klesh

Hi, I am experiencing a bug, as you can see in the following screenshot. It looks almost like a grey aurora, moving south to north in a particular band. Here is the requested information from the OP:

Ah, so indeed the capsule is too big then. However, for ease of KSP lego style building, I can see why they would've just made it as they have. Its too bad, I enjoy the look of the tapered service module. I did a quick mock up with 2.5m parts and the new engines have nowhere near enough power for a 2.5m form factor. Straight service module it is then.

Hi, So I am wondering how you folks are making your Gemini recreations? Are you using a 1.875m rocket or a 2.5m one? The reason I ask is that the SM-18 service module is complicating that question for me. Here is the Gemini spacecraft for comparison: Note the tapered service module. We can achieve that look, but only with the FL-A215 tank adapter, which has no service-moduleness to it. Your rocket then becomes 2.5m. The SM-18 service module was clearly intended to go with the Mk2 Command Pod, modeled after Gemini, but it's lack of taper mean your rocket will stay at 1.875m. This appears to be the intended configuration. The engines that are clearly Gemini recreations have butts set at 1.875m, and though you can make them bare and put them on a 2.5m rocket, they were surely intended to be for the 1.875m form factor. So, does this mean the Mk2 capsule itself is too big? If the bottom of the tapered service module is supposed to be 1.875, then surely the top can't start there?

Just did it for you guys, hope it helps.

Agreed on both points. I'm having trouble understanding what was intended to be contained in this service module? I suppose it could be cool to put some small science parts in there on a atmosphere probe or something, with a heatshield on the bottom. But in terms of the top of the CM, the only chute that fits in there reasonably is the Mk12R radial drogue, which won't get the job done: Some of those cube-shaped radial chutes RoverDude has in some of his USI mods would've been great to include. That brings me to the old LES part. Left: Putting it atop the SM-6A and leaving it obviously doesn't work. Center: Using it without the SM-6A is reasonable, but I want to use my MH parts! Right: Translating the LES down into the SM-6A so that its nosecone is hidden looks the best, I think. Leaves Docking Jr "exposed" visually, but its the best solution. Ideally, the LES needs to be updated with a cone-less mesh variant (and have its texture made to match the new Mk1-3.)

$15 is 37.5% of $40. I don't really feel like I got 40% more game here. It definitely has a rushed feel to it. It could stand to have some more polish on it. Off the top of my head an example of this might be that none of the new pods have clickable windows that give you a good view outside. Another what I feel is a potentially telling example is that no new flags were included in Making History dlc. Now, its not like flags are a big deal or a gamechanger, to be sure. They are purely fluff; the kind of thing you add in at the end because everything else is done and you want to add some polish. All the new MH parts are manufactured by the same vanilla companies, so obviously no new company logos. I suppose they don't want to get political by including national flags, but Making History could've had US and Soviet flags included. We've got NASA's period "meatball" logo, but nothing for the Soviet side of things (though the reason we have the "old" NASA Meatball is the ARM patch and the fact that its the "current" NASA logo again.) Additionally, even the Making History logo itself was not used to make a flag. Seems like a small nitpick, but its things like that that make me go "Wow, this dlc is packed with content! They thought of everything!", and I am definitely not saying that about the Making History Expansion.

Right, which makes it come off as really low-effort.

I could make due with the 0.625m rcs tank being given a texture variant that matches the capsule texture. 2x of those, 4x rcs thrusters, with a ‘chute on the front and it looks like a pretty good approximation.

You DO have an in-game browser of community-created missions! You just have to manually find and install them yourself. This is exactly the kind of thing Steam Workshop is made for. Yes, I know Squad wont ever use it.

This is exactly what I mean. This is a “launch site”, whereas Woomerang currently is literally just a launchpad slapped in the middle of nowhere.

Yes, the launchpad looks really lonely all there by itself. Give me a flagpole, some roads, a building or two. Mods do a better job at giving me reasonable looking launch sites.

I really like the warmth of the suit lights on the new spacesuits. Its a rich, warm yellow which feels different from the old suit. Maybe I'm crazy.

The Wolfhound itself looks to be offcenter to me:

This is fixed in 1.4.2, though the thrust is still offcenter. Hi, It would appear that the RE-J10 "Wolfhound" engine is out of alignment: The above is the SM-25 Service Module with the RE-J10 "Wolfhound" placed under it.

Yeah, its more "mission builder" for shared challenges rather than "mission planner" for your personal career.

I found it odd that alot of the preview players on youtube claimed they needed to remove fuel from some of their tanks in order to get their Saturn V mock-ups in the air. Perhaps they were overbuilding them.

Have steam check the intergrity of the game files. https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=2037-QEUH-3335

So I watched some preview videos of the new expansion. I really hope this new launch location is more than just this lonely launchpad. No buildings, no tanks, no nothing!?! I am willing to bet that it is the same mesh and model of the planetary launchpads to be used in missions. It seems like the Kerbals would make a more substantial secondary launchpad to me.

Hey, those Apollo recreations in the new Making History DLC will be super historical with that classic NASA approach of "just wing it and see what happens" to dV calculation:

Console or PC? Mods could help you here, but you'd be out of luck on console. Specifically, I do believe KAS mod should allow you to EVA next to the RCS ports and remove them, or use an explosives charge to destroy them. Edit: Looks like "Kaboom!" could help you too:

This is the correct answer.

Since mesh switching did make it into the stock game, is there a better picture of its capabilities now? For this to be a thing, would one have to do into the 3D model, cut the headlight off and reattach it to the other side, then save that as a new model mesh to be switched to?

Yes, I'm sure the Curse guy is hard at work programming new code to handle mission file hosting. It'll be done right after the KSP implementation into the Curse mod manager.

Almost 2 months after the release of the Enhanced Edition for consoles, it's score on Metacritic is actually worse than that of the original console edition; the edition that was so bad, it needed to be replaced in full. Original console edition: PS4: 77 , XboxOne: 74 Enhanced Edition: PS4: 64, XBoxOne: No Score - Too few reviews (though the average of the 2 posted reviews is 66) As an aside, the score for the PC version is 88. Links: Part of this is that there are still very few reviews on the Enhanced Edition. With only 7 professional reviews of the PS4 version, the 2 scores in the 40's are bound to have more weight. There's not enough reviews of the XBox version to even generate a score. This seems strange to me, that there is so little coverage of the Enhanced Edition. I don't trust individual game reviews very much, but Metacritic seems to be a decent place to get an amalgamation of reviews and a sense for how a game is being received. From, what I have read, the Enhanced Edition is actually better than the initial console offering, so why the bad reviews, or lack of reviews (by individuals, or game websites/professional reviewers) in general?

https://www.privatedivision.com/ KSP must be about all they have going, judging from that webpage of theirs.