Mandelbrot

Showing guts, brains and ingenuity, Val constructs a sextant out of debris to figure out the trajectory home. Uses the EVA suit model generously provided by Peter Edwardson at: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/95782-Rigged-Kerbal-3D-Model

Here's some orbital mechanics for you: http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2014/06/travel-on-airless-worlds.html\ Short answer, 180 degrees, minus distance you want travel in degrees, divided by 4. So for half-way around an airless body, burn at 180 - 90 / 4 = 22.5 degree angle until your orbit intersects the spot you want, then halfway turn around and repeat, with some wiggle room of course.

Wow, the Squad team has precognitively assessed my suggestion and are apparently discussing implementing it for .90 or later - here's the kicker - I heard about it on Squadcast. It's like a closed time-loop, they took my suggestion from the forums, began discussing it, weeks or maybe months later, publicly, thus triggering my hearing about it and bringing it here for discussion, etc ad infinitum. That I can hear about an upcoming feature, and actually cause it to happen by suggesting it after it is being worked on is quite a talent I was not aware I had

On Squadcast Max mentioned that it was being debated about whether an equatorial launch site was too comfortable to give up. Being able to choose, with a disclaimer explaining than you can't launch straight into a lower inclination orbit that your launch site's latitude and suggesting a site along the equator, plus incentivizing non-equatorial sites with lower costs, could lead to some interesting trade offs. Plus we'd get a change of scenery and see more of Kerbin. Messing around with KerbinSide, flying around a bunch of new terrain that, with the addition of EVE can look pretty nice, and then going back to the same old KSC can be tough. Plus we could have multiple launch sites, possibly supporting construction/launch prep. time restraints. Just my feelings on the matter. Edit: It took a minute for me to realize of the most obvious and useful reasons for multiple Space-centers, which is: multiple high-return recovery points to aim for.

Squad definitely needs to take a look at Part Angle Display (which is so much more!) and RCS build aid (which is so much more!) in terms of functionality for the new editor, as they no doubt have with EE. But Distant Object Enhancement is another of one which is too good to not at least copy in function into the final game. Being able to see the planets from the runway, and tell, hey Dres is south of the runway, so it's headed towards its ascending node, seems essential once experienced in a game about astronomy -- not to mention the coolness of seeing your own satellites in orbit or stations from a distance on approach.

This saddens me. I hope there's a way switch it back. I'd rather have light, fragile things to take into orbit than heavy duty fighter-jet stuff, personally.

I just wanted to confirm that the hat axises are fixed. Thanks again.

Wow, thanks for your quick response and development. All of problems I had before were addressed. It is going to be a lot of fun using a flightstick for planes and an XBox controller for rovers, etc. However, the hat-axises appear to be being misidentified. (It's okay for my uses, though I wouldn't mind the added functionality. Either way I figured you'd want to know.) Here's how the axises are reporting: Pushing up on hat: y+ right: x+ down: x- left: x- and y- right/down: x+ and y- left/down: no response left/up: no response right/up: y- (A note about the bindings, I figured out how to push the hat in such a way so that the name of the binding and it's function were the same as what I pushed, i.e. up and right, but it didn't really matter which direction I pushed while binding the control, the camera responses were approximately the same.) This is certainly not a demand for support as I am very appreciative for your work. In fact I want to say thanks again for this great addition to the community. Kerbal players are lucky to have such robust support from modders like you. Link to output log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/97okor33mm1eedb/output_log.txt?dl=0 Link to AFBW .xml file: http://dpaste.com/3TMV39Q AFBW Version 1.1 from Github Everything else remains the same.

This mod is an obvious improvement to the AltInput mod in conception, but unfortunately is not functioning in some key ways for me. The bugs are present immediately when running the mod, just running it is the reproduction step. It's a quite a little list of problems, so bear with me. I appreciate your work on this mod. My slider throttle, recognized as "axis 3," registers from 0.0 to 1.0, or 0.0 to -1.0 when inverted, and when set as the throttle will only change it from 50% thrust to 100%, and it won't consistently go below that. If I lower the throttle with the keyboard, my slider seems to have a close to full range, but doesn't consistently go down to the lowest point in the range. The brakes seem to be desynchronized from the FAR airbrakes now, and are very consistently opposite of whatever the position the FAR airbrakes. So wheel brakes on means airbrakes off, and the opposite is true as well which makes it really hard to take off The FAR dynamic control adjustment doesn't seem to apply to a controller using this mod, I set it as low as 10 (meaning matching the dynamic pressure of turn while moving at 10 m/s at sea level, I think) and it had no impact on control. These issues do not exist for me when using the AltInput mod, just for your information. The slider throttle was weird too, I think, but it allows for adjustment of individual axises, so I figured out a setting fix. Also, neither mod seems to detect my POV hat axises, but KSP does alright with those. Finally, the trim settings, (which are not bindable in AltInput) are a big part of why I wanted to try this mod, as setting trim with a joystick would be great. They seem to register alright, but just not "stick." With RPM and other mods, you can have a trim indicator separate from the regular pitch/roll/yaw indicators, so it is pretty clear that it is in fact changing the trim, but when I let off the stick, it the trim re-centers. KSP version .24.2 x86 Link to output log (too big for pastebin): https://www.dropbox.com/s/97okor33mm1eedb/output_log.txt?dl=0 Link to AFBW .xml file: http://dpaste.com/1T186J6 AFBW x86 1.0.3 from Github Controller: Thrustmaster T.Flight Stick (Called 'T.Flight Stick X' by Windows) Link to GameData folder pic: http://postimg.org/image/4nwb1iqc9/ I have tried the trouble shooting tips listed after "Hold on!"

