Kobymaru

[quote name='EdFred']Yes, it was quite un-aerodynamic, it didn't need to be aerodynamic under the old system - and being streamlined wasn't a requirement. It was also created to ascend from Eve's sea level. The first 8,000dV is easy, the last 4,000 is the difficult part. I actually did have one that wasn't so ostentatious, I just didn't document it - since that one above was for the Eve Rocks challenge.[/QUOTE] Oh that was actually for pre-1.0? Well then congratulations to your great craft!

[quote name='EdFred']I'm guessing you didn't look at the links in my signature ;)[/QUOTE] That's not a particularly saxay craft. Quite the pre-1.0 pancake, in fact. Maybe you could have shaved off a few tons if you would have made it a little more streamlined? I saw a guy with a ridiculously small lander that could bring up one Kerbal. I'll link him if I find it again.

There's a mod that's basically "SAS on steroids": [url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/138332-PLUGIN-AtmosphereAutopilot-1-1-%28Fly-By-Wire%29[/url] If the Master Arm is on and your Navball is in surface mode, it will keep the nose at a constant pitch relative to the ground.

The engineer is kinda overloaded with "skills", both in stock and in all mods. I like the Idea, but maybe we should use a Pilot for this?

[quote name='fisfis']1) fix bugs of current release (and previous releases starting by 1.00), at least those which are making the game unplayable . But WITHOUT modyfying anything else, especially game mechanics and mod API. Additions are possible, but again, without changing anything what can affect previously started career. This should be done using releasing patches.[/QUOTE] [quote name='fisfis']Do you think I want so much?[/QUOTE] Yes. I think you severely underestimate the amount of effort that has to go in this kind of development, and severely overestimate the man-hour ressources of Suad. You are asking for "maintenance" of all releases from 1.0 into the future? Bugfixes for every single one of them? Do you have any idea of the duplicated work? This is ridiculous. KSP is not a Library that has a stable public API, it's also not a coorporate program for thousands of $ per license. It's a GAME for GAMERS by a SMALL GAME COMPANY. Personally, I would much, much prefer more features and refined physics instead of backported bugfixes to ancient versions of the game. [quote name='fisfis']2) follow common practices in versioning[/QUOTE] The common practice in versioning is that the Marketing Department does the versioning and that the numbers are completely made up. [quote name='fisfis']3) stop making players disapointed[/QUOTE] Players will always be disappointed. Always. Make a stupid souposphere -> "It's not realistic enough! Fix it!". Make better aero -> "OMG Reentry is so hard! You broke my game!". There's just no winning. [quote name='fisfis']4) stop behaving like if this is still beta, it is not beta anymore.[/QUOTE] It's still in Beta, for all intents and purposes. They said it's not, I think they had some internal stuff going on that pressured them to tag it "released", but it's been very very clear to everyone that it's in fact still Beta. Now the best thing to keep your sanity is to simply assume that it's still in Beta. Think of 1.0 as 0.91, 1.0.4 as 0.92, 1.0.5 as 0.93. Maybe 1.1.2 will be the real 1.0, who knows.

I did a Moho trip WAAYYY back in the day, in 0.23. Don't remember it to be that hard, and my ship looks kinda tiny compared to what you folks have built :/ [imgur]kpg92[/imgur] And that with a single Nuke. What a pain in the ass the burns were... Was I cheating? I truly don't know anymore. Though I'd have to add that there was no overheating of the Nukes if you attached them to the right parts. And for the return, Kerbins atmosphere was soft and soupy and cool, so you just dipped as low as you had to to stop the craft.

As mentioned, KAC is a big part of the solution. Another part is naming your craft nicely. Instead of having 99 crafts named "something Polar Probe", include the mission name and its purpose. For example, "Eve Mission - Transfer Tug" and "Dres Polar Ressource Scanner".

