Threadsinger

A well-timed STEAM sale and a burning desire to play a new construction/SIM game instead of the usual shoot-em-ups. 600+ hours and loving it! Especially the modding community - a wonderful balance of the realistic (FAR, RSS, RemoteTech, DRE, TAC, etc.) and the fantastic (KSP-I, Karbonite). (especially since x64 came out -- I have a fairly powerful PC and I demand its resources be used in their entirety...)

That's alright. New stuff is more fun than old stuff. (in the Architect's voice) But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have rebuilt it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.

That sounds like a good idea. I still hope for Fractal_UK's return, but KSP-I is one of my "core" mods and I doubt I'd enjoy KSP as much if it went stagnant. Ever thought about contacting Roverdude for some modeling help? The models features in his mods appear to be of a simple-but-defined aesthetic. /keep up the awesome work!! //moar fusion

Thanks David! That's some good knowhow and I will put it to good use to make efficient, "gentle" burns. I should clarify it's not the fairings that are getting ripped off - it's what's inside... I assumed the fairings were a "hard shell" (so the payload can't "leak" out), but I realized after some trial and error the internal payload is probably not stiff enough, so just the thrust alone from the engines is knocking the payload out of balance and causing it to clip out of the fairing... which then catches the "air", which then kills the rocket. Good advice. I always assumed low CoM. I'll play with that too. A little challenging with KSP-I (in my save, I've just unlocked basic fusion engines, and their TWR with enough atmosphere intake is borderline mass-driver ish..) but fun to work out.

Thanks Pecan!

Thanks dzikakulka, I think I'll go install FAR (gods help me) and look and see what it says. It also just occurred to me that maybe the fairings are just too high and I need to learn how to use that "clip-at-the-top" fairing part... I dunno, I'll experiment and see what's what.

Hiya guys, Newbie question here (and I did make a reasonable attempt at a search): During launch, the payload often bends internally under some kind of load and emerges from the fairing, breaking apart the craft and killing everyone in a 10 kilokerbal radius. Pretty, but not very useful. Is this (incredible!) mod supposed to let that happen? Am I putting too much thrust at launch? Is there a way to tell if what's inside the fairing is actually being ignored by whatever aerodynamic process the game is running? I don't know much about programming or how these mods work, but I'm silently praying that it's some simple fix or incompatibility that one of the legion here has encountered before. I do have the most up-to-date version of this mod, and I have tried it with the stock game and that NEAR mod (ferram?) to troubleshoot. I am using a few mods, ones I believe are very popular and used in that Interstellar Quest series on Youtube (so I hope someone here might have them), but I'm more hoping this is a simple problem easily fixed. Thanks to the mod creator for such a great setup, and to all for your kergineering advice!

Hey, not a modder (or even a programmer), but I have both installed and they *appear* to play nice. I am encountering some unusual part-interaction-menu-won't-come-up-on-click-in-space problems, but it could be any of the other mods I have installed (Karbonite, MKS, KAS, TAC, NEAR, etc.) One thing I've done for fun is play with signal delay until I hit an arbitrarily decided science node - then change the signal delay value to false to simulate quantum communications. I mean, if you've got vacuum thrusters, AI, and warp drive, why not eh? Edit: I use WaveFunction's experimental version for 0.24 compatibility - still waiting on FractalUK's return, if in fact he does

Neat MOD! Once I finish my KSPI playthrough, I think I'll give this a try to "ground" myself back into the realm of the real!

Hiya krillin! As it's been already mentioned, there's a post somewhere that describes why. But I see it as a gameplay decision to have some degree of customization and optimisation, you know, trying to replicate real-world setups. I agree in that I don't ever use mismatched reactors and generator sizes, although I have experimented with huge reactors and small generators for min/maxing fun. Also keep in mind you can use a generator with a thermal receiver to generate power, or just use the reactors for drive systems without the added weight of a generator. This works well when I try and build my VTOL capable Halo-style dropships. I use one gen/rctr combo for power, and 4-6 reactors alone for thrust, with the pwr requirements handled by the first setup. (I kinda wish the smaller reactors were able to be connected radially, or had an overdrive/overheat mode so I could use smaller ones for rapid TOAL, but for the same reasons above, part of the fun is the challenge to make the lego blocks fit!!)