I would love this too. 5th Horseman's idea is great, but just having subfolder browsing would be a huge improvement.

I should mention, Chris, that it works for me with about 40 mods, KWRocketry, Spaceplane+, KAX, Firespitter, etc, but not B9. So it sounds like it's a problem specific to B9.

Thanks again for your work Akeo. I see you have mentioned that coding in support for many functions in KSP can be a real pain, so I by no means want you to construe this as a demand, but I have been disappointed with how KSP doesn't allow re-binding trim functions. It would be great to be able to do that for flying planes, especially for pitch-trim. I just wanted to let you know that the interest is out there if it's something you consider.

@Akeo: The only thing I did to get it to work was name it T.Flight Stick X, and change the rotationZ axis back to default 0.1 deadzone. The POV button settings did not seem to work, but I was okay using those with the default KSP behavior. It may be because I don't rely on the timing of the other functions as much, but I am just using this for axises, and "toggleBrakes," because that doesn't appear to be mappable at the moment in default KSP, just "holding for brake." For those wondering, I picked this up after KSP kept forgetting my x,y, and z axises on a joystick (Thrustmaster T flight X, cheap but has axis switching on-the-fly), that I thought was working just fine -- though I could still fly better with the keyboard, I chalked it up to two years of KSP pre-joystick. Well, I don't know if it was something more subtle, or just bad input lag I was too dumb to notice, but going from raw input to direct input (I think that this is what this mod is doing) changed things dramatically. It feels like a flight-sim now with FAR. I have far more ability to hug the terrain and make fine adjustments. Long story short - my joystick input was apparently terrible before and this made it great, like night and day. Thanks Akeo!

Not yet, but that's the aim by the time they're done.

Thanks for your work on this mod! I would almost expect it to become a default way to show off pictures of a craft along with a .craft file. Here's an image I made in homage to the spacecraft info-graphics I grew up staring at:

The reverse descent issue is known and they are planning a fix for 1.0, just so you know. It works, apparently, but you have to attach a probe-core backwards and control from there.

I thought my joystick worked fine. I got a cheap Thrustmaster because it had on-the-fly axis switching, and it works for switching between pitch/roll and pitch/yaw for planes and landers respectively. Except that KSP kept forgetting which axis was which, I thought it worked fine, anyway. Then I became aware of the mod mentioned on the second post here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/42683-How-to-fix-horribly-calibrated-Joysticks-in-KSP-%28Workaround%29/page3 I am not sure why, but using "direct input" instead of "raw input" for the axises makes it work 100% better. I can actually fly better with a stick than using a keyboard now.

In the Mass Effect universe, this technique is actually mentioned, although not used nearly as often as it would be for recon/info purposes. Anyway, to the OP, I was playing Mass Effect the other night and noticed that in a given star-system, the planet's orbital periods are wildly random. Like, innermost planet's listed orbital period is .4 Earth-years, next is 46, then the next after that? .4 years again. Maybe because I like the series so much, but I experienced a physical pang of irritation.

