AlexinTokyo

Wow, quick fix! I'll test again this evening and report back.

Initial testing completed (VAB and Launch - Vessel Stats): ÃŽâ€v calculations appear fine for both old and new parts. Simple staging appears OK. Asparagus staging appeared OK for me at first, but zeppelinmage's issue was reproduced. Detailed testing reveals that struts seem to be the culprit: Asparagus test craft in VAB: Same vehicle on pad: Same vehicle on pad with all struts removed: Craft File with struts. Please feel free to PM me if you need any further details. Testing continues: Definitely struts causing the problem: Basic testbed vehicle in VAB: Same vehicle on the pad - correct ÃŽâ€v stats: Added lateral struts only (VAB): On the pad - still correct: Added radial struts (VAB): Broken (pad): Removed the lateral struts (VAB): Still broken: Craft File *If all the relevant data is cut off in the forum images, you can 'open' them to view the whole pic. In unrelated testing: SRBs result in NaN for Isp:

Has anyone tested Kerbal Alarm Clock with 0.23.5 yet? If not, will do so when I get home from work.

Posting to flag this thread for myself. Actual testing will occur when I get home from work. EDIT: Downloaded, testing to start after food

I had a long (and very much needed) laugh from this post. Thanks.

From the Scott Manley video, it looks like KER works, except that it doesn't like the new combined engine-and-tank LFBs. I expect that the changes to orbit calculations and manouver nodes wll break mods relating to that functionality (KAC, Precise Node, MechJeb, ...). That's a guess, but I'd wager it was a good one.

I had interpreted this slightly differently. I think that the science cost will unlock all parts in the node, but individual parts from a locked but visible node can be unlocked separately by paying the unlock cost. So if you desperately need a solar panel, but don't have enough science to unlock the node, you can pay cash for a prototype panel which will allow you access to that part only. But you can't just buy LV-N tech without getting at least close on the tech tree. It will be interesting to see how they actually implement this, that's for sure.

Started a new career save ('cause why not). And did my first ever Munar FRT: How's that for a nice pair of periapsides? </brag> EDIT: After the burn and some refinements

You don't have to redirect it; you can, indeed, do science in situ. Then you can redirect it and do MOAR science. I think the asteroid gives 3 different reports: Kerbolar orbit, HKO, and LKO. All of the above AFAIK, of course.

AFAIK it's surface samples only, but you can get different samples from the same asteroid depending on what SoI/orbital height it's at.

Something's been bugging me. One of the demonstration videos (maybe Scott Manley's, I can't recall) said that there was no integration of the ARM into career mode. I was wondering if that meant that the new parts would only be available in sandbox, as they haven't been added to the tech tree? Or was he simply referring to the planned 0.24 improvements not being included in 0.23.5? Anyone able to let me know? T'would be much appreciated.

Sounds like an awesome idea One question to bear in mind: How much physics will the kids you're presenting to have? I guess since you're trying to persuade them to choose your school, it'll be less than you. So you will need to keep the level of the science at (or just a little above) their level, or you will lose their interest and attention. One possible idea for the presentation itself: Choose a maneuver (launch, landing, transfer, etc.) and demonstrate the intuitive but wrong way then the right way. So for a launch, go straight up and show that you don't get to orbit, then demonstrate and explain a proper gravity turn.

If you edit your original post, hit 'Go advanced' and there's a pull down that allows you to change the thread title prefix.

In the interview with Scott Manley, HarvesteR explicitly said that the Isp would not be changed. So no ÃŽâ€v nerf. The power requirements were cut so that it doesn't require 4 Gigantor panels to run 1 ion engine.

I don't know what the devs' purpose was in including the colored lights, but I will be using them to mark port and starboard on my ships to help with docking alignment.

If you edit the first post and go to advanced editing mode, you should see a pull-down (I think it's labeled 'prefix') that currently says 'Unanswered'. Change it to 'Answered', save changes, you're done.

For me: I could buy KSP with my existing account, instead of having to create another account with another vendor holding my credit card details. Autoupdates are nice (but maybe not for KSP, depending on how much they break). Screenshots directly to the Steam cloud, with the same procedure in different games (Steam overlay has a dedicated screenshot key and a semi-automatic uploader). There is a big social aspect to Steam, but I don't use it; for me it's just a very convenient digital delivery platform for games which I can't get other ways because there's no local distributor (see the username ) Is it worth signing up to Steam for KSP? I would probably say no. Is it worth getting KSP through Steam if you already use Steam? Sure.

