Column E: The link to the specific forum post showcasing your replica/s It is acceptable to put more than one craft in the same post. Just leave a link for everyone to find it. Column F: Whatever DLCs you used to make the replica If this doesn't apply to that specific craft, leave it blank Column G: Whatever (parts) mods you used to make the replica If this doesn't apply to that specific craft, leave it blank Column H: (IF YOU WANT TO) Additional notes that other readers may find interesting Please don't modify someone else's notes. If you want to debate/talk to someone about their craft, don't do it on the spreadsheet. Source for my list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_at_the_National_Museum_of_the_United_States_Air_Force Click here to see this thread's replicas assembled on KerbalX As a prize, if you make at least one replica from each of the four hangars (not counting the air park or missile silo since they're too small; specific hangar category (e.g. Early Years vs WWII, Experimental vs Space) doesn't matter), you'll earn this sweet badge: I made it myself. It's a representation of all four hangars by using a combination of the following four logos: U.S. Army Air Corps, whose planes dominate Hangar One. Classic U.S. Air Force, which became mainstream at the time period Hangar Two covers. Modern U.S. Air Force, which has a lot of planes in Hangar Three still in service. NASA, since the space gallery is in Hangar Four. Entries from the Missile Gallery can be used as "wild cards." They're ultra-rare, so get them while they last. Depending on what hangars you lack, it can be used as either a Hangar Three or Hangar Four entry. To make things fair for everyone, only one Missile Silo entry per person All Four Hangars Badge Recipients @Mars-Bound Hokie (Me, the OP) @swjr-swis I'll start us off with my favorite, the SR-71 Blackbird. The SR-71 Blackbird on display in the SPH Picture taken February 2020. Ted Kerman enjoying himself flying at high altitudes at a speed higher than the aircraft's real-life counterpart. There you have it, folks. Have fun, and I can't wait to see what you got. Build a plane from each of the four hangars, and you get the badge.

LEO and later the moon works better, shorter travel time and an luxury hotel both paces would be viable down the line. Multi year trips then you can not talk normally on the phone has issues if you need to be connected. Yes some people will pay for it but it would not bankroll the operation like orbital and moon hotels. You then attach the research to the hotels as its cheaper anyway, And you get to run on water on a pool on the moon.

I wanted to make an amendment to this post, specifically after watching Matt Lowne's most recent KSP2 video: Matt Lowne struggling with rover wheel physics bugs: 35:30 - 43:40 I don't usually build or drive rovers in the game so I guess I was blind sighted to what that experience is like in the current game. seeing him drive a rover and all the bugs from that is very disheartening and I hope these things get fixed soon, hopefully in the next patch. Anyways, if we want to talk about that more we should make our own forum thread for that, in terms of this thread I'd like to make an amendment that small rocks are fine to not have collision, but medium to large rocks definitely should. I'm going to use some screenshots from his video to be more specific: Small (no need for collision because then driving would be no fun): Medium (I'd appreciate collision so that you don't just drive in a straight line all the time, also assuming wheel bugs are fixed by then): Large(obviously collision should be turned on for these): Hopefully these amendments to my original post is well recieved, I really do think this is an important thing to add a bit more immersion in the game. P.S. somebody with more experience driving rovers in the game should make a thread about that

So, I've got a few questions as it relates to communication and development. Can you share with us where you are at with updating your internal calendar as it relates to when we can expect the next KERB? I know you just got back and all, but we are jonesing for info here. As far as the KERB goes, are there any plans to be more verbose in the status of the bugs being worked on? For example, "Researching" doesn't tell us what you are doing with a bug, especially when some bugs have been around and in this status for months. What is being researched, and what about it is so complicated? Same thing for "Need Additional Information". What info do you need? Something from the community? The original reporter? Who and what? It has now been 3 months since the last patch, and there has been zero talk about the next one. Nor has there been any talk about colonies other than to show the same station orbiting Jool a few times. Can you give us any information on where the team is at with the next patch, or with colonies, or when 0.3 might drop? And why the complete silence on all of this? It is early access, but we put our faith in you guys and we haven't had that faith rewarded much (if at all). Can we talk about procedural parts again? We have been told that procedural tanks are too complex, but Juno has them. And ill have to look again to make sure, but I think HarvesteR's latest project Kit Hack has them. What is so complex about them as it relates to KSP2? Finally, we need to discuss maneuver nodes and dV calculation. Has the development team shared anything with you that you can share with us as to how these are being worked on, and what potential solutions we may see? Both of these are critical to the game.

sorry i have been a bit busy and haven't finished this yet and i should probably vent about this in the talk about negative things thread. I'll get to it!

