DasValdez

The water in your tank may slosh unpredictably, throwing off your COM. In the tank, you're going to need room for air to compress which leaves room for slosh. Getting the control and gimballed nozzle to work without this variable will be hard enough... you may first need to test drops with just the chute and tank to determine how it plays out. Baffles are the first thought, but I'm not sure how you'd install them in a home built reinforced bottle. Stuff a loofah in there, maybe? Maybe a separate tank up top for air, feeding into the water tank, and let gravity do the rest? Again, a chore to set up safely on a home built bottle. Good luck!

I thought this same thing while reading the previous thread, until I realized... ...this. It's probably not a bad idea to remind *everyone* this is an option although by and large, looking at the forums, good mods tend to get followers who already do exactly what you're recommending. Some of us like a mod so much that we want to help out so we try to investigate bugs, help new users with basic install info, etc. I guess we realize it frees up the modder to make the mod *cooler* for us, so really everyone wins.

Almighty, I've read this whole thread... and I say the following with no offense intended. The best thing you can do is stop bothering modders about this. You've already done a lot of harm simply by "pursuing their feedback" then openly disrespecting them when they give it to you. To lead with "I want to discuss with you" then follow up with ignoring, marginalizing, or simply not believing their answers, even when they repeat them over and over, doesn't accomplish anything. In fact, your thread has probably hurt the chances of any change ever occurring. A few major developers have made appearances here, to be summarily dismissed and disrespected when their feedback doesn't resonate with your grand vision. This turns the developers off the topic. I understand your intentions, but some people are just not cut out to be project sponsors. The more you push this idea, the more topic resistance you create among modders. Cheers- Das

I'm really missing the bus here... above, you said that timewarp would prevent people from getting infinite money, but below you said that you could time warp forward a week to get more money, as long as you had wasted the money you were previously given. I get where you're going, but it makes no sense from a gameplay nor immersion standpoint... it sounds like a completely boring grind game mechanism that forces the player to timewarp to the future when they fail. I wouldn't play that game. Good luck with your idea.

I'd rather address the reasons "why" it's boring than summarily dismiss the concept. By the same logic, gather "science" on each mission and manually flying the return mission for 100% return is "boring". Your economy doesn't have to be based on moving resources around... a comm sat network or the Hard Rock Cafe LKO completely could be great ideas for contracts. If you don't like the resource gathering fund earning mechanism, don't use it... go for satellites or tour shuttles or delivery services or space stations instead. Even resource gathering is an easy fix... If you want to collect/sell resources you can solve the alleged boredom using the transmit model (same as science, already implemented in code but with funds instead)... drive it home yourself for full sale price, or "transmit" it home for a smaller cut. Your "warp forever" issue is no problem either, it can be limited with a variety of tools... maybe the "Orbital Hilton" is a time-limited contract, which will only pay for 10 months, or only pay during months where you perform a shuttle flight to and from the station. Maybe stuff breaks down on your com satellite and it stops earning until you send a crew to fix it. Just because physics calculations are skipped during time warp doesn't mean the financial events have to be. Besides... like I said above, if you take all the time to set up an infrastructure that earns every month, why not be allowed to warp forever? If that was such a huge concern, there would be no sandbox mode for the game. I also don't see how you'd stop people from time warping through a budget. Your blue line stays flat when warping, but what does that mean? I can't time warp at all for an entire month, or else I get no budget that month? How many real-time minutes do I have to be active in a month to earn the budget? What if I warp for 29.9 days, then spend 30 minutes flying a mission to earn my budget? It just doesn't seem particularly easy nor intuitive to balance... earning from a com sat (unless it breaks), regardless of time warp is very simple in comparison.

