Josson K.

Next up in my series "Similar, but different" .... Mission Patches. I'll update the Album whenever I have time. The first one is the general main Mission Patch for my Apollo-Style Mun missions. To stay true to the motto "Similar, but different", it is called "Artemis" (Apollos sibling in Olympian Mythology) Of course the white swoosh is connecting Kerbin and the Mun, not Earth and the Moon. Artemis 8 Artemis 12

Sorry, I forgot about you. Here's a zip https://app.box.com/s/1nm0wbd24kwev305iuw5u5i9oz72e8ii

For all your Space Agency needs, here are Kerbalized flags of Earth's Space Agencies.

I've added a bunch of countries (there should be now all esa member nations including the scandinavians) and revised the ksa logo a bit

Sure, no problem. I've edited my original post. And I have no objections at all - I'm happy that someone wants to actually use my very simple doodles

For my own game I've made some flags that are based on Earth flags, but are intentionally just a tiny bit "off". Maybe someone else might like them as well Since they appear relatively small most of the time, I decided to reduce detail as much as possible. For example, the stand-in for the US flag only has four stripes instead of thirteen and only has one "star". For the others there wasn't actually a lot to do - they are pretty much reduced to the minimum already. So just to fit in with the theme of the US knock-off I decided to alter the proportions of the tricolores a bit. EDIT: No Logo on the flags:

@klesh - I wouldn't start with formations that are really prominent for this very reason. Here's how I'd do it in the beginning: Chose one to five features that are pretty minor (e.g. some small craters that could be traversed by a kerbal on foot in one or two minutes) and have a vote over the course of a week. This way there'd be a weekly event. At the same time suggestions for the next week could be turned in. For special occasions such as an update release or the anniversary of important space-related events there could be special naming events that run over a longer time - maybe combined with a theme (for example all entries have to have some relation to fiction that plays on the moon - maybe a Méliès Mountain Range ?) As you say, something like this would indeed be best run by an "official" community manager. I have no idea how much participation the community would show in something like this though.

Why stop at stars ? This website could be also used to name geological formations like craters, mares, canyons etc. on the rocky planets. Maybe even asteroids (might not be possible since they are procedurally generated ?) A good name for this entity could be derived from the International Astronomical Union which handles the real-world naming of astronomical objects - Kerbal Astronomical Union. The initialism would be KAU, which means "chew" in german, making it quite Kerbal. Ultimately a map mod could use the aggregated data to integrate memorizable names in contracts. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to land in the "Chisholm Crater" or at the "Hadden Highlands"

Is there any condition in which the ScienceAlert Button would not show up at all even though the mod is installed and worked before? For my current career-mode savegame the button is completely missing (not only greyed out) even though I have the mod installed and it shows up in another test savegame. I suspect that something might have happened to the persistent file when my PC crashed last time I was playing. Is there some way I could reset the game only in regard to ScienceAlert ? I'v tried reinstalling the mod, but this didn't help. Are there maybe some entries in the persistent file that I can delete and start "fresh" ?

Is guess it mainly bigger part packs that take their time (because I have a few of those - KWRocketry, FASA, USI UKS(OKS+MKS), Karbonite+, KSO, Infernal Robotics. Plus the OuterPlanetsMod, EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements......

@Mikki I wish that were the time needed with all my mods But even unmodded wasn't this fast before IIRC. It sped up considerably for the release version when they changed to DXT textures. Does anybody know if most mod authors also switched for their textures ? I have my system on SSD. Unfortunately the home folder and therefore my steam library still sits on spinning platters. Maybe I should cop my KSP directory over to the SSD

I'm interested in how long is your initial load time, ie how long does it take from clicking on the KSP icon until the main menu appears ? For me it is 4m18s with 105 mods (1.4GB on disk) installed. RAM usage sits at 5.6GB at the main menu. Of course I'm on Linux x64. Does the load time deter you from just firing up the game for a shorter session sometimes ? I love the game, but often I catch myself not wanting to play just because it won't be worth it to start the game for 30 minutes or so. If there is ONE thing that I'd really want improved in KSP it is the overall performance of the game (Load times and frame rate drop at increased complexity). Of course,as everyone I'm hoping on Unity5 regarding this issue, but is there any statement on SQUADS behalf that they see a possibility for bigger improvements in performance (especially load times) apart from that ?

Can confirm that hang on launch when loading KW Rocketry nosecones is due to Deadly Reentry cfg file. Replacing it with the one provided by starwaster repairs it. 94 mods running smoothly now Thanks everyone. And Thank you for updating KW to 1.02, I never play without it http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/54954-1-0-Deadly-Reentry-v7-0-3-update-May-14-2015?p=1944417&viewfull=1#post1944417

I can confirm this. KSP (linux 64bit) hangs during launch when the KW 2m SRB NoseCone is loading for me.