I am going to start my comment with a question for the CMs and then I will go into my further suggestions My question to the CM comes from the conversations that @Nerdy_Mike was having in the discord, he was talking about the roadmap and how development will follow it and all milestones will be fulfilled. This is obviously great news long term as we will get all that was promised on that front. I also remember many instances where CMs have talked about the ideas of polls and wanting to them but not knowing how to go about doing them correctly. I think some polls that will work are ones about which things should come first, meaning that the "losing" side of the poll will still know they will get the content they voted for. Anyways, my question is would KSP2 ever consider making a poll for if Recourses should come before Interstellar? I ask this because there has been a good amount of people talk about their concerns about not having resources when colonies drop and then having to wait until after interstellar for this feature. @Dakota and @Nerdy_Mike, I would love an answer to this question so I know whether to keep voicing my concerns about this subject or if I should use my time more wisely on commenting on other aspects of the game. I understand that there are reasons that would make these decisions out of your control or if this just plain is impossible with the current development process. I would love clarification on this. Alrighty, now that that is out of the way, I'll give my ideas towards communications: (Note) I think the major thing that is frustrating the community is that we just don't know what is going at all, this both goes for colonies and the next patch. I understand there are powers that be that keep you from giving information about colonies very often, so I'm going to focus on communications patch-to-patch 1. I think a good idea could be a "next patch bugs squashed counter" (the name needs some work ) somewhere on the forums that updates each week. You wouldn't even need to put in a bunch of details about the bugs, just a range based on the current "dev-version" of the game that is being focused on to give an idea of progress in development to the community. You could put a disclaimer that the number can fluctuate upwards and downwards because of different "dev-versions" of the game being considered the focused version, or because some changes broke something and now you are fixing those things while keeping what the original change fixed (this is what I imagine is happening right now and why its taken a while longer for this patch). Anyways I think this would be good because then the community would have a constant feeling of progress as the weeks go on. 2. I think more engagement in the individual forums would be nice, not just when we ask but kinda closer to how the interactions on discord are. It would be nice to see everyday at least one thought given on a thread somewhere about something. It wouldn't always have to be serious stuff either, right now I am realizing a lot of the community gets a bit upset at the "joking" and more "fun-oriented" posts being made right now but that is more because they don't have much communications and want quality/qualitative posts when they happen. After getting over the hump, and when seeing CM posts are much more common, then the forums will feel more like a conversation with CMs than complaints to them constantly. Really just like once a day would be enough, even if half are joke/fun posts. 3. I think that suggestions or things that CMs cant talk about should not be met with radio silence, but instead with a "heard*" or a "there is no information we are able to give right now*". This would give us more communication and make it feel like we aren't just talking into the void hoping that something sticks. (the * would be to indicate that these communications are not a direct "this will be in the game" or a "this will not be in the game"). Anyways these are my thoughts on improvements to the current communications (as far as patch to patch goes). All of these suggestions/criticisms come from a place of respect and excitement for what is to come next both in the game and in the community.