Aerodynamics -Pros The first FAR plane I built I flew effortlessly. I was an able stock aircraft builder before though, and have watched lots of videos of people play with FAR, so it must've just sunk in. But I had a damn hard time landing a plane in FAR. I couldn't slow down fast enough, and I lost too much lift at slower speeds. Then I took the time to look up what a flap actually did for an airplane, and how the spoiler/flap mechanics in FAR worked and then landed a plane like a leaf in the wind. Stock seemed so easy to me at the point that I started learning FAR, but it could never match the feel of the plane sort of wafting in the air. It adds so much depth to the aerodynamics. Things even fall in a more authentic way. -Cons The major con that I can see is also a pro for those who find little challenge in the base game due to experience or whatever, and that is, for me at least, it makes the first minute or so of the launch of an untested rocket terrifying. Because -- again this is just me -- but I find it way easier to fly rockets in stock. If this was life, I'd take the extra 1km/s delta-v loss to make whatever monster of doom I could strap together, or even just a rocket with an unbalanced CoL/CoM, reliably fly into orbit. With FAR you have to pay a lot more attention to the details of how rockets are built and going into orbit is more dangerous (pro for fans/con for new people, IMO). Universe Scale I would prefer not to address this, as I would be shocked if it was in the realm of consideration by Squad for KSP 1.0. Maybe in a sequel, which I am sure is a subject no one at Squad even wants to think about right now. Isp I think Squad has more or less decided against this already. But as it seems like such a weird decision, I can't help but say a bit about it. -Pros It really doesn't change things hugely. This, like Life Support and Deadly Reentry, is surprisingly easy to get used to. If it were this way from the beginning, I don't think new players would be challenged more than they are now, they'd just have to learn a little differently. TWR increases for a given stage in a rocket during ascent one way or the other, doesn't seem like it increases the learning curve substantially. -Cons Most people's lifters would break. That doesn't seem like a big deal. In-vacuum ships wouldn't be affected, so it mostly wouldn't break save-games (unless you just landed on Eve or something, that would be rough.) But at some point everyone's ships and saves are going to have to break before we hit the big 1.0, right? It would be my preference that Squad doesn't put save-game and ship continuity over major features, and I can't imagine that it is the case, but I can't think of any other reasons. Life Support -Pros Time limits for manned missions. That's really it to me without ISRU, or maybe some recycling/fuel cell mechanic. No more bi-elliptic interplanetary transfers or waiting around on a Kerbin-crossing orbit for a few years for things to line up. Or grav-assisting your way out of a tough situation with a decade or two of time-warping. -Cons Just add the mass and then ignore the problem without something like Dang It! to age parts or make redundancy and repairing interesting. Other than the irksome lack of a time limit for missions, this is a mechanic I wouldn't be bothered at all if Squad skipped. I'd still use TAC or whatever, but it doesn't seem essential. Re-entry Danger -Pros This seems essential. And expected, authentic, and when implemented as realistically as in DRE, really not hard at all considering the relatively slow orbital velocities. The capsules even glow and get covered in plasma! I'll bet that most people who start up KSP without introduction, upon seeing reentry heat, think that they might burn up. I actually am pretty sure this is coming in 1.0, though apparently as a toggle-able option. I mostly replied to this thread at all just in case someone who is against more realism in Kerbal reads this and goes ahead and tries DRE. It is not too hard, try it out. With the stock Mk1 capsule, no parts added (it includes an ablative heat-shield), you can transfer from the Mun, put your periapsis at 30k on Kerbin, and be fine. It just makes you have to take the shock-heating already visually modeled into the game into consideration for aerobraking and stuff like that. If you're a fan of real space-flight, you owe it to yourself to try out DRE at very least, and FAR when you're ready for it. DRE really feels like it could just be stock the way it is. -Cons You can't bulls-eye the space center from 500km by coming straight down and hitting the atmosphere at a 90 degree angle. Which makes it harder to hit the space center for refunds.

Thank you very much for this mod. It became one of my favorites as soon as saw it and understood how much more depth an aging system for spacecraft adds to the game. Incentivising redundancy, adding realism and depth to long-term missions and to maintaining persistent assets in space. With budgets in, it now seems essential for balance. So thank you. Like DRE and FAR, Dang It! is basically required for me to get the most out of KSP for the foreseeable future.

NP I've been thinking about this a lot recently due to Remote Tech.

If your satellite is not right over the equator, you will get east/west libration because as the equator moves eastward, your satellite has to move both north and then south in the sky as you just move east at the same rate. I think the analemma will be closer to a line the less inclined you are, and then become more figure-8 with high inclinations, because it takes more time to go that far north and south, so the loops back and forth across the sky will be even bigger.

I just wanted to post to say thank you Ferram. During the first time I really got into playing with FAR, my rocket broke up in the atmosphere, and the way it sort of tumbled away under me as I fired up an upper stage -- I just cannot go back to stock now. It really even makes the game look better. Hope you don't mind a post just to say thanks!

For a lot of us, playing without mods makes the game way too easy.

This is just untrue. The KSP forum population is well aware of what has been added in the last year: New KSC, Astronaut Complex, Career Mode (thus far wholly incomplete, soon to change), craters on Mun, tweakables, asteroids, lots of new parts, way better performance. For me, every update in the last year has given me slightly better performance. 23.5 was a huge leap, literally doubling my frame rates for large rockets. On top of that, they have been doing a lot of work in the background that has been leading up to a more complete career mode. You may feel betrayed by the path development has taken, but you just can't claim with a straight face that it has stopped.