Experiment module cleaning is perfect as-is. It's so good, I don't even worry about using the transmit bonus. I'm a huge fan of the science ship and lander method... Every time a new save starts, the first goal is to get these parts researched so this baby can head straight for Minmus to polish off the tech tree. 121k off the pad, of which 70k stays on mission with the ship and lander. The low grav lander can double hop Minmus, snagging two biomes per trip. Since I'm a tad impatient, the crew fills a MkI with experiment results and a probe core returns it to Kerbin for recovery when I want Science Now while leaving the base ship on-station. There's enough fuel and monoprop on board to land at every biome twice, and a fueler drone can top her back off when it's time for the next mission. The same base ship can be used to max out the Mun and be used on most other planets/moons with a simple lander refit (Swapping the second science jr and goo for more fuel). The base ship stays in orbit and a light rocket delivers the new lander. I could use the higher DV lander for all missions, but the Minmus double hops in the low grav unit save a lot of time. Again, I can use the MkI's to return a subset of science before all biomes are done, just to satisfy the Law of Apparent Progress for biome grinding. A special lander drop tank/supply depot can be added and the same lander used for most other planets and moons... pretty much everything except Eve. Two radial clamp-o-trons on the main tank allow for refueling and attachment of interplanetary drop tanks. The side tank axial cl-o-t's allow attachment of my interplanetary boosters, for when fuel is plentiful and I don't have the patience to burn at TWR = .2. A long range version of the MkI recovery probe allows results to be sent home before the crew returns. I can also swap out a recovery module with Science Satellite or Atmo probe modules. Once I get one of these puppies off Kerbin, I never worry about science again. The MPL is a real winner.

I can't replicate this bug... I get the correct 299.99 refund value. Can one of you post a craft file to test?

The better solution would be activities that earn money over time (such as mining resources, providing com networks, etc) AND cost money to maintain (KSC tech Staff to maintain satellites, maintenance costs, etc). If you go through the effort to set up a profitable space program, who cares if you time warp for 5 years and get paid.

It's not Squad's job to police the code of mods... in fact, once they do it for a single mod, they can technically be held accountable for the activity of *all* mods. It's a slippery slope. You should realize, what you're asking for is the path to a company abandoning support for mods altogether... better to prevent mods from being made than risk being accountable for what they do. If you think that's good for the community, I don't know what to tell you. Is it bad to bundle things together without informing users you're doing so? Sure. That's been addressed. That should be the end of the discussion. If you don't like the way something is implemented, you don't have to use the mod.

$1.02m per launch for the Epic5 Automated Fuel Drone. 4 full Kerbodyne S3's delivered to LKO++. The entire top half of the vehicle on the pad is the drone. Maybe it's a bit of a misnomer when the fuel "drone" shows up and is the size of the station it's supplying, but hey, time is money.

Has anyone realized that manually downloading a mod and manually installing it by dragging it to a specific folder on your computer is a pretty onerous opt-in process? No one is going to do that accidentally/unknowingly. Comparing KSP mods to hidden spyware is a pretty good stretch.

Looks like you're already well on your way, but in the future consider a Kerbin system ski lift approach. I have a fleet of tugs can be used to boost ships up to Kerbin escape velocity, then detach and swing around for refueling and orbital parking. The tugs can be docked together to increase deltav for the payload... a quick test showed that three tugs could provide 120t with between 2400 dv @ 1.7 TWR and 4700 dv @ .7 TWR. Good luck on your mission!

All These Worlds Are Yours Except Europa Attempt No Landing There

404 Represent! (heh) You can keep docking simple... go to the target ship (press "]"), right click the docking port and choose "control from here". Point that puppy straight N (0 degrees) on the navball. Go back to your docking ship (press "["), right click the target docking port and do "set as target". On the docking ship, control from it's docking port, and point it straight south (180 degrees). Now, get "above" ("north" of) the target ship, line up the middle of the nav ball with the pink target market, and nudge "down" towards the target at around 1ms. When thing's go crazy and start wobbling without your control, turn off SAS (press "t") and take your hands off the keyboard. Seriously. If you were close enough with your alignment, the ports will mag-latch and the view will zoom out to a single happily larger orbital object. For a fueling station, if you're just starting out you may want to park it at a bit higher orbit (100-120k) to give you some wiggle room below and above your station... that will allow you to go into relatively lower orbits (to catch up) or higher orbits (to let it catch you). Running a station right on the edge of atmo means your ships will need less m/sdv to get there, but you won't have any margin to catch up if your launch puts you trailing the station.