I am going to ask that you stop acting like the majority of this commentary is somehow without merit. When the points you attempt to make are so eloquently rebutted, you shift the goal post to "its just game" I do not think that "its just an X,Y,Z" is as acceptable excuse for the very last point that @PCDWolf made. It is not about patience. The majority of the rebuttal addressed that very issue and the last year we have been actively attempting to gain insight on the direction this game plans to take. They have been tight lipped because the community was promised for years that this game would have a certain goal. KSP PLUS. It was immediately apparent that a different direction was chosen and we clamored for something of substance regarding this. The stuff that does come out is pure PR content and nothing of merit with regard to game direction. The only thing worth a dang at all on the future of this game was completely compiled by @The Space Peacock... with much of it dated. How much of these old conversations and ideas are going to stay? You are not understanding how long it took for took to get them to even consider certain important things seriously... Like Wobble Font UI TimeWarp Constraints Things that are not "official' bugs are often ignored when we question specifics or insight in decisions. Official Bugs (Up Until Recently) has been difficult to navigate with key word searches not always resulting in success. This compounds with many redundant postings and ignored issues NO ONE can say that this game was playtesting in an organic manner. EA is not for Alpha State drops.. not traditionally. This leaves us guessing as to why and what.. with the track record our imaginations see "the best prediction for the future is the past" WE want this game to succeed. But we also want that success to be within some realm of what we enjoyed about the first game... People would talk about other things than how crappy "radio silence is" if we were given something to talk about.

Could this provide us a better clue for the release timeline of Colonies / 0.3? We have confirmation of at least a 0.2.2 release. Let's be optimistic and say that update comes in about 2 weeks (May 2nd, 2024). Using Scarecrow's average of 49 days between releases, we could anticipate the next update around June 20th. If that next update was 0.3 (again, being optimistic), then the timeline of milestones would look like this: 0.1 to 0.2 - 9 months, 26 days 0.2 to 0.3 (speculated) - 6 months, 2 days This timeline would match the hopes shared by Nate that the Colonies update would come quicker than For Science! and leaves quite a bit of breathing room. Even if there was a 0.2.3 update that dropped in June instead of 0.3 these timelines would still allow for an August release to follow (which still would meet the proposed timeline goals). Of course, this talk feels quite arbitrary given that each update and milestone is unique, but it helps put things in perspective. Do I want to wait until the end of summer for colonies? Not at all. However, the rate of development seems to show that we are indeed in the thick of it for now and the upcoming months.

It's pretty hard to manage expectations after a huge hype campaign followed by... hummm... a somewhat less than expected initial release. There's a lot of promises (as well tons of plain statements taken as promises) made in the last years that are probably going to be broken, and without a viable release to use as a trade-off (ok, A is not going to happen, but look! B & C were implemented instead!), at least in my book, the less technical details (or any details that can be used by technicians to infer the state of the game) you publish, less work you will have on managing a new loot of fallen short expectations. It's kinda of a catch-22 situation: you talk about, you get screwed. You don't talk about, you get screwed. Finding the less bitter spot in which you get less screwed is the trick. (don't look at me for answers - I'm on the "talk too much" spectrum)

@ColdJ i frankly do not care if you cant accept or wont accept King Richard the Lionheart. Its a historically accurate title. And you want to talk glass houses? Ill toss that stone. You started it. Remember this from 22 March: “Rovers rove.“ All of your “examples” are wild accusations and false save 1. Plumbers Plumb. A DIRECT response to your action on Rovers rove. The rest are legitimate sentences. Circling back to King Richard the Lionheart allow me to quote: Per rule 5: Names and proper nouns are added in one post. For example, if you wish to add the name "Robin Hood" you add "Robin Hood" in one post.“ As you see King Richard the Lionheart fits per the rule. Now that we have derailed this far enough I relay the currently active sentence so this game may return to being played. ——RESTORATION TO ACTIVE SENTENCE—— King Richard the Lionheart reigned ———RESTORATION COMPLETE——— 124504172024 new page 124604172024 130804172024 131304172024

I feel a number of people do not fully take advantage of the current upvoting system for the Bug Reports. Maybe they lack the technical expertise, comfort level required to post detailed reports, trouble finding archived report.. etc. I appreciate it when others post a bug I have had issues with but may have (temporarily) forgotten. Sometimes I intent to upvote a series of bugs but get distracted by work & the intention moves some where into the Aether. If there are bugs you want upvoted.. link them. Post a Reason why you thinknit deserves significant attention. But please.. let's avoid cross talk or debates. (If this is Stupid or Present Elsewhere Please Remove)

Sorry but glass houses. I have put up with premature cut offs on more than just these, and constant manipulations to get the sentence to something you want to talk about. It is one WORD at a time. Even if @Kimera Industries allowed "Maid Marian", "King Richard the Lionheart" is pushing it too far. I would have accepted "King Richard" but 4 words is a no from me. I kept away for awhile to let someone else play it out with you, but nobody did. So I tried to start fresh and you as with other word games we have played decided that you can overrule whenever you want. If you are willing to play fairly and randomly then I will play, but I am not up for being railroaded again.

