RidingTheFlow

Most engines were nerfed with new aerodynamic, as they would've become OP otherwise for lift-from-Kerbin game stages (which is huge percentage of total gametime).

Huh? "seems irresponsible"? This sounds like arbitrary restriction you've imposed on yourself. I just timewarp for months, years, whatever. It has no game play implications whatsoever (except contract time limit, but these are generally very generous for several transfer waits). These contracts are very good source of income (and generally provide ability to do ore survey afterwards if you leave enough of spare dV).

Just use HyperEdit if something breaks and needs to be fixed in way game won't allow. E.g. remove+refund failing ship, rebuild and put fixed ship at same orbit. No reason to maker you career take a hit + waste time because they've changed game under you.

Well, this explains why I wasn't aware of any useful heat-insulating parts. Most of them are not even structural parts allowing two side attach, and one which are (e.g. bay) still don't have much insulation to be useful. Personally I think it would help if lattice girders (e.g. "strut XL") made greatly reduced conductivity (e.g. 10%?) - because they are very low total cross-section area. Which will actually make them a lot more useful in construction than they are now (and also, different from solid I-beams). This way you can reduce heat travelling from your engine block to crew block across the girder connection.

Umm, you appear to be saying I should mod the game myself. Will we ever have some heat insulating parts in stock? Or do we have some already (because I am not aware of any)?

How do I do that?

Its good we have realistic heat system, but when we will have realistic heat insulating parts (e.g. Insulating bulkheads)? We need to be able to control heat from spreading. And no, just high thermal mass is not solution for everything. There should be parts with low thermal mass (so they dont receive much heat from hot neighbor) but low thermal conductivity (so they wont pass as much heat onto cooler neighbor).

It should also spare people the pain making bad performing and convoluted nuclear landers ("its highest ISP, so must be the best!")

I kind of agree NTR should've been 2.5m from the start, requiring fairly big launchers & assembly - also current small size makes it useless on its own and it mostly used in clusters of several anyway to transport anything bigger than tiny probe. But I doubt it will ever be changed now - once it here, never removed Hopefully at least they will add another 2.5m version at some point.

This looks painfully part-county Out of curiosity, what is the part count for this complete assembly and do you get smooth FPS with it?

Personally I'd prefer agency launch just to "appear" here (with spent money & time) to the "autopilot". I don't really fancy watching same mundane tanker launch over and over again just for the sake of it. If you made 5 launches without a hitch, you will make 100 of them without any changes - there are no much randomness in stock KSP launch physics (e.g. no random failure, no part spec divergences, no varying weather, etc).

Wouldn't say I am "really set on" it, just that I'd prefer ion RCS added to stock rather than 3.5m reaction wheel. But I can work around whatever game gives me really (and now most efficient way is just to stock couple reaction wheels - which weigh less than fuel required for turning via vernors and do not require own periodic refill).

http://www2.l-3com.com/eti/product_lines_electric_propulsion.htm I hope you know what "momentum dumping" is, how its related to RL reaction wheels and why it can't be done by just low-gimbal engine. Really, ion engine is just a device to apply thrust (force). Which means that in certain situations any competent engineer *will* consider using it for rotation (since there is no "good force" or "bad force" to rotate your spaceship with).

I think you should easily realise that even static RCS thrusters are "thrust vectoring" - just instead of rotating one nozzle, you have two+ nozzles and switch them on/off - this rotates actual vector of thrust (applying the needed force to ship you need to rotate it or translate it).

Seriously guys, you are ridiculous. http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/ion_prop.asp But this argument goes nowhere and you right that it's easily moddable (and not even needed since reaction wheels even more powerful anyway), so I think I'll stop here.

Please... Are you saying it's impossible to make *real* ion engines to rotate something (albeit slowly)? It all just a matters of placement & control program. Same as vernor thruster in KSP is simple small LFO engine which controlled by steering input (instead of main throttle).

Well, the concession to have boosted ion RCS is the same - just because we don't have time warp while rotating Not that it matters really because even now you can go around it just by stacking several 2.5m wheels.

Umm, why? Try placing stock ion engine where you normally place vernor and see how fast it turns your ship. Since ion engine is already here in stock, I fail to see why simply making it controllable by steering makes it OP. It also requires expensive research & quite a lot of electricity (probably more than reaction wheels will need anyway).

It makes some sense, but it doesn't appear to mesh with rest of present stock mechanics to me ATM. Thing is, 3.75m parts are kind of go with Mk3 parts and I tend to use both widely for large interplanetary crafts - mainly because there simply no compact/inflatable stock station modules. And when you have to transport hitchiker+MPL module, you need cargo bay/rack larger than 2.5m already. And its pain because they removed gimbal from stock LV-N. That's one of reason I want stock ion RCS so badly, just to avoid need for this unrealistic "huge OP reaction wheel stack".

I'd agree with OP that it will actually make sense from mechanics that they are plant-like beings, which get energy to live just from photosynthesis (and reversely from oxidising/breathing - so cycle can go on forever). Snacks are probably akin to "nutritional supplements" (e.g. plant fertilizer, to get some elements to keep them not alive, but "chippy"). And they probably reproduce by just sprouting from the ground en masse

Can't say I am concerned too much about purely visual KSP issues, when there are still many functional issues remain... Especially for visual things which visible like for couple seconds most (and even then already fixed by mods).

Its not really a question why to let inside of truss to go to waste - its a question why even have truss in particular place with sole purpose to place tank inside... I understand that its the case for RL project, but its because their tank is not strong enough structurally on its own - necessitating need to place it inside supporting frame (but their tank itself is very light&thin). KSP tanks are self-supporting, so in KSP if I have a tank, I don't need an extra truss around it - I'd just attach other elements of a structure directly to a tank (e.g. build a "spine" out of tanks). And mass fraction of KSP tanks is pretty bad because of this sturdiness. My point is - its great that it allows great-looking ships, but would be great if it also made sense from functional standpoint (in KSP mechanics) Not sure how best way to achieve it - maybe by making these insider tanks very light, but with extremely weak joints.

I think the idea was anything above 2.5m gets too big and supposed to use vectoring/RCS/vernor thrusters Though I wish we had better thruster variety in stock (ion thrusters in particular).

Standard cargo bays are extremely inefficient for interplanetary ships - since they are very heavy, I guess because all that thermal shielding/doors which are not really needed. Currently I am just building payload frames out of long wings & strut lattice (because standard trusses are heavier and wings are longer + hold fuel) - but this does not help part count... What the reason of placing tank inside truss? This just added unnecessary mass + extra parts. I find that for long term cargo transport you really need both parts count & dry mass as low as possible - because you will need a lot for actual payloads later (+ add extra for outposts you have to be docking with).

This mod is good, but we need better/bigger/more trusses. Current truss only fits <2m cargo and this is just too narrow (e.g. you cant transport decent-sized station modules).