BudgetHedgehog

Off the top of my head: - Spaceplane Plus - Fine Print - Docking - Wheels - Plane parts - Subassemblies - Some of KSPX I could be wrong, but EVA as well? What would be awesome if there were links to those mods too.. I only started playing in 0.23 so some of this was before my time, but it would be nice to have a read through what the docking mod was like when it first appeared.

Maybe, but pretty much every time Dan talks about animations, it's for the release trailer and not in-game.

Because it isn't..?

You say that, but...

Am I the only person who think that the fairings will not be acting as some kind of heatshield? I guess, given a loose enough definition, they do protect things from re-entry, but that's because they're protecting the parts from the airflow (not because they're absorbing the heat of scraping through the atmosphere). There was no mentions that the fairings themselves would be able to withstand re-entry.. Like, have a shallow re-entry with a very very delicate part inside the fairing and it'll be protected, but I wouldn't count on them for an Eve aerocapture.. Not to mention that fairings are supposed to make a payload more aerodynamic and well, when was the last time you saw a pointy heatshield? Not saying it's not gonna happen, but don't be surprised if it doesn't because I don't think that's what they meant.

Mini-update regarding the video - slight hiccup while "editing the previous episode and killed this file" so it's gone forever (unless someone was recording it?). I guess that means this is the only source for certain things? Feels kinda weird..

Would just like to point out that even stock has errors - the large reaction wheel uses too small attach nodes, and the structural panels are incorrect as well. The reason I know this? FAR changes them to be correct in order to calculate drag right. So yeah, you'd have to work around (or with) that too..

To be perfectly honest, unless auto- and chain-scaling worked perfectly and all the time, it'd quickly become more annoying than useful. Count how many people asked how to turn it off vs how many people liked it in the other thread. That's simply because it didn't work the way people expected it to (for example, attaching the Mk16 chute on top of the Mk1 pod made it default to 1.25m). By all means include it and work on it, it's a great idea, but make it default to off with an option to hold Shift while attaching to toggle it on or something. Disclaimer: For me personally, auto- and chain-scaling were one of the least desired features of TweakScale. If I wanted a part to be a different size than normal, I'd make it so. I don't want the mod to keep making that decision for me until I tell it not to. That said, I do like it being a property of a scaletype. Would stop a lot of weirdness, for sure.

ArgumentException: An element with the same key already exists in the dictionary. at System.Collections.ObjectModel.KeyedCollection`2[TKey,TItem].InsertItem (Int32 index, .TItem item) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at System.Collections.ObjectModel.Collection`1[T].Add (.T item) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at RealFuels.ModuleFuelTanks+FuelTankList.Load (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at RealFuels.MFSSettings+TankDefinition.Load (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at RealFuels.MFSSettings+TankDefinition..ctor (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at RealFuels.MFSSettings.Awake () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 UnityEngine.GameObject:Internal_AddComponentWithType(Type) UnityEngine.GameObject:AddComponent(Type) UnityEngine.GameObject:AddComponent() RealFuels.MFSSettings:get_Instance() RealFuels.ModuleFuelTanks:get_Settings() RealFuels.ModuleFuelTanks:OnAwake() PartModule:Awake() UnityEngine.GameObject:SetActive(Boolean) ShipConstruct:LoadShip(ConfigNode) ShipConstruction:LoadShip(String) EditorLogic:Start() Check everything to do with RealFuels for duplicates or outdated versions?

I assume they'll be rebalanced in 1.0, the max temp will mean something due to re-entry heat and (big assumption here), they won't have a heatshield on the bottom so actually won't survive normal re-entry.

I've always seen that as just the product of random craters rather than an intentional design choice.

Why? It's just as valid as the OP. You say you had mods, used x64 and didn't crash, therefore you reason that the stigma against Win64 is unfair. I said I had mods, used x64 and crashed, therefore I reason the stigma is justified. You used a personal experience to base your OP on, just as I used a personal experience to base my comment on. They're both anecdotal evidence, but you think mine isn't constructive and should be erased from existance? Can we erase your OP too, as it uses the same logic?

Every time I read 'stock ÃŽâ€V to orbit, 4.4km/s, is balanced, and 3.5km/s isn't', I ignore the rest of the post. Who decided that 4.4km/s was correct and balanced? The devs, when they made the air behave like jelly. It's not correct for such a stupidly small planet as Kerbin and the only reason that arbitrary number exists is because the aerodynamic model was wrong and unfairly balanced* (nosecones increasing overall drag etc). An unfair* aero creates an unfair* ÃŽâ€V to orbit. 3.5km/s to orbit, while low, is what it should be for the size Kerbin is. Call it too low, unbalanced, whatever, but that's only because that's how the atmosphere should behave for such a small planet. I don't care for fuel changes, it's fuel, it could be called Floober and Gabajee for all I care, all I need to know is that I need it to power my engines. Don't compare KSP to real life, don't even try because it has no relation to it. Kerbin is too small and the engines are underpowered. Only when Kerbin = Earth can you consider comparing stats to real life. Blah blah, nerf the Isp because for some reason, people are attached to an arbitrary 4.4km/s as "balanced" and won't be happy until that number remains the same even with a realistic atmosphere. Here's the scoop - you can only get that number with a realistic atmosphere by either making kerbin bigger or nerfing the engines across the board. Maybe actual realistic Isp will keep that number the same as well, I don't know, I've never used KIDS, but if it is the same, hooray, it's "balanced". Or, it's more realistic unbalanced and the only thing that will fix it (scale increase or Isp nerf) makes everything else harder. How about we wait and see what the actual ÃŽâ€V to orbit figure is before we start asking for nerfing? Because if it's 4.4km/s then something needs a buff because that number was arbitrary and wrong to begin with [insert comment about lack of release before 1.0 to check balance here]. In other words, wait and see. It's pretty much what Squad are doing anyway.. *when I say unfair, I mean it is more difficult than it should be. It's unbalanced and needs a buff, that kind of thing. EDIT 2: Put me down for increasing the scale of the universe please.