I'm the same way. I'm trying to make standardized payload transports, but the funny combination of side missions (and trying to save some money) means I'm having to tailor my craft a lot more than I used to. As I get better at it, and more used to REALLY having to stick to a budget, I'm certain I'll develop some customisable standard craft. As for how my gameplay style has changed - I've always been big on a 'clean' space program, so all my stages have chutes, probe cores, and enough fuel to quasi-VTOL. I also try to reduce the use of disposal containers, although I accept that it's needed sometimes. (For personal challenge, my rule was I needed to "recover" a test stage/booster in career mode at least once, and then I can consider all other events as succesful de-orbits and be allowed to not manually de-orbit them properly on future missions). One challenge I am running into, however, is the fact i use Kerbal Interstellar, which is reasonably balanced for cost at the start, but the more exotic propulsion systems are exorbitant (as they should be). I nearly always VTOL my fission/fusion/AP-drive equipped craft, but those lost percentage points add up in lost cost recovery. Not to mention putting reactors into orbit and building remote fueling bases adds costs that aren't easily recouped by the Contracts system, except through grinding. (Note: That's not a complaint about the Contracts system, it's awesome and designed for Stock KSP. I'm just describing my challenges to fund and fuel antiproton-powered fusion engines using the new system (lol!!), and it's fun as hell. One future I'd hope to see would be some procedural generation stuff which can scan mod part lists for cool things to test, but I know nothing of programming and have no expectations otherwise. Yay for 64 bit!!)

Awesome, thanks WaveFunction! Looking forward to how KSPI evolves once the funded career mode matures a bit..

Good news! Thanks Majiir!

That's what I did in the pre-0.24 days for fun and role-play; the boosters and "main" drive stage all had probe cores, a solar panel or two, and enough fuel left over to de-orbit and VTOL (with 'chutes to aid). You're right, the challenge is now to design an entire unit that can return to account for the loss of stage parts that the game doesn't track. Man, that's gonna be a big fuel budget...

I noticed that too. I hope there will be a mechanism to fix that - in my KSP Interstellar game, I tried to run a 'clean' space program, where everything returns to Kerbal intact as best as can be managed (at least, the designs do: boosters, etc. with parachutes, dry runs to test that they land intact, etc.) I really hope Squad finds a feasible way to reward reusable-playstyle minded players for recovering boosters, etc. in KSP vanilla.

Thanks, always good to see the wiki updated!

That seems... excessive. /very cool!

Wormholes? Point-to-point jumps? Would that fit into the spirit of the real-world derived technologies and concepts that is KSPI? Can it even be programmed? Edit: Not seriously suggesting that this be added, just thinking of what comes after warp drive

Yea, I thought about that too. I think I launched one in my last save, only to discover that I'd not profit from it from a science POV (although from a game point of view, still pretty cool). I still like the idea, but I don't know how to balance it to make it worth it for science purposes. Unless you make Warp Drive 100,000 science, and make the gravity experiment give some equally ridiculous amount of science? As an aside, one of the ideas I was hoping they'd implement (but never will) would be a NewGame+ mode, where you accomplish some difficult objective (land and return a manned mission from all feasible planets, setup a gravity lens experiment or supercollider at the edge of the solar system, etc.), which enables KSPI-type hardware on the second playthrough. That way purists who want to play with real-world hardware and challenges can do so, while anyone else with an eye for the possible (if not practical) could play the enhanced version. Would also give real value to solving really hard logistical problems (such as setting up a gravity lens experiment) using conventional hardware.

Thanks for all your efforts creating this mod, Fractal! Regarding modularity, I love having to add some extra components to the vessels, if only to simulate realism requiring all that extra hardware to work. Hell, some life support modules (I don't use TAC balancer, not at the point yet where I feel I want to deal with potentially killing kerbals due to advancing time too fast), or a cryo module, or a better hab module would be neat flavor stuff. Even thermal panels and heat management, which is fairly easy (sans the cost mechanic - I may eat those words someday), adds a welcome bit of realism. The only thing I would personally appreciate would be folding generators and engines into smaller packages once you hit the (near) very-end of the tech tree, so you can do some wicked sci-fi stuff on spacecraft without needing all the size and weight of extra parts (perhaps being able to research some dedicated reactor/engine hybrids optimized exclusively for flight as opposed to thermal and electrical power? Worse ISO, better output?) Either way, curious to see what new parts, if any, are coming down the pipeline! (Side note: still haven't found a niche use for the particle fission reactors though...) Also, if you do make something of the ambient radiation mechanic, I'd hope to see various forms of current, plausible near-future, and hypothetically plausible-far-future means to stave off kerbal BBQ until they can crash into a suitable planet.

