helaeon

I like Minmus as a second moon to Kerbin... however... I'm also not a fan of it being the target for the first moon landing. Personally, I didn't find it early enough to go there because I was so focused on the Mun that I didn't find it until I was thinking about Duna and zoomed out enough to see it. I think, though, if changes were to be made to Minmus it should be simple things like: Further out, maybe even closer to the edge of Kerbin's SOI (have to precisely make the burn otherwise you escape) and/or bigger inclination (bring up the Delta-V requirement to get there). Point being trade-offs that don't make Minmus or the Mun necessarily clearly the best choice for first. If we were really talking about something bonkers as a captured body then put it retrograde or on a very elliptical orbit. But those are just mean... however... good ideas for a gas giant 2.

They do not require food or water and it appears Kerbin also has infinite rocket fuel and building materials for the moment. Kerbals are also immortal (but still killable, but are reborn). With a lack of need to compete for resources and infinite lifespans, there is no need for organizing governments or really competition of any kind to distribute or regulate finite resources or mediate conflicts over them, nor is safety a real concern as give it some time and the Kerbal is resurrected. Nearly everything people use governments for are not an issue on Kerbin. It also shows why the Kerbals are so failure tolerant as well, there seems to be little to no cost to failure on Kerbin. It also explains why there is no other life on Kerbin, the Kerbals are all life on Kerbin. In a situation where there is infinite resources the best lifeform begins to dominate all others until it is the only one left. Only in systems with limited resources and niches to exploit those resources do you see diversity in life. The only reason we have finite resources in our rockets is due to the rocket equation which is the only tyranny the Kerbals know. And that one tyranny is also the one thing they have organized against via the Space Program. No need to wage war, as there is no point. You can't kill off your enemy if you don't like their ideas and there's no point burning up your resources hoping to get more of theirs out of the deal as you both have infinity resources as it is. I think Kerbals have no governments and no hierarchy outside of the Space Program (again an organization to fight the only tyranny they know). In this they get to enjoy peace and freedom because they don't have to worry about things like we do such as, where is their food going to come from, or the permanence of death.

Are you setting your navball indicator on your retrograde marker and following it down? Once you're in a hover and getting to where you're gently setting down it can get touchy to keep the retrograde vector straight down and keep your throttle under control. That takes practice. I started using a controller so I'd have better landing controls and use the analog triggers for throttle so I could make slight changes easier. It helps - but you need to do a work-around and some file editing to get that to work. There's a difference between horizontal and vertical velocity and the stock instrumentation does a poor job showing it in my opinion. Likely your surface speed is 10m/s horizontal and zero vertical. There's a gauge up by your altimeter that shows you your vertical speed, and note that altimeter is NOT radar altitude. If what I'm thinking is the the case too your retrograde indicator will be the horizon of your navball too. Really the easiest way to land is burn against that retrograde marker when in surface mode on the navball and follow it down. As you get more practice you'll learn how to push that marker around to do more precision landings and more efficient ones.

I need to jump in with the controller person. Once I did the work around to get the throttles working correctly it's awesome. I do wish that precision control worked on joystick axes (including for RCS, I'm using the D-Pad for that).

I like it. Could there be a way to reverse the direction the camera faces for use with a lander?

I believe the reason that Squad isn't in a hurry is that rbray has done an amazing job with it, so they'll focus their resources elsewhere updating the base code in ways modders cannot or must do so clumsily. Those of us that want awesome clouds can easily get them now, so no reason for Squad to be in a super hurry to add it to the stock install.

I'm going to say yes... but... it needs to be earned. Probably through the tech tree, or some other science or tests involving the parts you have unlocked. One of the big accomplishments early in the game is getting into orbit for the first time, before you know anything about delta v or how much of it you need, etc. By the time you go to Duna you know what all of those things are and the trial and error that's involved if you don't want to calculate it manually or have a complicated staging setup going is tedious... so by that point you should have a Kerbal Engineer or MechJeb type readout available to you, or you've ran the missions necessary to know the capabilities of your engines, tanks, etc to have the delta-v data unlocked for them.