This isn't random failures, these are predictable ones. Random would be getting to Ike and your RCS thruster exploding. Knowing there are high winds on Eve would mean you either take RTGs, static solar panels or the shielded extendable ones that you can retract and protect when you see a storm coming. Not sure if go for that kind of thing on Minmus, it needs to be a fairly serene place. But OWK, I hear you say, how will players know there are winds down there? Well duh, that's why we send probes beforehand.. Random part failures I am against. But a more interactive environment than grey surface, red surface, purple surface etc is something I'd love KSP to have. For Pol, the devs just need to make ground scatter collidable

I love the materials bay. Imagine doing a surface sample at the Poles and finding a thing that you can load into the materials bay and shoot off to Moho and see how it copes in the high temperature you recorded during descent.. This is the best idea I've seen for improving science. Devs, pay attention. This guy has it figured out.

Not everyone has that good of a computer. I simply don't see the point in suffering through low FPS just it should feel big. Look through the suggestions forum and see how many posts suggest or advocate welding/joining parts or otherwise reduce part count. To not only willingly subject yourself to that, but actually prefer it, that's just so weird to me. I honestly don't see why that's preferable. Yeah increase immersion or whatever, but actually enjoying playing the game? To force yourself to sit through launches that take 5 times as long as they would normally take? I think you have a weird sense of enjoyment.

Well, I'm pretty sure planes need wings. I didn't realise I had to specify that the wings were designed to be used as wings. And there's an overall limit imposed by the game and that's part count. Yes, you achieved the exact structure for your interplanetary battle cruiser, but at what cost? Struggling with 2 seconds per frame and a constantly red MET clock. Part count is king, you can't avoid it, you can't circumvent it. It ultimately dictates everything you do in KSP. Yes, I could make a habitat shell with structural hardpoints and radial intakes but I would hate being near it due to it being anything over about 500 parts. Also, with 0.90 editors free offset and rotate gizmo, building limits don't really exist any more. You're given unlimited freedom of rotation while still being attached and, within a certain proximity, unlimited placement so making a little ledge slightly wider is simply a case of slapping a rover body on and clipping it inward or slightly widening the procedural wing it's made of. Guess which one unnecessarily increases part count and brings you closer to that ultimate limit.

I'm sorry, but what? Take, for example, procedural wings. If I have a particular wing shape in mind, I can either: use 3 procedural wings to get the exact shape I want, or I can use 50 fixed shape wings with various clipping to get the exact shape I want. Guess which hurts my framerate more (I'll give you a clue, it rhymes with mixed grape). And the end of it, I have my exact desired wing shape but one way bloats part count and can possibly introduce weird wing interactions where there shouldn't be any and the other way does not. I could argue that procedural wings increase creativity, allowing shapes and designs that are entirely impossible in stock (RE: that huge Kerbin Cup Mun entry thing that was made with them. Go try and make that with stock wings and then tell me limits are good.). While procedural fuel tanks may be a step too far and each rocket ends up being slightly differently sized and textured tubes, procedural wings just makes sense and it boggles my mind that people think it limits creativity when it demonstrably does not. As for "If there are no limits, you can't think outside the box because the box doesn't exist", you're literally saying there are no limits to what you can create. It's been a while since I heard 'man, these unlimited possibilities sure stifle my creativity'.

To be fair, that's more due to the fact that Kerbin is stupidly small. For rocket to reach LKO, it takes about 3500 with FAR. For LEO, you need about 9500m/s. The ISS is travelling at around 7500m/s. You need a heck of a lot of fuel (or a super advanced engine) to be able to achieve that kind of ÃŽâ€V with one stage IRL. In KSP, comparatively speaking, it's laughably easy.

Ehh.. atmospheric density aside, it depends how fast you're going. If you're going slow enough (i.e. below say, 60 m/s), the airflow isn't enough to flip you or keep you stable, you're just going too slow for it to have any effect. That combined with the unnecessary gravity losses for 10 km are why it'll be inefficient. Hell, you can go up to 10km, slow down to literally hovering, pitch over 45 degrees using engine gimbal and then carry on with your ascent. It won't be efficient at all and is probably the second worst way of getting to orbit behind going straight up until you reach 80km and then turning right. Go slow enough and it'll probably work, as long as you have the fuel. Go fast enough and it won't. It's as simple as that.

Not a peep so far. Don't know if it'll even be looked at. Shame really.. water landings are pretty much suicidal in the stock game.

PorkJet said on reddit that they're working on a new landing gear module to better suit larger gears - hopefully, better steering is part of it. And Max said "every single part that can contain crew", so yes, including passenger cabins. With PJ and frizzank working on them, they'll be sick af.

Nah, you'll want PWB Fuel Balancer. TACFB is good, but the CoM moves as the tanks drain. With PWB, as long as there are resources to move around and places to put them, it'll try and maintain a given CoM as much as possible.

Just a little tip, Kerbal Engineer has a 'Torque' display in the editor (not my album) Useful for when the CoT and CoM are too close/far apart and you don't have RCS Build Aid yet.

Thanks for the update, fingers and toes are crossed for Teds Rebalancing!