[quote name='ferram4']and heating is not proportional to drag. You can get more drag with less heating (proportionally) by diving deeper[/QUOTE] [quote name='Starwaster']Not only is heating not proportional to drag... it is [I]inversely[/I] proportional to drag. (the more drag, the less the heat load)[/QUOTE] Dear atmospheric Overlords, this is very counter-intuitive. Could you walk us mortals through it? Personally, I'm not opposed to formulas. (I just don't know which are important and what the abstractions for KSP are). ps.: I asked the same question [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/139855-PSA-Eve-%28re%29entry-is-impossible-CONFIRMED?p=2302079&viewfull=1#post2302079"]in the other thread[/URL]. Sorry for the spam.

[quote name='Fwiffo']I've been using this mod just fine in 1.0.4. Has anyone tried it yet in 1.0.5 and can you confirm whether it works?[/QUOTE] Have been using it for a few days, no issues found.

What's the dV on this? And what is the TWR at Eve Sea Level? Sorry, I'm at work, so I can't check myself.

[quote name='ferram4']Starting from a 100 km orbit, dropping periapsis to 7 km (expending 100 m/s of dV retrograde), your vehicle ends up like this: [URL]http://i.imgur.com/WkYtoc8.png[/URL] Your reentry periapsis was simply too high and didn't bleed off enough speed. The problem is your procedure, not Eve. I'll also note that since I left the RCS off besides for initial orientation, I likely had more mass than you during the entire reentry, so I should have had more heating.[/QUOTE] [quote name='ferram4']Except he's not. He's coming in too shallow. My post on the first page was taking his vehicle and coming in steeper, which allowed it to survive. This kind of statement is what leads to people like OP taking a ridiculously shallow trajectory like he showed, blowing up, and then declaring that reentry is impossible. The fact is, it's not.[/QUOTE] Ok, so I've heard this a few times now, and I totally believe you. But I still don't understand it. Can you explain it to me again? Also, please explain it like I'm 5 years old. [quote name='Streetwind']It's the same thing I keep preaching... scooting up to the very edge of the atmosphere and then timidly lowering yourself in is [I]not[/I] the most gentle and cool way of reentry. That process simply results in spending the maximum amount of time with a low vertical velocity in the high reaches of the atmosphere that are too whispy to slow you down yet perfectly capable of cooking your ship If your apoapsis before reentry is higher, you can blitz through the useless upper reaches with a high vertical velocity, before leveling off at your chosen periapsis in a regime of the atmosphere that provides useful amopunts of drag to slow you without generating overwhelming amounts of heat. Your g-forces are also going to be much more uniform and tolerable. Similarly, if you must start with a low apoapsis, then at least drop your periapsis low to accelerate your initial descent and try to get some body lift going in the lower reaches.[/QUOTE] Perhaps this is a question that requires a math-explanation, but I'm gonna try it qualitatively. It's not like any of the KSP atmospheres is layered, so I assume it's completely uniform with the pressure following an exponential function, correct? Now what is it that makes the higher regions "too whispy to slow you down yet perfectly capable of cooking your ship" and why does it not apply to the lower layers? In my head, the total amount of energy should be the same. So when you spend more time in higher layers, you brake the same amount, but spread out over a longer period of time. This gives the ship more time to radiate the heat and should lead to safer reentry. As mentioned by people, this is wrong. But why??? How can I bleed off more speed in the lower atmosphere with less heating? ps.: Suggestion to our Eve heroes: what if you turn the explanations and suggestions and the math into a sticky posts? There are way too many people complaining that Eve reentry is too hard, and instead of proving them wrong over and over, we should just have one sticky.

[quote name='Fwiffo']If so, that just leaves compatibility factors. Could anyone shed some light on how Squad handles backwards compatibility, changes to function signatures, deprecation, etc?[/QUOTE] They don't. [quote name='Fwiffo']Or do they generally just leave the old stuff alone and add new?[/QUOTE] Exactly this. However, note that they are usually changing few aspects of the game instead of rebuilding everything. So "most stuff" should still work after an update. That excludes the 1.1 update, because I feel a disturbance in the force about that one. [quote name='Fwiffo']If a mod tries to call a function who's signature has changed, I assume KSP would barf and crash, right?[/QUOTE] Pretty much this. This is also one of the main reasons for breakage of Mods between versions, and if you have access to source code (which you should have), you can fix many of those error quite easily. That would be the only reason for a recompile.