I can understand that, but I think you are wrong (for the career mode) In my opinion in this mode KSP is a space program simulator, which involves - among other things such as operating a communications network, space station, deep space probes - doing science (with rockets. in space). And you wouldn't actually be doing science for the sake of science since there is no actual research or data analysis involved in the process I described. You'd do science to enhance gameplay - by actually using your rockets and probes and rovers to do something. In the sandbox mode you don't have to do all the science related stuff.

Maybe an acceptable first step would be the possibility to provide a map projection of the moon or planet in the science center which would allow the player to give locales their own names. If a consensus about names should ever develop you could have the option to apply a configuration file (much like the crowdsourced science messages)

I don't think anyone would want to prevent this. I think the idea is not to 'hide' the planets but to add a sense of mystery to them by providing no other information than its orbit. To me taking Kerbals out into the void, not knowing what to expect once I arrive at a previously unkown Planet would be fun. Of course once you come in proximity or even into orbit, the planet would be unlocked like it is now.

Didn't know about your thread before, but you exactly described how I'd like the exploration of planets to be implemented.

This is an excellent suggestion. I'll just add my voice in favour.

Someone's played bridge construction set

I recently used MechJeb to mimic an ATV for my space station. As its name suggests it is completely automated (even docking on the ISS), so I figured this would be an appropriate use of Mechjeb. Everything was automated from launch ascent to docking. It was a fascinating experience and I did enjoy watching it do its thing even though I only gave the commands to engage the next stage of flight. Then I did the crew rotation by Shuttle which I flew manually of course.

I like it, even though this is possibly something for a later stage in development. Some sort of smaller assembly hall/clean room environment in general for small probe/rover/satellite construction maybe ? As you say it could have specialized assistance tools that could be specific to probe/rover construction (very exact placement of parts without using the big nodes for smallest possible form factor, maybe different symmetry settings) Maybe there could be an adjacent test track to verify the usability of rovers?

...Real Data... I tend to agree. The "Data" you gather is pretty meaningless in the end anyway. What would be much more interesting to me would be if they modeled the scientific process of gathering the data. Showing up with the right equipment and getting some points for "data" gets boring soon. Having a process and stepwise goals to achieve what is necessary to gather the "data" could be nice gameplay IMHO. Maybe have the system flexible enough to give the player the freedom to vary the process too.(I did a small outline for an idea regarding seismic experiments above). This is actually more educational than spitting out some fictional numbers (if this is what you mean). The findings should be somewhat self-consistent though.

I would be already happy with a science model that would allow for some 'real' simulated discovery. For example : - The mun (or planets) could have a layered structure which could be discovered by seismic impact experiments. In craters the top layer would be thinner than on highlands and so on, making things a bit more varied. Based on the completion level (covered area, depth, which could in turn be based on impact energy, ie mass, velocity) the player would be awarded points. Bonus points if you find underground water deposits and so on. This would achieve two things - One: actually giving the player something to do with their toys (rockets) - ie set up a number of seismometers on different locations, based on how interesting they might be (crater, highland etc), giving a reason to use rovers, then prepare an impactor probe that has to hit an area within the seismometers proximity with a certain velocity and mass. Interesting anomalies could then be checked out further with a ground radar vehicle. This is a real multipart mission that needs some planning and is fun(crashing stuff) instead of just showing up at a place with the right equipment. The second thing is that if you stay somewhat accurate in the science you get a teaching effect about how real science is conducted (ie start out with hypothesis - "maybe ground composition in a crater is different", then prepare and conduct an experiment and possibly verify with another method) I think there are a lot of opportunities to model real life scientific experiments into the game like this without being overly difficult or complicated. KerbalEDU could complement this with an explanation how real seismic measurements work. - Another thing are asteroids - they shouldn't just be revealed for free. Build a space telescope and assign an area of space for scanning (similar to how RemoteTech dishes work). - Also planets. Don't show how they really look in the tracking center or the map view unless you've been close to them. Instead just show a colored ball or an 'artists impression'. Just the curiosity of players that want to actually see the planet will be enough incentive to go to those places.

Wanting to name your landing site is definitely a valid point, no question. My point is that the planets/moons themselves already have names, which would imply that there IS some authority on Kerbin naming things. And as cpast mentioned, we already had names for a lot of things on moon before someone went there. Maybe this could be solved by community-naming larger features that could be resolved by a telescope and leaving local sites for naming by the player? I believe astronauts gave locations where they landed and did EVA on all kinds of names that dont show up on maps. I also agree that any possible naming should be done by the community. I already like 'Sea of duplicity' and 'Valles solitarius' Regarding naming only off-world sites i also agree. It would feel unnatural to name those by commitee, since locations on the homeworld are usually named by the people living there.