Accurate, but not polished? Clarification please? Also, it would be helpful to know what they can and cannot talk about.

I suspect it isn't that simple. However, that could be one of the topics for "increased communication". Talk about development on a current pain point, without spoiling the colonies, or other new stuff in general... Instead of we can't wait to share what we've been working on

Hope to hear from CMs in the morning, maybe y'all can talk a little about the improvements to communication that y'all have come up with to deal with keeping the community up to date @Nerdy_Mike @Dakota

The MIT article is interesting - they talk about how... difficult... it is to get funding/be taken seriously when trying to explore that theory, then point out that it's not so loopy after all. The concrete, if true, would be poured with a jello like consistency that for *reasons* cures in a way that avoids shrinkage common to other concretes. It's an interesting theory. Back to moving logs with mechanical advantage - this one is interesting. The use of the bipod is totally different. With the rope at the top of the bipod and the fulcrum forward of the log, they just pull it up and over. Side note - I got the funding to try this with my students. So later next week I'll report back on how it went. Using 2x4x10s, making some beams from 2x6x12s and a few other things. Should be fun!

Welcome to Kerbalism Hundreds of Kerbals were killed in the making of this mod. Kerbalism is a mod for Kerbal Space Program that alters the game to add life support, radiation, failures and an entirely new way of doing science. Go beyond the routine of orbital mechanics and experience the full set of engineering challenges that space has to offer. All mechanics can be configured to some degree, or even disabled if you don't like some of them. A big part of the mod is fully data-driven, so that you can create your own customized game play with only a text editor and a minimal amount of espresso. Or simply use a set of rules shared by other users. Frequently Asked Questions: FAQ Current version: 3.11 What's new: New and Noteworthy Download: Github - SpaceDock - CKAN Docs & support: Github wiki - Discord - Github issues License: Unlicense (unless stated otherwise, parts might be licensed differently) KSP version: 1.5.x - 1.10.x Requires: Module Manager, CommunityResourcePack See also: Mod compatibility - Change Log - Dev Builds Download and installation Download on Github releases or use CKAN Two packages are available: Kerbalism is the core plugin, always required. KerbalismConfig is the default configuration pack. It can be be replaced by other packs distributed elsewhere. Requirements - Module Manager: must be installed in GameData - CommunityResourcePack: must be installed in GameData Third-party configuration packs Make sure to install exactly one configuration pack only. Don't combine packs unless there is explicit instructions to do so. - ROKerbalism for Realism Overhaul / RP-1 by standecco - SIMPLEX Living by theJesuit - KerbalismScienceOnly for Kerbalism with the science feature only Installation checklist for the "GameData" folder required content : - CommunityResourcePack (folder) - Kerbalism (folder) - KerbalismConfig (folder, can be replaced by a third-party config pack) - ModuleManager.X.X.X.dll (file) Mod compatibility and support Checking the mod compatibility page is mandatory before installing Kerbalism on a heavily modded game. Kerbalism does very custom stuff. This can break other mods. For a lot of mods that breaks or need balancing, we provide support code and configuration patches. However some mods are incompatible because there is too much feature overlap or support is too complex to implement. Documentation, help and bug-reporting - Tutorials and documentation are available at the Github wiki - Need help? Ask on Discord or in the KSP forums thread - You found a bug? - Maybe it's related to another mod ? Check the Mod Compatibility page. - Maybe it's a known issue ? Check the GitHub issues and ask on Discord. - You want to report a bug? - Reproduce it consistently, provide us with screenshots and the KSP.log, modulemanager.configcache and persistent.sfs files. - Report it on Github issues (preferred) or in the KSP forums thread. - You want to contribute or add support for your mod? - Check the technical guide on the wiki - Pull requests are welcome, especially for mod support configs. For code contributions, it is recommended to talk to us on Discord before engaging anything. - Read the contributing documentation - To build the plugin from the source code, read the