Ippo

Say it with me now: CAPS LOCK IS RUDE. Also, you are still completely disregarding the points that have been made (in fact, we specifically said more than once that we don't want stock to be a simulator).

You know, this argument could be reversed. If the planets were to be scaled up, you could just use a RSS patch to rescale them down. In all honesty, I have to say that you say everyone's fun you mainly mean yours. There are many good points in this thread, and you are dismissing them all just saying that it would ruin your fun, with no further explanation.

Except for the part where kerbin is 3 times denser than osmium and it has magic air. Look, I get it that it is a lot of fun like this, but really, this is not about making a simulator, it's just about making a solar system that is not plain impossible according to physics. KSP is already a good teaching game, but it could be so much more (and this is what frustrates people like regex and I), and it doesn't even need to become the next orbiter to do that.

It must be the summer: all those that could go on vacation did, and while they are sipping margaritas the forum is inhabited by gollum-like creatures that sit in the dark complaining. (that would be me)

"But daaaad! All my friends are launching flat space stations in one single launch with turbojets!" "IN THIS HOUSE WE FOLLOW THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! NOW GO TO YOUR ROOM AND BALANCE YOUR C.O.L!"

By the way, I have just recently started playing with RSS + RO, and I agree that it would be way too difficult for the majority of people. However, it doesn't have to go full blown simulator to be made more realistic: I heard that 6.4x is a nice compromise. But honestly we can even keep this scale, as long as we get some basic staples of astronomy like tilted axes.

"Not a simulator" is not an excuse for the current shortcomings of the physics of a game that deals with advanced technologies. P.S: where do I get in line to propose to regex?

I finally managed to get a stable orbit... in Real Solar System. It's like a totally different game.

Those are not really the same thing though. As I said, it doesn't really make a big difference: it can be convenient for some edge cases (e.g, setting up flaps with FAR, or activating/deactivating a group of engines selectively). Considering we already have some automatic action groups (like the staging one), imho it makes sense, just for a little added convenience.

It might be useful to have an additional action group (call it init, boot, or whatever) that is fired automatically as soon as the ship has been loaded. I agree that you can just bind everything to a normal action group and activate it just before launch: not a big difference, just a little more convenience for some cases.

Well, wow! ^^ I imagine this means that 1) The average download isn't 20MB; 2) Some unique users do multiple downloads. Ok, enough OT spamming, sorry everyone

Well, mediacrush says you had around 600k users in the last month. Considering the cap of 50MB, and assuming an average download size of 20MB, I get somewhere around 10TB (11.4, actually) in the last month. How far off is it?

Do you mind if I also ask about the bandwidth? I was very curious when Majiir said his data cap was high enough, I wonder how much data we are using up. IIRC he has an allowance of some TBs per month, so I imagine we are not causing any trouble, but I'm still kinda curious.

Interesting... what happened to the other 20 mods? P.S: and since we are on the topic, can I ask you the site's stats? You did say I could ask them when I wanted. Please?

By the way, this mod supports Addon Version Checker: I strongly recommend that you install it, you will be notified when an update is available

Did you install Treeloader? It's not in any of the lists in the OP, so having installed all the essential mods doesn't help (besides, treeloader is only useful for career / science modes, and neither mode is supported).

Oh nice, I'm blind and completely missed the download link -.- Thanks guys, and sorry for the noobness

Well, I didn't know where to find one, so I just decided to delete the city lights folder instead (since to be honest, I never really liked how they look from up-close... and that's where I see them from most of the time ) Thanks anyway

Hi, I just tried installing this alongside the full RSS/RO pack and I'm getting a weird issue: RSS has changed Kerbin to Earth, but EVE is still using kerbin's map to draw the city lights, and of course it looks VERY weird... I guess I'm missing some config file, but I wouldn't know where :/

No, not even close: when I say black, I really mean absolute black. No light source -> no light, period. With this, landing on the dark side of the moon is absolutely impossible without lamps.

Hello, I would like to suggest a new mod for the overhaul: Ambient Light Shifter. It is NOT the one to adjust the ambient lighting at will made by blizzy for youtubers, it's an extract from Alternis Kerbol that basically kills the ambient lighting making the space REALLY dark. As far as I know it doesn't have a forum thread, but it can be found on kerbalstuff complete with the source code. With this mod, the dark side of the Moon isn't just dark: it is BLACK, as it should be.

So, I was taking a look at the KerbalRoster class. Apparently, besides Applicants and Crew, it also contains a Tourist roster (which is a list of ProtoCrewMember, so it is in fact meant to contain kerbals). ... are we in for some tourism contracts in the future?

Well, yes, rocket components are not "really" off the shelf... kinda. They are made to order, true, but they are designed according to some specifications that are specific to the model, and can't vary so much between configurations. So if you think about it, what does it really mean that you want to pay for a more reliable engine... but it has the same exact shape, weight, thrust, Isp, and is apparently built of the same components as the normal one? IMHO, it's better (both for realism and for gameplay) to have each engine with its own specific reliability and use it to differentiate. For example, the LV-45 is an obvious choice over the LV-30 because it has thrust vectoring with basically the same stats... but what if the LV-30 was significantly more reliable? With this, you have to choose between control authority and reliability; if you can pay to increase the stats, well, then you just have to throw money at the problem until it goes away, and judging from the general feedback on the contracts, money is something that you are rarely short on.

Well, if this is the case, I'll get working then To be fair, it is a fairly simple piece of code, but why reinvent the wheel? I'll see to it asap

Alpha 3.3.1 Hotfix So last night I was just about to go to sleep, and I had a sudden realization that there was a big mistake in a formula. This error was introduced with yesterday's update (yay agile development!), and it basically means that parts can't fail, EVER. I apologize for the mistake, it's a very stupid one, too. Specifically, this: return LambdaFromMTBF(this.CurrentMTBF) * TemperatureMultiplier() * LambdaMultiplier() * InspectionMultiplier(); was actually supposed to be this: return LambdaFromMTBF(this.CurrentMTBF) * (1 + TemperatureMultiplier()) * LambdaMultiplier() * InspectionMultiplier(); You see that (1 + TemperatureMultiplier()) ? Well, the temperature multiplier is 0 most of the time, and when it's not zero, it's usually lower than 10^-5. Yay quality!