BudgetHedgehog

I was going to add that into my examples, but couldn't think of a way to express it. But yeah, that's it - RL astronauts probably do have better MFDs than what RPM can provide but what RPM does is give you a sense of what it's like to be in control of a spaceship. It gives you enough info (and then some) to think "yeah, I can see myself doing a real life mission like this.. seem simple enough". It's believable enough, given the current game limitations. MFDs, LCD displays, lots of numbers.. it's all very scientific looking, it must at least similar to what astronauts have.

It still appears every time you come out of warp and the vessels physics load.. But yeah, fantastic stuff! Love in-game servo editing, loving the hiding of the window, love love love everything new in it. I'm in a happy mood tonight

I know and that's what kind of irritates me about the game. Harv likes the 'seat of the pants' kind of building and flying, I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to think that he doesn't mind asparagus pancakes and thinks they should be a staple of any budding young kerbonauts program. But yes, the trouble comes when people disagree and want something that at least looks like it could go to space. People aren't stupid, they know what a rocket looks like. I remember my first creations in KSP and I was thinking 'well, if it works, it ain't stupid..' and I can kind of see the draw for that, but since I downloaded various mods that make the game more believable (FAR, KW, EVE etc), I found myself enjoying the game a whole lot more because I could see my rockets on a real life launch pad. I could see real people in the command pod, I could, with the help of Hullcam's launchpad camera, see my launch being televised around the world. One of my personal favourite screenshots ever is this one - you can see the power, you can feel the sense of wanting to know more about the universe surrounding the planet.. Yeah, it was just launching an interplanetary tug into LKO, but I honestly feel like I wouldn't enjoy launching the same thing, had I not installed FAR and KW beforehand. It'd just be a repeat "45 at 10k" launch that gets me into the same orbit every time otherwise. But yeah, I can see people do want to play stock and enjoy Kerbin's soupy atmosphere and everything which is why, above all else, I wish the devs would, in 1.0, implement difficulty sliders. Turn on/off life support, believable aerodynamics, re-entry heating, clouds etc etc. People could customise the game to their personal preference and I would keep enjoying the game as much as I already do.

You've got a scanning part active on your vessel, right? Either a high-res, low-res or biome scanner? And you're at the right altitude? The scanning window is open?

Warning, wall of text ahead. So I was reading an excellent post here earlier that I can't find now, but it was on about making things believable, not realistic. I found myself realising that I didn't in fact want realism (which is something I've thought I wanted for ages), I wanted the game to be believeable. Let me give you some examples: Clouds. An atmosphereic planet like Kerbin, with obvious trees and mountains and water, doesn't have any in the stock game. Why do I like EVE? Not because it makes things realistic, but because it makes me actually believe the planet could exist in real life (because those things make clouds). Granted, it's a bit more problematic on Duna, but it has an atmosphere and no doubt places that heat up quicker than others. This creates wind which kicks up dust storms. It's believable. Ion drives. People say their thrust is unrealistic, but before KSP, I hadn't even heard of them. I researched them and found that they use electricity to accelerate argon/xenon etc ions up to a high speed and spit them out the back. Huh, sounds believable.. I don't know enough about them to know if they're similar to KSP but I know inert gas ions don't have a high density so the thrust will be pretty low and oh look, it is. That's believable. Aerodynamics. I like FAR not because it makes aerodynamics more realistic but because it makes them behave more like I would expect them to. Yes, there's a fine line between them but when you can create such ridiculous designs like this with pFairings, it breaks my sense of immersion and I stop believing something like that could exist (it's why I see pFairings as cheating with FAR and prefer KWR fairings where I have a fixed space to work with). Life Support. Granted, I don't know how kerbals survive (photosynthesis? Snacks?) but I don't like going to Jool and Eeloo in a Mk1 lander can because I don't believe it's something that could happen in the KSP universe. It takes years to get there and they were sat in their seat the entire time? I'm not looking for mental/physical health deterioration or anything like that, I just want to be able to say to them 'don't worry guys, you won't run out of oxygen'. RemoteTech/AntennaRange. I do find it hard to believe that a single extendible whip antenna on a probe on Eeloo can transmit stuff directly to Kerbin. I know Voyager does it, but it's packet size and speed is extremely low. But I do believe that, with a proper relay around Kerbin to catch incoming transmissions, a directional dish would be able to reach Kerbin and deliver decent speeds. Those are just a few examples, but it helps me with the 'you're talking about realism in a game with 75cm tall green aliens?'. No, I'm talking about believability. KSP, while it does contain 75cm tall green aliens, is based on real world physics. The orbital mechanics are very real and can easily even be transferred into real life situations and vice versa (I do know that some guys at NASA play KSP). It's realistic for the world that we're given and that is what I want the direction of the game to head. Many films ignore this - sure, have aliens or vampires, whatever, but at least stick to your own rules that you've outlined. KSP makes it very clear that the process of getting into orbit is extremely similar to how it's done IRL - again, given the universe it inhabits. Yeah, the atmosphere isn't terribly realistic for the gravity well, but it's believable enough - there's no 'point straight up and thrust and you're in orbit' or 'ships are planes in space' incorrect tropes, it's very real because it's very believable. If it had such tropes, I'd wouldn't be half as interested (although getting spaceplanes into orbit would be easier..) but as it stands, that's what keeps me coming back. The fact that I believe this universe/solar system could exist somewhere (before you mention n-body physics or the fact that stable orbits do still degrade or whatever, I am aware of the game engines limitations and am willing to cut it some clack in that area). Asteroids are step towards believability. The new NASA parts are too - no longer are massive asparagus-staged, orange-tank lifter necessary for lifting heavy loads. As I mentioned, when I see something that ridiculous, it breaks immersion and honestly, lowers my fun a little. The ARM parts didn't allow for more realistic rockets, they allowed for more believable ones. There's no need for asparagus pancakes, just a liquid core with big can of boom at the bottom. I believe that kerbals would more likely consider that as the next step in the space program rather than radially decoupling 40 orange sides. Why have I posted this here and not in the general discussion? Because this is the direction I want KSP to take. I want it to become more believable given the rules already laid out. Yes, this would mean making a few mods stock, but it also should give devs an idea of what to aim for with regards to 'what do we do with KSP next?'. And the answer to that is simply 'make me believe Kerbin exists. Make me believe kerbals are real things in a far off solar system.'