BuildSystem documentation Disclaimer and license This mod is released under the Unlicense, which mean it's in the public domain. Some parts are released under a different license, please refer to their respective LICENSE files. It includes MiniAVC. If you opt-in, it will use the Internet to check whether there is a new version available. Data is only read from the Internet and no personal information is sent. For more control, download the full KSP-AVC Plugin. What does it do? Kerbalism is a mod for Kerbal Space Program that alters the game to add life support, radiation, failures and an entirely new way of doing science. Go beyond the routine of orbital mechanics and experience the full set of engineering challenges that space has to offer. All mechanics can be configured to some degree, or even disabled if you don't like some of them. A big part of the mod is fully data-driven, so that you can create your own customized game play with only a text editor and a minimal amount of espresso. Or simply use a set of rules shared by other users. All vessels, all the time Contrary to popular belief, the observable universe is not a sphere of a 3km radius centered around the active vessel. All mechanics are simulated for loaded and unloaded vessels alike, without exception. Acceptable performance was obtained by a mix of smart approximations and common sense. The performance impact on the game is by and large independent from the number of vessels. Resources This isn't your classic post-facto resource simulation. Consumption and production work is coherent regardless of warp speed or storage capacity. Complex chains of transformations that you build for long-term life support or mining bases just work. Environment The environment of space is modeled in a simple yet effective way. Temperature is calculated using the direct solar flux, the indirect solar flux bouncing off from celestial bodies, and the radiative infrared cooling off their surfaces. The simulation of the latter is especially interesting and able to reproduce good results for worlds with and without atmosphere. Radiation is implemented using an overlapping hierarchy of 3D zones, modeled and rendered using signed distance fields. These are used to simulate inner and outer belts, magnetosphere and even the heliopause. Solar weather is represented by Coronal Mass Ejection events, that happen sporadically, increase radiation and cause communication blackouts. Habitats The habitats of vessels are modeled in terms of internal volume, external surface, and a set of dedicated pseudo resources. These elements are then used to calculate such things as: living space per-capita, the pressure, CO2 and humidity levels of the internal atmosphere, and radiation shielding. Individual habitats can be enabled or disabled, in the editor and in flight, to reconfigure the internal space and everything associated with it during the mission. Inflatable habitats are driven directly by the part pressure. Life support Your crew need a constant intake of Food, Water and Oxygen. Failure to provide for these needs will result in unceremonious death. Configurable supply containers are provided. Kerbals evolved in particular conditions of temperature, and at a very low level of radiation. You should reproduce these conditions wherever your crew go, no matter the external temperature or radiation at that point. Or else death ensues. The vessel habitat can be climatized at the expense of ElectricCharge. Environment radiation can be shielded by applying material layers to the hull, with obvious longevity vs mass trade off. Psychological needs The era of tin can interplanetary travel is over. Your crew need some living space, however minimal. Failure to provide enough living space will result in unforeseen events in the vessel, the kind that happen when operators lose concentration. While not fatal directly, they often lead to fatal consequences later on. Some basic comforts can be provided to delay the inevitable mental breakdown. Nothing fancy, just things like windows to look out, antennas to call back home, or gravity rings to generate artificial gravity. Finally, recent research points out that living in a pressurized environment is vastly superior to living in a suit. So bring some Nitrogen to compensate for leaks and keep the internal atmosphere at an acceptable pressure. ECLSS, ISRU A set of ECLSS components is available for installation in any pod. The scrubber for example, that must be used to keep the level of CO2 in the internal atmosphere below a threshold. Or the pressure control system, that can be used to maintain a comfortable