[quote name='Callmedave']It looks like i could do that, but i dont want to go through all that effort if its wrong. [/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that works. You won't even have to process it, you can just "Jettison Content" on the Ore tank.

Yes, this mod Exists! [url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/138332-PLUGIN-AtmosphereAutopilot-1-1-%28Fly-By-Wire%29[/url] The UI is kinda raw around the edges because the mod is new, but it is invalueble to flying bigger spaceplanes. By default, the Plugin will limit your AoA to 15 and your G's to 10. To set the limits manually, go to AA->Autopilot Module Manager->Master Switch-> GUI->Pitch ang vel controller GUI Then set "max AoA" values (way down) and "max G-force" by typing into the text fied.

Thanks for your input guys! The basic idea with the Duna-Synchronous sattelites was that I could set directional antennas on Duna to one sattelite and never worry about it. However, with the Omnidirectionals being in range for almost everything, this becomes obsolete. I think I will switch to that. [quote name='Coga19000']Well, Ike is not only in a synchronous orbit around Duna, but also tidally locked. Therefore, at least one of your problems can be solved by landing a comms probe on Ike's light side.[/QUOTE] That's a nice idea, but I'm still afraid of Satellites getting ejected at high timewarp. [quote name='Snark']Yes, RemoteTech really doesn't need synchronous, for any planet. Your goal is just to completely cover the surface of the planet, right? So all you need are satellites that are synchronous [I][U]with each other[/U][/I]. There's no particular reason that they need to be synchronous with the [I][U]surface of the planet[/U][/I]. So you can just put a few satellites in a somewhat lower orbit and they'll never intersect Ike at all. The other thing you want besides coverage of the planet's surface is a long-range link back to Kerbin. You can do that by just putting a single interplanetary relay satellite at a very high (i.e. much higher than Ike) circular polar orbit. Give it a long-range link back to Kerbin, and then hook up your low-altitude satellites to the relay.[/QUOTE] I like this option! The only problem is that it will be slightly annoying if the high altitude sattellite link is blocked by Ike or Duna. But I'll figure something out for that. [quote name='Alshain'][U][B]However[/B][/U] you still need at least two of these new satellites to avoid being blocked by either Duna or Ike (you can't be blocked by both if they are in exact opposing positions, since Ike would be behind your second satellite while the first is behind Duna). By the time you factor in the cost of batteries and probes and fuel and engines, I think simply putting 3 long range on the lower satellites is still cheaper. Only 2 of those can possibly be blocked at a time.[/QUOTE] I think I'll do that. I'm planning to have a base near the poles, so I wanted to put a Molnia Sattelite above it. Maybe I can use this as a backup link in case the high one gets obstructed.

[quote name='Venusgate']It may be my playstyle, but a trip to minmus and back takes dangerously close to 15 days. But a snacks for one for 15 days is way too little to use the 1.25 tank, or even an asymmetrical radial tank. Any chance of a wee tank, or procedural parts cfg?[/QUOTE] First, the mass of the radial tank is ridiculously small, so you should consider just using that and overstocking. Also gives you more time if you screw up and need a rescue mission :rolleyes: Second, if you really need smaller supplies, the [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/84359-1-0-5-USI-Survivability-Pack-%28Formerly-DERP%29-v0-3-3-2015-11-09"]USI Survivability Pack[/URL] contains a teeny tiny supply bag.

Hi! I wanted to set up a relay-network for RemoteTech around Duna. For this, I wanted to use the classical Synchronous (Duna-Stationary), three Sattellite set-up. Of course, Ike, that **** rock is in the way. Right on my desired orbit. However, I thought I was being smart and set up a synchronous orbit way outside of the Ike SOI: (if I didn't make a calculation mistake, the Ike SOI should be to scale) So I spent quite an amount of time to position those satellites perfectly. They had minimal deviation in distance and they were synchronized to the tenth of a second. Then one got ejected. I thought I maybe made a mistake, and somehow it actually got into Ike's SOI. I fixed up the other two as exact as I could. Then another one got ejected. And this makes me quite mad actually, since this time I am 100% sure that they were positioned and synchronized perfectly. So I have 2 questions: a) Is it just me, or does Ike grow when everyone is asleep and devours all poor little Duna-synchronous sattelites? b) How do you RemoteTech around Duna?

