Alshain

On the other hand, don't build your components so large that it's hard to get them off the ground. Rather 7 medium sized components than 15 small ones or 3 big ones.

1) Partially. There is a distance limit to any craft flying in the atmosphere that you are not focused on that causes the craft to be deleted and assumed lost. In space, it doesn't exist, the craft will unload but not be deleted. This is because of physics calculation limitations. The physics change so much in the atmosphere that too many craft (or debris) would really pull your computer down. In space they go "on rails" which means only minimal calculations for orbit, but not physical interactions. However in the atmosphere they cannot go on rails. 2) There are mods, there is one that freezes the craft so you can come back to it later. I can't remember the name. Another one is StageRecovery which looks at the craft at the time of deletion and determines if it could have been possibly been landed safely. If so, it refunds the cash and puts the Kerbals back in the astronaut complex... but the craft is still deleted. EDIT Found it!

Thanks, looks like it actually kills it if the OP even edits the content without touching the tags. That is unfortunate, especially if a mod is given TOTM, since those threads get edited the most.

@tater It's just not automatically configured, but it can do that. Here is my configuration for KerbinSide (which actually doesn't require KerbinSide). You can start with that and increase the ranges to your liking.

So does RemoteTech, you just have to either build them yourself from the VAB/SPH and drive them/land them, or configure the ground stations for it in the configuration. If you are using KerbinSide you can even have real representations of them. RT will basically be the realistic mode while the stock is going to be much more simplistic.

sal_vager would have to decide how he wants to do it, but I had meant for it to be a temporary tag to be removed after the 1 month. He could however add the month and year to the tag if he wanted to. We can add tags to our threads, but they are grey EDIT: I think, though if I edit this one here I can see the tag sal gave it. Not entirely sure how that works lol. EDIT 2: Yeah, see when I tried to edit it, it changed it to grey. So only mods can do the pink ones. If sal or one of the mods would change that back to a prefix, I'll check to see if adding new tags (with a comma) removes it.

Ah, I didn't realize that one had been updated.

Did the navball replacer ever get fixed in this?

I'll grant you that one, you do have to put it back on to get your dV calculator. A small issue, but still pretty easy to deal with. It has some parts not related to fairings for some reason, but I don't count those as they aren't part of the fairing system and wouldn't be necessary in stock had they used the PF method. A thruster plate or something like that, it uses the same node modules and I think it was just crammed into the mod because the mod author didn't want to release it as as separate mod with the same code. There was also a legacy base part for interstage fairings, I think it was left in so as not to break older rockets. However the normal bases now serve both interstage and top fairings so again it's unnecessary and could be removed if stockified. That leaves 2 bases, and 4 fairing sides as I said, 6 parts 4 of which add new functionality and if you must include the interstage fairing base, it would be 7 parts, 5 of which add new functionality. As opposed to... Why won't this fairing expand up anymore? I placed the base now I have to build the fairing before I build the payload? How do I stop building the fairing? There is text in the middle of the screen but it's washed out by the background, what does it say? Is it important? How do you build a new segement or close the fairing... oh, when the unreadable text changes colors good thing I'm not color blind! We will have to agree to disagree on that one, the stock fairings are much less intuitive.

In technical terms, it needs a very very slightly higher ejection force toward the top of the fairing than the bottom.

People keep asking in the threads of the month why threads are stickied when @sal_vager awards them that title. We know from RoverDude's mod threads that you can add pink tags which normal users can not add (ours are grey). My suggestion is to add a pink tag called "Thread of the Month" that can be assigned by sal_vager to help clarify this if possible. Edit Test

I sure can. As a bonus, I added a similar patch for decouplers, etc.

See my comments in green.

That's all fine as long as there is no penalty for doing what you want to do instead of what the game wants you to do. The thread in your signature would suggest otherwise. If I don't like to do tourism at all, then the game shouldn't force me. If I'm going to lose reputation or money or whatever because I choose to play my game, then I'd rather just keep contracts and science as they are. Yet in the real world it is a bit of both. The Lunar Roving Vehicle only received funding days before the Apollo 11 landing. Sure, there had been studies and other such things much earlier, but the project did not exist before we landed on the moon.

Even if they did use Proc Fairings (they probably won't), they would probably use fixed size bases like we have for the current stock ones, so you can't count on that 50 meter size. Squad only wants the fairing shell to be procedural. I agree, I dislike the stock fairings, but I do know there are also people that like them.

You could do legs for length, though I've never had trouble getting them to align right. It's a lot harder on a plane. The big issues come from aligning the front wheel with the rear wheels while maintaining neutral or positive incidence and maintaining enough rear wheel* stance width for a good safe landing, and to keep it at a good distance behind the center of mass. It's just too many variables to do with static fixed wheels and it results in limiting plane design choices more than they should be. I've seen Squad employees on the forums saying they can't wait for an update for Adjustable landing gear. The stock wheels just suck (and not just because of the bugs, though that doesn't help). *Or front wheel for tail draggers, or both for 4 wheel variants, etc. Heat shielding, I'm not sure it's necessary with the inflatable available. IMO, Structural components should have a tweak scale-style procedural implementation, rather that a full on procedural parts style implementation. I would say you could do that for the modular wing pieces as well.

I don't much care for the science, but the problem is people want to replace it with systems that would replace contracts too. Contracts are fine, they have the benefit of not having to do stuff you don't like to do. If you can find a way to replace the science without changing that then by all means go for it.

You can still do it. It used to be you had no choice, large pancake rockets, and dozens of boosters, and asparagus staging were all pretty much required to get out of the soup-o-sphere. You can do it now, but it isn't necessary nor cost efficient. These days we can build rockets that look like rockets and the game rewards you for doing so.

Sorry, but it's just not worth the development time.

Bear in mind the forum your in. There are no bad addon ideas. Just ones that modders probably won't take on.

KSA Better Fairings

You can do this yourself. Just edit your save file and swap the names.

That fact that it already behaves as you suggest is the OP's problem. What really needs to be done is to make the Trim keys (or for that matter ALL KEYS) assignable.

Please take a look at this comment.