atmospheric pressure inside the vessel. In general, if you ever heard of some kind of apparatus used by space agencies to keep the crew alive, you will find it in this mod. The stock ISRU converters can host a set of reality-inspired chemical processes. The emerging chains provide a flexible and at the same time challenging system to keep your crew alive. The stock ISRU harvesters functionality has been replaced with an equivalent one that is easier to plan against, as it is now vital for long-term manned missions. The means to harvest from atmospheres and oceans is also present, given the importance of atmospheric resources in this regard. No life-support like mod would be complete without a greenhouse of some kind. The one included in this mod has a relatively complete set of input resources and by-products, and some more unique characteristics like a lamp that adapts consumption to natural lighting, emergency harvesting, pressure requirements and radiation tolerance. A planetary resource distribution that mimics the real solar system completes the package. Reliability Components don't last forever in the real world. This is modeled by a simple system that can trigger failures on arbitrary modules. Manufacturing quality can be chosen in the editor, per-component, and improve the MTBF but also requires extra cost and mass. The crew can inspect and repair malfunctioned components. Redundancy now becomes a key aspect of the design phase. Engines have their own failure system: limited ignitions, limited burn duration, and an overall ignition failure probability will even make your 100th moon landing feel like an achievement! Science Experiments don't return their science output instantly, they require some time to run. Some complete in minutes, others will take months. Not to worry, experiments can run on vessels in the background, you don't have to keep that vessel loaded. There are two different kinds of experiments: sensor readings and samples. Sensor readings are just plain data that can be transferred between vessels without extra vehicular activities, they also can be transmitted back directly. Samples however require the delicate handling by kerbals, and cannot be transmitted but have to be recovered instead. They also can be analyzed in a lab, which converts it to data that can be transmitted. Analyzing takes a long time, happens transparently to loaded and unloaded vessels alike, and can't be cheated to create science out of thin air. An interesting method is used to bridge existing stock and third-party experiments to the new science system, that works for most experiments without requiring ad-hoc support. Transmission rates are realistic, and scale with distance to the point that it may take a long time to transmit data from the outer solar system. Data transmission happens transparently in loaded and unloaded vessels. The resulting communication system is simple, yet it also results in more realistic vessel and mission designs. Automation Components can be automated using a minimalist scripting system, with a graphical editor. Scripts are triggered manually or by environmental conditions. You can create a script to turn on all the lights as soon as the Sun is not visible anymore, or retract all solar panels as soon as you enter an atmosphere etc. User Interface Kerbalism has a nice user interface. A planner UI is available in the editor, to help the user design around all the new mechanics introduced. The planner analysis include resource estimates, habitat informations, redundancy analysis, connectivity simulation, multi-environment radiation details and more. To monitor the status of vessels, the monitor UI is also provided. This looks like a simple list of vessels at first, but just click on it to discover an ingenuous little organizer that allow to watch vessel telemetry, control components, create scripts, manage your science data including transmission and analysis, and configure the alerts per-vessel. Modules Emulation Most stock modules and some third-party ones are emulated for what concerns the mechanics introduced by the mod. The level of support depends on the specific module, and may include: simulation of resource consumption and production in unloaded vessels, fixing of timewarp issues in loaded vessels, the ability to disable the module after malfunctions, and also the means to start and stop the module in an automation script. For Modders Kerbalism has a lot of interfaces ready for other mods to use. If you are a mod developer and want Kerbalism to play nice with your mod, please see the wiki or contact us on discord. Legalese