[quote name='KerikBalm']The trajectories mod tells you where you'll land if you keep your craft at a certain orientation... its not saying that you should keep your craft at that orientation...[/QUOTE] You can actually set the AoA in the Trajectories mod. Unfortunately, it's temporarily broken in 1.0.5 :(

Thanks for the hint! It's back again. Apparently it needs the options "Show additional UT controls" and "Use x10 UT Increment" for them to appear.

Hi, is there a reason that the Orbit +/- Buttons disappeared in the lates version? I found them most handy, since the Stock Node buttons constantly make the target change and sometimes change the gizmo back to the prog/rad/norm mode. I understand if you might want to clean up the UI, but the funcionality was most useful, so I suggest at least some hotkeys for this

I'm actually against it. On one hand, it wouldn't hurt me. On the other hand, it would divert Developer ressources that I'd much rather they spend somewhere else. The in KSP stands for Kerbal *SPACE* Program, not Kerbal SEA Program.

A lot is explained, if you stop seeing Squad as SQUAD and start seeing it as individual people with different skills/priorities. I think why SPACE got so "neglected" is for two reasons: Back before they had PorkJet, the Airplane parts looked rather trashy. They got PorkJet because they fell in love with his style, and he started to work on the worst art of the game, and that were SpacePlane parts. Now that they are almost completely overhauled, I'm pretty sure that either PorkJet starts to work on space parts and/or they get another modder to do that (I'm kinda hoping for Nertea here) In the meantime, they made a new Atmo and a new Heating. And TBH, that's great. I think everyone is forgetting the old souposphere, which was plainly ridiculous. For real guys, do you complain about this? Now about the Buoancy: They got NathanKell because he has got Mad Skillz. I'm pretty sure, Buoancy wasn't SQUAD's priority. Nobody even wanted to do that, but NathanKell just went and whipped up some magic code that worked really well. So Squad said "wow, really cool, why not??" Also note that this wasn't the only thing he did. He basically fixed everything that was wrong with the Heating System and then some. Good man. The other thing is that for now, they don't have the RAM to make the game pretty. I think people will be a little more motivated to go to space if the planets look good. So I'm inclined to say that parts-and visuals wise, we should just wait. Now that's not to say I don't have wishes... My biggest wish for the mid-term is that they introduce some form of Life Support and some meaningful Time Based mechanics. Their current stance on "if you can timewarp through it, it doesn't make sense" is S-backbwards. People shouldn't be able to just timewarp for free without consequences, and they should be able to leave their Kerbals Stranded in space for years only to see them crawl out freshly from the capsule when they come to get them. I know that there are Mods for life support. I just think they need to make some form of it stock. The fact that RoverDude has a Stock-ish LS mod and that he's employed by Squad gives me Hope.

I don't white knight. If criticism is in order, I like to voice it. "WAH WAH UNPLAYABLE WAH " is not criticism, it's just whining. People who write cowmulch like "'ll start a Kickstarter and raise capital to buy the product and take it to where it should be going." are either physically/mentally 15 years old, or they are trolling. Proper criticism explaines what should be improved and why. Good criticism even has a sense for how much effort is required to do that. Has OP provided any of that? No. He's literally just complaining that THE GAME MOVED FORWARD, implemented things he doesn't care about and broke all his mods. Do you call that a valuable "opinion"? I'm not gonna repeat why OP doesn't make sense, plenty of people did that already. As for this thread: - OP has never been seen since his OP. There are only two kinds of posts in this thread now: - People piling on their hate for Squad - People explaining why OP is wrong Only a very small minority provides actually useful feedback, but this gets drowned out by the other two groups, and should probably go in another place. So I ask you, why keep this thread alive? ps.: I wish OP would create a game company and make a game. Not because he'll succeed, but because maybe he'll understand that posts like this are not helpful.

Mods please close this thread. OP is just trolling, and everyone bites the bait.

Cool. Please be so kind to merge Pull Request #38 Edit: Or not. Apperently, Pull Request #34 , commit f53c92b should already take care of it.