I built my first non-stupid looking plane with this and can really see me using it for a spaceplane once I unlock RAPIERs or something other than the basic jets. But yeah, made a plane with a small cargo bay and I landed it as well! First time I've actually enjoyed flying a plane in KSP.. thank you!

Download the RPM version.. I can't remember the 'stock' RPM, but with KSI, it's under the Mod menu. Whatever section has SCANsat and Mechjeb menus in RPM, has VV too.

You need to comment out that line in the cfg. Theres a fix earlier in the thread, I'd find it now but I'm on mobile at work.

Link, download and file all working well on my end.

You know, I remember seeing someone make a sea mining rig on reddit a while back.. lemme see if I can find it.. EDIT: Here it is! I think there was some file editing somewhere along the line though so bear that in mind.

Didn't know I needed this until I saw it. Cheers!

Is there a way to make this work with TreeLoader? I recently downloaded Near Future that has some new nodes and I noticed the part placement in the tech tree isn't being applied any more (grr, cheaty Science Jr so early).. is it as simple as putting :Final at the end of every reshuffling?

If he's taking feature requests, could I suggest removing hotkeys entirely and just running off Toolbar? Both do the same thing anyway. Also, I'd like the ability to assign various kerbal different ranks and jobs. Stuff like Pilot, Engineer, Scientist.. With various ranks such as Junior, Senior, Chief etc.. But important things first, fix bugs and things before new features are looked at. Interestingly, although I've uninstalled FF (because the F button toggling the window got far too annoying), I still play like I had it installed. I still choose different kerbals for each mission, even though there's no real need to. Please let FF be fixed

No doubt real life rocket scientists would like to fix the "Venus' atmosphere is too thick" bug too.

You gave it your consent when you didn't change the 'always keep this game up to date' option in the properties tab. It seems a logical thing to do if you don't want to keep it updated.

Oh dear god, I hope they don't take the Kethane route and make you babysit a craft while it scans...

I've lost count of the times where I've fiddled with a node to try and see what works best but eventually, I decide that the, ahem, direction I've decided to take with this node won't work. At the moment, there's no way to rest a node to it's 'default' value of 0 m/s - the only way is to delete the node entirely and make a new one. While I would normally be able to cope with this, the fact remains that placing nodes can be extremely buggy/haphazard. Try and place a node on a new orbit after an encounter but the new orbit is very similar to the current (so they're close together). 90% of the time, I've not been able to. Or placing nodes on orbits that are extremely non-eccentric - not only does the AP/PE wobble around (I can deal with that) but trying to place a node on such wobbliness is trying, to say the least. So yeah, something like 'when the node editor symbols are visible, Spacebar resets the node to 0 so you can start again without deleting and replacing', similar to how pressing space in the editors while holding a part will reset it to it's default position/rotation (though, that may be a function of EditorExtensions, I can't remember EDIT: Apparently, it's not). Again I go with the waffling so yeah, thoughts?

Just want to point out that Rows said that they (probably) wouldn't incorporate mods directly into the game, not that any mod 'ideas' aren't going to be implemented. There might be a scanning system planned for the final final release, we don't know. All we know is that if there was, it won't be direct copypaste of SCANsat. I hope there is some scanning system in stock though.. I kinda like doing that.

That's because Eve lacks both biomes (aside from water/surface) and anomalies.

You know you can tweak the robotic parts down a size, right?

That's too high for even the hi-res scanner to work - that has a ceiling of 800km. You're about fives time too high for the scanners you have to work. I hope that satellite has some way of getting closer. EDIT: Oh and see the 'LO', 'BIO' and 'ANOM' under the small map there? As it say in the OP, "the solid ORANGE tells you that you are not scanning -- your altitude is too high for this scanner." They need to either be flashing orange/green (not ideal but it'll work) or solid green (ideal altitude). The altitude of the scanners is found in both the OP and ingame in the part list.

2500m is way inside the atmosphere.. do you mean 2500km? Because that's too high for any of the scanners..

Incorrect. I want the game to be as realistic as possible within reason. Yeah, clouds, re-rentry heating and aerodynamics are realistic and I would welcome their addition into the game. But there's simply no point in requiring players to rebuild command pods and do flight tests simply because you think it should be either 100% or 0% realism. Pick and choose different elements to maximise realism while still making the game fun.

Do you still have the Goodspeed plugin installed? If so, you should delete it as the two aren't compatible.