A key factor of any hard science is being able to make predictions about the future that are extremely accurate, can be tested again and again, and when applied to a real-world phenomenon rather than a lab set-up it still works. Chemistry, Physics, Biology and all of their subsets do this. While some of the behaviors and models seen in Economics are very similar to an ecology or other competitive biological system competing or cooperating with limited resources, it as a study does not really have any absolute "physical laws" where you can put in a set of variables and certainly determine a future condition or event. There are certainly economic principles and general rules that seem to be followed (why economies often behave like ecological systems, but not always). But many of these models are highly contradictory. If you read Keynes and Hayek you read two very different views on how an economy works and how you can best influence or control it. It gets into your politics often which one you think is the most right and there will be very little that someone from the other camp could show you that would get you to change your mind and cause the incorrect one to be sent to the dust bin. In the physical sciences we would try to reconcile models and systems that seem to accurately describe the universe proven via data (not computer models, we can make a computer model to spit out whatever we like), but seem to be incompatible, such as we are trying to do with quantum mechanics and Einstein's theories. All of which are supported by mountains of data and experimentation, but they're both wrong as they're incompatible. In economics this seems to not happen, once an economic model or theory is conceived it seems to never die. Economics seems to be more about politics and policy prescriptions rather than understanding of systems. From what I can tell there are few testable hypotheses and when future events prove an economic model or prescription a failure it doesn't go away, it stays as it is as there's some excuse as to why it doesn't apply to a given situation, or that next time it will work because this time we didn't apply it hard enough or absolute enough. That's not a science. It very well could be as a field if it wanted to but as it's practiced and studied today it is not. Social sciences being sciences : Physical Anthropology absolutely, cultural anthropology probably, linguistics I would lean towards yes. Psychology wants to go there, and I think it's getting there and certain subfields absolutely, but there's a lot of metaphysics and politics still deeply embedded. The latest DSM was met with controversy and for good reason, to the point that it seems that honoring it is optional. If your field's main diagnostic manual is optional because it's perceived by so many to be political... that's a problem. That's like Chemists and Physicists rejecting the latest version of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Sociology, no. Again could be a specialized field of the macroecology of humans, but it's more about justifying one's political positions and performing "studies" to forward them rather than actually understanding the world. It seems if you want to do science on human societies anthropology is probably the route to go. And fun fact... I studied all of these fields in college while studying biochemistry. So, the above are my personal views on it from first hand experience.

The IVA with RPM is glorious. Spectacular work. Is there a way to shut off the cabin lights?

Free camera not really being free (it bumps up against something like it ran out of gimbal) and Kerbals on EVA not always facing the direction the camera does, like they are obeying some kind of orientation plane.

Love the pod. I'm really looking forward to the IVA.

I've been trying to learn how to very precisely point them at places... I have a kerbal that I don't like very much, and I think, he needs to be squished at several km/s, on the Mun with a near perpendicular hit.

Yes it seems like radially connected things that were just kinda glued on are weaker and need strutting, but not very much. It's like these parts are connected at a single point or on a little line so there's not much surface area of connection. Things that are designed to be connected radially are quite a bit stronger. These are parts that seem to have a pretty good connection surface, like radial decouplers, standard docking points, etc. Things connected via node are a ton stronger.

I'd go to the various biomes, and repeatedly, if there were more funny things (like the Community Science Project's stuff). It's like a wonderful surprise, I don't even care about the science. I want the discovery of laughter and fun. Science is about repetition so there should be a reward to returning places later. But I don't think the science points alone are necessarily the right reward, but I am at a loss to what is. I'd be somewhat for not reducing the biomes, but reducing the total science that could be extracted and some measurements being greatly reduced in their value (like the temperature scan), though I think surface samples should remain very valuable including repeats. Maybe in .24 you'll get tons of money for surface samples. I feel no need to go back to Duna as I've visited all the anomalies and there is one biome. Moho should have been a bit more of an accomplishment but felt kind of like a milk run, maybe would have been better if I had a target I was looking for or neat thing to see on the surface rather than landing where it was the most convenient.

I like to try and do things folks say are not allowed... Like Using electrical engines for a lander. Oh yes. It's my favorite one actually Lands well anywhere except Duna, Eve, Laythe and Tylo. I'm still in the next awesome thing phase. I seem to always be able to top my last creation even though I've yet to have somewhere I want to go or something I want to do that I can't. But, that doesn't mean I can't make it better. I remember when going to the Mun was hard. Now I can nearly launch, land, and return without anything else. Roleplay a bit with the advancement of the Kerbal Space Program. Make some flights routine. Make a lander that can launch from the pad, fuel at a space station, fly to either moon, and then land back at KSC without dropping any tanks. A totally reuseable ship (other than of course the fuel ship that will fuel the space station). Maybe see what you can do with Interstellar or Near Future. New modes of propulsion or technologies always peak up my interest as it works with that advancement of the KSP thing. Some things on my list of things to do. Having a bit of trouble with an Eve landing craft I find acceptable (refuse, refuse, refuse to do the seat. Has to be at least a lander can that docks and is brought home to Kerbin). Would really like to use the ALCOR pod to take 3 down and bring that back really building a booster shell around one of my existing landers. Afraid I may need new modes of propulsion (thermal jets probably) to do that mission in a way I'd think is slick. The #1 item on my list is I want to squish a Kerbal I don't like with an asteroid on the Mun. Highest velocity and biggest tonnage possible. Was thinking an E but that might be a bit ambitious, I think I'll try for a C first.