Thanks phoenix, I was looking to exploit the science fictiony aspects of fusion drives for wicked high thrust VTOL, but I'll wait till I unlock the ap-drives. I'm not keen on modifing the values in the part files, partly because I'm unfamiliar with modifying craft files, mainly because I enjoy the mod as the designer intends. That wiki page is great, though. Hopefully some more guides pop soon!

Yea, with atmospheric drives just slap on as many air intakes as you can! My fusion-drive SSTO's have dozens of radial intakes, and as many forced air intakes as can be managed, and can they can lift absurdly heavy lifts (using large reactors) in atmo. Just make sure that you program in an action group to close the intakes when you get to a high-enough altitude so when you switch to internal fuel, you're not fighting a crazy amount of atmo resistance. Very useful on Jool where you can easily make a Kerbal-to-Jool SSTO full-return vessel, as long as the action groups are properly set up. I'd also advise you set one up to shut down the fusion reactors so you don't generate waste heat for the trip. I've boosted craft into Kerbol orbit using nothing but a high-tier thermal power source and a farkton of air intakes... without using internal fuel modes... It's a great feeling after having slogged your way from first principles of rocketry, to Mainsails, to RAPIERS, to Tokamaks.

I've always experienced science as XP points; I've only played career mode (and heavily modded to boot!), so I've always enjoyed having to successfully get to a location that generates science, return it intact, and collect the science as a reward enabling me to unlock new parts. I've had more than a few occasions where I've collected science with the intent of returning, not transmitting, only to discover that the craft I sent can't, or lacks the tools necessary to land safely (although this can be mitigated somewhat by an intercept). Even with intercepts, I was still terrible at them, so it was transmit or lose it all, or attempt near-impossible powered landings where the science modules physically survive. And if they did, wow, what a rush! I might have to repeat a mission a few times to get enough to unlock some cool parts, but isn't that the point of career mode? I mean, if you want to do away with incremental upgrades (distributed through the XP-mechanic of science), why play career mode at all?

I rather like the static system - gives my friends and I something to bond over when we play. Every world has its own consistent characteristics, and it's rather fun to discuss how we landed on Duna for the first time, or tried to land on Eve, or that close call on a return burn to Kerbal. Now, I play with KSP Interstellar, they do not, so once I hit that part of the tech tree our achievements were much less mutual (although occasionally each other's achievements were notable enough to warrant some fun filled discussion); my point here is there is a nice commonality to meeting the challenges in the same universe. I can certainly see that after x-100's of hours KSP's world might seem stale, but I do see value in keeping a static system where there is a shared experience. Just my two kerbs.

Actually, I was kind of hoping for some VTOL-inspired fusion engines. I've played through, say, 80% of KSPi in Career mode and have LOVED it so far. It's better than the stock game, although I respect the design intent of KSP vanilla. However, right now I'm trying to get SSTO's into orbit using the smaller diameter, upgraded laser fusion reactors (the 0.625 and the 1.25 OMEGA reactors), and to my great frustration, they are weaker in thrust than the little LV-909... I understand that some serious math has gone into balancing the science-fictional components in the game, (which is great!), and that some challenge is required otherwise KSP loses a lot of appeal. Everything else to this point felt very satisfying in balance and achievement when unlocked and later left behind for more advanced part. But after all this advancement in the tech tree, I admit I'm disappointed that all this advanced hardware and the fury of a baby star can't out compete a primitive thruster for lift (it comes close, but...) I'm not looking to break the game challenge, but I was kinda hoping that this far down the tech tree I could manufacture some Halo-style dropships (or, more categorically, SSTO-capable light to medium craft), without having to resort to twenty of those to boost a fairly small craft or capsule into space, or perform VTOL maneuvers without again needing a hilarious amount of them. Or using a couple of hideously oversized 2.5 meter reactors/turbojets. (Although, on that note, some 0.625 and 3.5 meter turbojets would be fantastic and I hope to see them in a future build, but that's just to I can better use those 3.5 m monster reactors!) Just a loyal fans' comment here: any possibility of a thrust increase on the peak-end fusion thrusters to allow them to act as better VTOL/SSTO drives? Wouldn't have to be much, but even a small increase could realize some fun, futuristic sci-fi staple-capable craft once you get absurdly high into the tech tree. Also helps for those of us who are working on under the 'clean' space program ethos. I did manage to build this, however: Fun to fly, and comes with a built in funeral-pyre! Regardless, thanks again Fractal (and co.!) Looking forward to whatever else comes down the pipe! /also, just lost ALL my missions, satellites, starbases, beacons, flags, memorials today... time to declare war on the Space Kraken... feel free to develop nukes