BioSehnsucht

Can you not simply allow research to be buffered on any craft in comm range that has capability to store data in the first place? I.e. A does research, sends to B which is dumb relay sat which has a link to C which is a vessel with science gear, which can then store it. Once it's transmitted, it should be removed from A and only be on C (to prevent duping). Then when C comes in radio contact (via network or direct) with KSC (or again another craft...) it can send... etc. Might need a way to select a comm target for data other than KSC ..

I'm fine with signal delay for vanilla controls of RT equipped vehicles that have no kerbals on them, but since the concept of mechjeb is that it's a mechanical jeb, it shouldn't need to be delayed (act like a kerbal on board), which would simplify things. Instead of trying to find ways to be compatible with other plugins, maybe just provide a simple API that returns the current delay and implementing delays is up to the other mods' authors to do.

+1 - I keep trying to make Apollo style landers, but the 2 person lander can is too large / heavy for what it does, but I don't want to only send down one kerbal...

Here's a more complicated / crazy variation: parachutes are packed in containers that are positioned within the docking port space (similar to how I suggested previously) but instead of opening through the docking ring, the containers slide and/or pivot outwards to be protruding past the docking ring / capsule edge then open to deploy. Realistic? Perhaps not. But it helps fit things in to the limited volume, and it's certainly more plausible that the mechanical engineering to pull it off and not have them snap off their rails or whatever, than creating magic parachutes that don't tangle or get cut off by the docking ring when deploying from inside it.

Perhaps have the parachutes come our of the inside rather than outside of the docking port ? Then you basically have all the room from the inner diameter as it is now to where the hatch would swing open through / to.

does it have enough oomph to shove a lander to mun (but not back), Apollo style? Speaking of, I wish we had a nice LEM style 'service module' to stick under lander can mk2 that would be compact enough to not be tall and wobbly but also still have enough room to shoehorn in an ascent stage insde the descent stage ( leaving the descent stage behind, apollo style). Also, all of it being narrow enough to fit inside a 2.5m fuselage... so again, Apollo style you could pull it out of the upper stage without it banging into the fairings or w/e or just simply having exploding fairings.

Although it is not rendered into separate portraits to be displayed bottom-right, probably the slowdown is due to all those IVA spaces actually existing (even if empty) inside the various crew-able modules. Even though half of the interior would get likely backface-culled, the rest would get rendered then occluded by the exterior of the module.

That's actually a genius idea for orbital docking too... instead of trying to get two giant craft to perfectly align. Might go horribly wrong though as they proceed along their slightly different orbital paths, but if you get it docked you can probably just reel it in ...

If we start setting up relay networks now, do you forsee any changes between now and release that would break saves / ships? Or is it only missing features / bugs that are the issue, not major architectural things in flux?

Or still two portholes, but instead of round, rectangular and more narrow but taking up a similar-ish amount of space as the normal round one along the circumference of the cylinder. Or Round, but with a line through the middle splitting into two semi-circles (and bevel / round the edges) to reflect where the sleep compartments are split.

derp. I misunderstood the poll description to be in total, not per side (the 3 evenly spaced with vertical sleep areas vs 1 for galley/bike area and 1 each in the horizontal sleep areas). I think being a bit non-symetrical along the long axis with respect to window placement as proposed for the poll option 2 is reasonable and would be visually more interesting than 3 evenly spaced windows.

I've found that any combination of hub airlock / fuel generator / fueltank / greenhouse around the hub works fine, but once I put on the inflatable hab module, despite identical weight, the ship leans hard in that direction. It appears perhaps that it's CoG is offset since when I pick it up and move it, my cursor is offset quite a ways from the actual part.

Home hab (or whichever has the landing gear), hub (or the one without), heatshield, works fine for me...

It looks like there's a bit of "wasted" space just past the 3rd sleep / toilet / shower box as you approach the (rendering) viewport : Would that not allow enough room (possibly with slightly taking up some room at the other end) to just flip the two beds horizontal but keep the toilets and showers (just moved either further in or out) i.e. ==| or |== where | is shower/toilet and = is beds of course. Then we could have viewports from the beds AND keep both the galley / excercise bike viewports ? (the poll made it sound like we'd lose one of those)

Does anyone else want to see BobCat use whatever is strapped to his leg (I'm assuming its a knife or something) to battle a shark or something and win?

Well, way back on the first page ... this is why I was asking if it was still necessary I guess "If it ain't broke because the community fixed it, we have higher priority bugs / features" It is. I fixed it. Also: updated the .zip to include a config file that applies ModularFuelTanks data to KSPX parts.

Does this still work in 0.21? Is it needed? (Since in theory, wasn't what MM does originally supposed to be stock, but has been bugged the whole time?)

You can also do a Falcon Heavy-esque by inserting the medium sized 3M stock tank between the two halves, radial attach decoupler, another one of those tanks to the couplers, and then stack down (and up if you want) from there. That requires no config edits, but is less faithful.

the code had a clear license, so as long as you follow it you're good. The models didn't have any clear licensing (rather, I understand they never bothered to license it one way or the other), so ... murky.

Check the Damned Robotics thread for a link to "Infernal Robotics" - it's patched DR code for .20.

you better TAKE ALL THE PICTURES

Any chance we can get fuel lines in the cubestruts? Also: Tri to cube strut and tri to octo strut adapters (The octo you can at least use tri to 2.5m and 2.5m to octo, there's not an equivalent for getting from tri to cube without going through the octos in the middle). Oh! and docking adapters for cubes and octos!

THSS uses rather complicated colliders (which match the geometry of the docking ports) to force things to line up. Maybe some invisible colliders (so as not to mess up the nice clean look)

I've had a ton of trouble since .20.x came out docking the THSS docking ports, frequently they get their colliders stuck inside each other. However, I do eventually get them to dock, just have to get them lined up right and plow in full RCS power! and hope not to destroy the crafts...

Should be 6 for translation as well - forwards and backwards.