Yup. It seems like from going through the colony mega thread it won’t approach in a meaningful way a culmination of career and science until the exploration update, after colonies and after interstellar. I like science points. And I like the expansion and better quality of the hand crafted missions in KSP2 over test x part in y situation of KSP1. But it’s not career mode at all until there is a gameplay reason to build efficient rockets. They say rockets won’t be “free” but only really talk about resources in regards to fuel and late tech tree parts. If there’s never a reason to use a SRB over a liquid fuel stack with an engine this game may not be for me. So until they communicate clearly about what resources will be needed for, and how the player will be credited them (ie please have some incentive to not timewarp for maximum resources) the best I can do is *hope* that “rockets won’t be free” includes some player incentives to build cheap and efficient. Thats three major updates down the road. For Science! was a big step forward but didn’t nudge me at all to play more after trying it for a few hours, or to update my negative review to a positive one. The CMs hyped that they have some good communication in the pipeline, so here I check the forums at lunch for a week or so to see if it’s worth me staying around. No news or bad news and I’ll be away from the forums and Reddit for months again.

Of course. If we only "overreacted" when a hungry lion is in the immediate vicinity, I don't think we would come a long way as a society. A car is just a car, after all. So is money. Music. Computers. Biology.. Whatever tickles you... But it tickles, and that's a good thing. I'm fully aware that I have a first world problem. But if there was no such thing at this point, that would mean that all of us here would be in a nuclear wasteland, fighting over remaining canned food. So I'm happy to battle over opinions @Dakota Maybe this exists, and has slipped my attention... Is there a chance to at least get an overview of how news/updates are done? If you have a feature X, when do you post it as a sneakpeek? How decisions are made to share it at all? What's allowed and not allowed to talk about? I'm having troubles to form a proper question here.

I mean really love this team and I think things are coming along nicely but I believe even they see it as getting on base after a tough at bat. Unfortunately we're living in a really toxic gaming culture and its got to be hard for passionate developers and designers to gauge real reactions and actionable feedback in a clear and honest way. The atmosphere from a vocal player standpoint is to take all of these things really personally, or pretend to take them really personally, and then engage in an over-the-top Kabuki dance of feigned rage demanding groveling supplication from the corporate entities they've been wronged by because they think thats the only way games improve. But it's kind of like Cable news outlets constantly running BREAKING NEWS banners. If you're always turning everything up to 11 then people who might listen might as well just tune you out. If players believe rage-bombing every title that doesn't meet their expectations is the only way to convince developers to improve their products then eventually developers are just going to take those flame-campaigns less seriously. I would guess they already are. They'll look to more balanced and genuinely informative heuristics to identify the worst problems and work their way up from there. As test case lets talk about Cyberpunk--widely dragged and laughed at when it first released and probably deservedly so. It probably should have incubated for a couple more years. And now all of the initial hard work of good writing and good VA and story can be capitalized on because they fixed most of the bugs and redesigned the core mechanics into something incredible. Which is great! I genuinely hope as colonies and interstellar and resources are phased in the folks at Intercept remain open to making big internal changes to game mechanics depending on how things play out. What matters in the end is how the 1.0 product actually plays. Is it fun? Is it deep? Are the actual mechanics well tuned? is QOL up to snuff? Thats what matters. In my experience most people in this world are doing their best to be good at what they do. They're already incentivized to do that. Heaping shame and vitriol on them usually makes things worse, not better. The changes Cyberpunk made weren't just because players dragged CDPR through the mud. In fact the more substantive changes outside of bug-fixes--police system, fixing drops and the tech tree, etc. only come from very specific and clear feedback on whats not working and then having the time and creative process to create new and better systems. I personally would argue if you as a gamer are dissatisfied you produce more specific and actionable feedback on whats wrong--and passionately so!--rather than focus on grievances.

SpaceX/Starship is the go-to option to talk about I think, but I don't think they'll make a proposal, at least on their own (though, that is probably what a lot of people thought before HLS, so what do I know). Relativity/Impulse have a Mars landing mission on the horizon, and could form the backbone to a project to pursue a return mission, as Tom Mueller is leading Impulse, and has a lot of experience with methalox (that he's applying to Helios), while also having looked into ISRU for Starship. They might even pull in SpaceX for this reason - giving them real data on making methalox on the Martain surface. Just based on having a slated Mars mission Blue Origin/RocketLab are another potential team, set to launch this summer (EscaPADE), but it's a pair of satellites, not a lander. So probably not. NASA needs a firmer deadline for sample return, NET 2040 is too far, and runs the risk of eventual cancellation. When NASA makes their selections, they need a closer date, preferably in the early/mid 2030s, about a decade from now.

I would love to see a Kerbol Origins or OPM port, or Parallax. I'm not sure how likely or feasible it is, but it would be really nice to see those mods ported over to KSP2. Despite KSP2's bugs, the game has improved a lot and can be seen as a similar title to KSP1. Honestly the amount of creativity generated over the course of KSP1's lifespan is staggering, and it shouldn't just be abandoned. Anyone interested in a OPM/Kerbol Origins/etc. revival? Maybe like a "modloader" that you install into KSP2 with mods that you can enable and disable? I don't know KSP2 modding, so maybe i'm not the right person to talk about this, but it still would be cool.