For clarity's sake, IP address is generally only considered personally identifiable when it's combined with some other data point which would help identify a person. An IP address by itself is not generally considered personally identifiable... last I worked on this professionally (under US law). To make the argument that IP becomes PI (heh) because it's linked to the data that a person "plays KSP" or "uses a specific KSP mod" would be a very very long stretch. Generally you're talking about an IP address being linked to account data (name, address, billing info) with an ISP, which could then make it personally identifiable. If I'm not mistaken (and it's been a few years) a mod that issues a request with only a version number and an IP address is not dealing with PII.

Love it! We didn't land on the Mun... actually it was a sound stage... ON DUNA.

You know someone tried to debunk the moon landing with the same shadow theory... saw it on Mythbusters . Whoever set this up should have put a fully-lit kerbal in the shadow of the lander heh.

Thanks Padishar! Will download your latest dev version tomorrow and let you know how it goes.

Mods, please move if this is the wrong forum. I couldn't decide exactly where this fit, but this audience probably has the best chance of a successful reply. Has anyone accomplished a time-lapse construction video shot from third person? Envision a space station being constructed, shot from a fixed point relative to a part on the station. I've looked at the Cinematics plugin, but I don't see how it would help do this... Perhaps some way of in game recording/playback? Is there a mod that records game data and allows you to play it back from different viewpoints? A spectator mod? Again I am stumped. In Minecraft I'd use an alt account on a different computer, but KSP's lack of native multiplayer nixs that idea. Has anyone tried with one of the MP mods, like Dark? Even then, station-keeping a camera-dolly-probe at a fixed relative position would be nearly impossible... like windmills, Orbits Do Not Work That Way! Apologies again if this is misplaced, and TIA.

Concur. If you check the change log, Blizzy has some releases where the only change is "Updated for KSP version 0.xx.xx"

Aaaaaand fixed in 0.24.1: Contracts: * Fixed a bug in Rescue Kerbal contracts, where rescue by means of external seats or claws wouldn't complete the contract. Thanks Squad!

It seems like you have a lot going on with the 1.0 migration, but I wanted to toss in a feature idea: Stage/Chute landing m/s estimation displayed in the VAB This would be useful for determining whether or not you have enough chutes on your lander/booster stage to arrive alive. A single new column could be added to the KER window stage table, labelled Parachute Estimate, displaying the expected m/s of each stage with all chutes attached to that stage deployed. It could use the various planetary body atmo stats (different density/pressure on Duna, Laythe, etc) using the selector buttons at the bottom of the window... much like the ISP calculation. It would need to assume that all stage fuel tanks were dry, or alternatively show wet/dry separated by a /. Dry is useful for Kerbin based boosters that are intended for recovery/refit, and wet (full) would be useful for landers that anticipate taking off again. Of course, your tanks wouldn't be perfectly full after your deorbit or landing retrofire burns... hence the "estimate" label. It would also need to assume you're landing at "sea" level... landings at higher altitudes would have less efficient chute performance due to lower atmo density. For planets with no atmo, it could just display "-" or "n/a". Thanks again for all the work on KER!

Heh, this is one of my only annoyances with KER.... I second this. Even as a quick/easier fix, it would be nice if the "Compact" button was the first button in the top window button list... so when you clicked it, the "compact" button would stay under the mouse, not be pushed out to the right.

From a simplicity vs functionality standpoint... this is one of the best mods released for KSP. A single DLL and a config file to fix a gaping hole Squad left in their .24 release... delivered a very short time after the official release. Whoever Vendan programs for IRL should give him a raise and a bonus. A few ideas, just to document some brainstorming from IRC: Display landing distance from KSC in the recovery message... this would allow us to tweak our staging and trajectory for max recovery. A parachute calculator in the VAB to show how many more chutes we need to spam for a green recovery. Perhaps this could be added to KER for simplicity (it could then use the atmo stats to simulate landings on different worlds, beyond Debrefund's scope... will xpost to KER thread). Would probably need to assume that fuel is dry, or show wet/dry. Built into PEBKAC Electroshock Nodes to "treat" people who don't understand how the internet works but complain about privacy. Seriously? You spammed orders of magnitude more "personal information" into the ethertubes just by posting on the forum. Thanks again to Vendan for the awesome mod!