The great rockets that tend to end up in my sub-assembly kit (as in I use those to launch things other than what I originally built it for) have the following characteristics generally: They're all going to meet basic requirements of TWR and Delta-V for a given payload, and usually exceed it to make it more versatile. I like to add : Flies nice. No rotation and enough control authority to not have to fight it, but not so much that any tap of the stick gets it moving a lot. Clean separations, I don't like explosions that are a mystery if they're damaging the actual rocket or just parts being jettisoned. The top decoupler or fairing can be easily changed to fit payloads with different release requirements and there isn't stuff in the way. I'm also not a fan of dropping engines when I can help it. I like to do drop tanks whenever possible to get more delta-v but not drop engines if I can help it. Will drop engines if transitioning from atmo-launch engine to upper stage space engine though in order to get the better ISP.

I think it's excellent as-is so long as the texture fits a stock/KSO look (which I think it does). Needs a nice IVA too. Looks like hatches on the sides so it will be useful as a lander pod or command pod. Are you still thinking 2.5m 4 kerbal pod? Or maybe something larger now that we have 3.75m stock parts? A sweet 3.75m pod that holds 5-8 Kerbals would be pretty welcome. Or maybe less but with some other feature to justify the size.

Been doing a little of both but it seems the most prudent is to send the probe to intercept it and get it going where I want it, then if a crew is necessary to do whatever then send them. I'm testing right now if you get new science every time you take a sample on a SOI change with the asteroid. Then you may want to send crews. Another reason to send crews is if you're using KAS you could attach solar panels, engines, RCS pods, etc to the asteroid to help you move it. That might be a big deal for very large asteroids.

I was hoping for at least some kind of dust cloud when an asteroid hits the ground or some kind of explosion into smaller rocks.

How accomplished do you feel like you are at Mun landing? Have you built landers capable of multiple landings on the Mun in a single trip? Visited all the biomes? Found the anomalies? If you've done that... then... I'd be looking towards Duna and Ike. Eve fly-by is kind of cool and easier to get to than Duna and landing on Gilly is interesting but tedious. I say build an unmanned probe (rover) to go to Eve with the orbiting/delivery vehicle designed to come back to Kerbin, maybe land on Gilly first.

Both way easier and way harder. Way harder in that I spent a lot of time contemplating what I needed my first ship to do what any kind of retro engines would need to be like to kill relative velocity, that kind of thing. Way easier when I grabbed my first A class realized it was tiny so, re-directed it to land within 2 km of KSC because I had a lot of deltaV left in my ship once I grabbed it. I was expecting 100T for the little ones and something more like 100,000T for the E classes. Where getting them moved just enough to not hit anything (or the other way around) would be a challenge. Instead A class was more like 10 tons. My landers are heavier than that!

Current version has lots of sizes. You place the single part that is in your repository then when you go to configure it there is an option to change the size of the part.

Nice. Been looking for a bigger command pod. I'll give this one a try.

Just did a launch on Test8. Your blending method works nice. There was a little pop in right before I got far enough away from the clouds that they faded out all together. But the pop in wasn't bad and I probably woudn't have noticed had I not been looking for it. Edges of hexes seem to be gone too and I was looking for them as well. I'll keep running this one until you put up another test or new release with the volumetrics and let you know if I see anything glitchy or weird. Awesome job.

Using test 7 I can see what you mean by using the texture map to set the number of clouds and looks like that is working really well. I think the volumetric clouds blend pretty well at the edges of the major cloud fields with the texture map (looking down from 68km). The thing I found most distracting was the pop in of the hexes at the borders when over a dense part of the cloud texture and the hard edge of that hex. Not sure how to get around that edge other than some kind of fade-in, but it looks like it's faithful enough to your texture map that if you did something with the particle size increasing as you got closer or increase particle count it might be a good enough illusion. It looks awesome up close and when you're in the clouds. You've nailed that part I think.