The first half of my modular hex station

My alarm clock told me I had a Jool transfer window coming up, so I decided to send a Jool System Probe Ship to hit Jool and its moons. I built and launched this, to dock with one of the heavy interplanetary tugs I have in LKO waiting for these opportunities. Got this into a good parking orbit and brought the tug in for a rendezvous, then realised (and you're probably ahead of me here) that neither vessel has RCS, and the probe doesn't even have an available maneuvering engine. Nailed it, though

Does anyone have any nice tips for horizontally mounting payloads simply? For example: Say I want to build a hexagonal modular space station. I will create each module as a vertex with two half edges attached, sticking out at 120 degrees from each other. Clearly, I don't want to mount the vertex end on to the lifter, as it would be hideously unbalanced. But if I rotate the module so the legs are pointing into the air, I can't use symmetry to build the lifter, because the axis of symmetry follows the main axis of the original root part, which is now horizontal. I can't attach the station module sideways to a lifter as a sub-assembly, because I cant attach the sub-assembly to a radial hard point's 'inner' side. For the same reason, I can't build the lifter first and add a horizontal payload. Is there any way to get the rotated payload to sit happily on top of a lifter which can be built with symmetry, or is the only option to build everything completely by eye, with no automatic symmetry involved. Honestly, this is probably the most frustrating thing I've tried to do in KSP yet.

Agree with being able to have it manned at launch - that way I wouldn't have to launch/recover a command pod every time I want to test a manned rover on Kerbin.

Do you worry about potential Kessler Syndrome? Or are you an orbital litterbug? AKA a poll to determine the community care factor for space debris. Please feel free to post hints, tips, tricks, pics, craft files, etc., both for cleanup missions and for debris-less designs.

I like the idea of specialisations for Kerbals. My only thought about implementing Skyrunner's suggestion would be how you simulate a Kerbal's flying skill, given that (at the moment anyway) all flying is done by the player. Some other thoughts for making multi-crewed missions more attractive: Experiments requiring more than one Kerbal to complete (think: I'm manipulating this tricky bit of apparatus, could you make sure that the laser cutter doesn't move) Experiments that require a fixed number of Kerbaldays to complete, so you could choose to it slowly with one or quickly with many, maybe within hard limits. Experiments that require a certain speciality (or combination of specialities) to complete (Don't send a metallurgist to analyse an atmosphere sample) Contractual obligations - your contract partner requires you to send 2 of their researchers to Duna and return them, but they can't fly a rocket (they're researchers) [a bit arbitrary, maybe, but certainly realistic]

I actually quite like Ryder's idea, although I didn't and have a big problem with the current system. The primary problems I do have with the current system are that there's no connection at all between the 'research' and the results. It bugs me a bit that I can unlock all the high-end parts solely on Mun/Minmus rocketry missions, and then just build an SSTO, never having built or flown a plane before, and agree with Cpt. Kipard that 'that analysing a Minmus soil sample can somehow give you access to a longer-range antenna,' is irksome. So from those points of view, I'd quite like to see things go down the direction Ryder is aiming, or at least close to it. I'm not entirely against having points, though, as they do allow some freedom of choice and I like the thought of using them as part of a multi-curency mix where science can be exchanged for cash and/or reputation, and vice versa. I'm also not sure that there aren't two separate, but related issues here. One is the order that new tech (parts) becomes available, the tech tree; and the other is the conditions allowing the player to advance along the tree/trees, the science points or achievements. Regarding the tree itself, I think that there need to be either multiple starting nodes (e.g. rocketry, aerodynamics, materials, telemetry, etc.) or multiple cheap second nodes if there absolutely must be a single starting node. As for gaining the advancements, perhaps a point system, where you get points for various very general achievements as suggested by Ryder, with an additional constraint on some nodes that something has to be done first, so you could unlock the second-tier plane parts only after having achieved a controlled flight (for example) but just doing one controlled flight might not yield enough points, so you may have to do something else as well (but that can be "blue-sky" research, i.e. anything). You could leave the goo (which I think is funny) in the game as blue-sky research. I think I would prefer this to automagically getting new parts the first time you achieve something, even if the achievement is very broad, especially at the higher tiers. One other benefit of points, that I thought of as I was typing this, is that you could include part improvements. Maybe something like: Starting landing legs have a crash tolerance of 10 m/s. After you've unlocked them (by whatever method), you can spend some science points to increase that to 12 m/s, up to some hard limit and with increasing costs. Completely agree that the advancement should be based on (space)flight achievements rather than just taking the temperature of a particular spot on Minmus.

Left click on the hatch when it displays 'Crew Hatch' or similar. That should bring up a menu with everyone inside the lab, and you can select EVA to bring them out of the hatch.