Sky_walker

? You said that:

Sounds great They even included LF tank that people wanted. never mind me

Arianespace uses SRBs that provide 90% of Ariane 5 lift for 130 seconds http://www.arianespace.com/launch-services-ariane5/ariane-5-intro.asp Also unlike KSP boosters these used by Ariane 5 have a gimbaled nozzle up to 7.3° (which is more than almost any engine in KSP).

My was in overegineered rocket. Got all the nose cones, decouplers, proper chute, etc. etc. as a real rocket should have, while in fact it was by far more optimal to dump all that dead weight and launch simple pancake, stage it, land, and reenter in a big rocket instead of stripping it down to the capsule with a single chute. Anyway.... I ended up quickly crashing in my first two attempts, but 3rd one worked... it was all nice and great until I realized that after climbing to the orbit I had very little fuel left (mind you - overengineering - so my lander got far more fuel than a display was suggesting, I just had plenty of empty tanks)... so with that in mind I designed quite nice return trajectory with gravity assist and pushed my rocked down to the last drop of fuel... just to realize that my trajectory was going directly in a dead center of the planet... wow, I was totally disappointed... all that effort went for nothing, my poor Kerbal was going to burn in the atmosphere... oh well... I accelerated time to 70km, decoupled my all the tanks end engine to the side, and decided to accompany my brave astronaut through his last moments of life... imagine my surprise to find out that there is no reentry heat in the game, so nothing happened - I went through the atmosphere and made a perfect, clear splashdown. Well... that was the moment when bubble burst and I stopped thinking that KSP got some advanced physics simulation.

Yep. Got the same problem. I designed spacecraft specifically to be destroyed upon reentry, and yet the only thing that suffered any damage were solar panels and RCS thrusters. Hope it's just a temporary measure and we'll get the game where re-entry heating is actually a factor you need to account for.

To give you a sense just how long do the ions burn in space, here is a trajectory of NASA Dawn probe equipped with ion engines: There's many, many fundamental reasons why it's not possible. But let give me you just one to consider - how exactly are you going to synchronize your rotation with the trajectory around the sun? You don't realize the amount of precision required. To end this quickly: KSP just wasn't build to allow things like that.

I did drop-tanks on my mun landers without fuel lines too. You just manually transfer fuel in breaks between burns. But obviously it's much easier with fuel lines. You research all the techs. And yes, I know it's an open-ended game, quotes rightfully used.

That... doesn't sound too encouraging. I would like to see a lot more details than that, including things like volcanoes, cryovolcanos, geysers, canyons, caves, ice actually being an ice, etc. Something to add "exploring" into the game, not just flying from one planet to another, making a touchdown and going back. Addition of resources on a planet surface was definitely a move in a right direction, but there's so much more than can be done. Right now variety between planets and moons goes down mostly to the color of a texture, terrain scatter and whatever it has an atmosphere or water, which is a huge waste of opportunities considering just how many amazing inspirations you can take from our solar system.

I for one very much hope for Unity 5. IMHO that's the most important milestone for the future of KSP.

Apply force vector pushing you out from the comet when crossing the particle effect. Bang, done. Yes, it's a very simplified implementation - closer to the sun you'd want to have a risk of damaging parts when hit by particles (See: ESA Giotto probe) - but still adds quite interesting factor into the flight dynamics. Volcanoes would be much different.

I very much disagree. I completed campaign in 0.25 on hard difficulty using fuel lines very extensively. Even in 1.0.x asparagus is still a very, very beneficial design not to be underestimated. You just have to use it in a reasonable way (rockets that are shorter than wider don't work like they did in the old aerodynamics - but I never build them anyway, so there's no difference for me). ps. your love to SRBs is quite interesting considering how many people dislike them or find not worth the time. There's even a whole thread going on the general discussion - Did 1. 0 nerf SRB's too much?

Nvidia made texture tools that allow you to export files in DDS format.

Funny considering that back in 0.24.x days any discussion about aero quickly lured tons of people saying that it'd do the opposite - make game "unfun" and "too difficult" and tons of other weird arguments in that style. Oh yes, that's so very true. You know I actually never managed to build successful spaceplane in pre-1.0.0 aerodynamics? I made numerous attempts and always failed. With FAR? Suddenly thing starts to behave as expected and I made my cool spaceplane

Solar panels, fuel lines, different parts for making small probes.

Very well done Any chance for adding some dedicated ESA flags? Here are some of the existing variants: current: an old one: White-blue: Negative: Bi-lingual: Website with ESA logotype, including vector files: http://www.esa.int/esalogo/screen1.html ESA 50 years fairing logo (blue) : Perhaps also this one?

Just popping in for a quick thank you for keeping this mod alive and running. And an additional thank you for dropping the requirement for the toolbar plugin!

IMHO: Using DDS textures should be very strongly encouraged, however it shouldn't be enforced as it creates additional obstacle for newcomers into modding.

KSP is an open-ended game. You make your own victory conditions If you have trouble finding them - I suggest making your first end-game goal to research all the technologies.

Would be easier to just categorize it. Every person has a different priorities and making the list sorted by perceived priority could lead to pointless arguing.

Would be a nice addition for debugging issues with planes.

You forgot about slats. They work for that too.

I choose to think of it as a bug.... and I very much hope it will be tuned in future to make reentry heating actually a danger you need to account for.... Well, current ablator doesn't change it's mass regardless if you choose maximum or barely anything - so I automatically assumed it'd be the same for pods, and I dislike "free perks" like that. Everything that has an advantage should also have a disadvantage. If they could implement it like you suggest - I would be perfectly cool with that

Good idea! Thank you. But I think I'll get back to it when also updating fairings to make them split in half instead of a confetti... hopefully next patch (pretty please, Squad)? On a side note - I added links to the mirrors, including an upload for KerbalX.

Alright then. Cheers, thank you for help

Download Something weird is happening. If my spaceship is horizontal - center of mass is wrong (as on the screenshot) but if I tilt it as you suggested sal_vager - it suddenly pops in a right place.