SkyRex94

I have an Idea for a Alternative Download configuration. I'm looking for a Alternative for Procedural Fairings, because part of engineering is working with the parts you have and work within your possibilities, and PF is a little overpowered just offering the right fairings for ALL situations. Also i like the stock feeling of your mod, especially that the fairings disappear and no debris are left behind, although i don't like how they jettison. It looks kinda random and not as good as PF but i think thats part of KSPs EngineShrout Mechanism. So i thought of which of these parts are necessary and will be used often and which look kinda weird ors unrealistic (too long) or probably wouldn't be used much. Here is what i came up with: Create an Alternative Pack like '0-Point Stock Fairings' and REMOVE: -ALL Nosecones -ALL 'wide' variants -ALL 'long' variants -The size-1 regular/medium -And either the size-1 regular/short OR the size-2 flush/short (you see both of them in the picture below, seeing they have very similar payload volume, erasing the need for one of them.) Resulting in a Pack containing just 6 Parts ! So 2 rows in the Editor, fullfilling nearly every need you'd need. At least you can engineer every task imaginable to be fullfilled with these fairings, which is part of the engineering challenge. If something really doesn't fit in the biggest of this, it is either big enough to be designed streamlined itself or it is time to assemble something in orbit. Here's an image comparing the fairings with a craft to see the scale: What do you think of this idea of a condensed 'stock' Alternative package?

Yes placing it later was intended. I found it a bit odd with survivability to gain access to quite good landing legs, the best parachutes and one of the most efficient chemical engines right at the beginning. The same way i found it odd that basic little rover Wheels came so late in the stock tree. So as i said mod parts will be where the mod places it (by the name of the node), of course this can lead to some unsenseful placement of mod parts with a repositioned techtree if they where placed with the stock positions in mind. But if you have one or two part mods you use all the time you can just adjust their treeposition in the parts .cfg file.

If you want to do this with stations you can save the high orbit station , atleast for anything going interplanetary. You'll save more fuel braking into a LKO and departure from a LKO than from a higher orbit, although energy level is obviously lower. Reason: Oberth Effect -- yes it is that significant.

Where is the part from that mod appearing in the Stock Tech Tree? Exactly there it should be in this too. If it's not appearing at all in stock than the mod author has to write a ScienceRequired into his part .cfgs. If its appearing in Stock it should also appear in this and any other ATC-Tree at the same location. If you meant to modify the position yourself: go into the part.cfg of the mod part and change the Science Required to where you want it to unlock. i just figured it out before setting the science values of the Tree. Kerbin SOI absolute maximum Science (Kerbin,Mun and Minmus) is exactly 23079 Science Points. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94215-Science-maximum

Over 100 Downloads, i think thats good for a Tech Tree:) If someone tested it out please leave your opinion here

i think the general crater idea was of the table when Maxmaps said 'no features where toggeled on/off here' relating the crash video. And there wasn't any crater. And i can't imagine a groundwork needed for Craters also needed for a bigger feature, since a damage model for buildings would be a different system than a crater showing system.

Hmm watching the crash sometimes i may have actually found evidence for that too. After the Crash there is a shaddow of a wing part moving in retrograde direction , meaning a wing debri also. I may be wrong but with current physics the part wouldn't be affected by the explosion and even if bounced off remain a generally prograde direction. So there might actually be 'physical' explosion blast! But i don't know if thats actually the feature or just a part of the redone explosions... Yes it would meet all the criterias, but i'm thinking of what could be the groundwork done for, since a blast radius is not the hardest thing to program. Just take the position of the part relative to time and distance from epicenter of explosion to decide if its affected. Although it could also calculate shielding by other parts, which would lay groundwork for reworked aerodynamic and heat damaging (aka reentry) Hmm while thinking about it it actually seems to make sense... So right now the best candidates are probably -this 'explosive physics groundwork' just mentioned -or something related to Rep loss while killing kerbals , getting punished, laying groundwork for better integration of Reputation -or the destroyable buildings, but where i don't really see the 'groundwork' criteria, maybe a system for building or upgrading the buildings in the first place, but i don't know if that makes sense I'd probably bet my money on one of generally these three things, since they seem to be the only ones meeting all criterias. Bad players encounter it more often, a building near the runway would actually make it happen more often (which by the way sorts out the asteroid armageddon idea) , small feature in itself, consequences out of it , no mod done before, fun doing on purpose, and you can think of which groundwork could lay behind it to feature what bigger feature in next update. If i could choose ,although i really would like to see beautiful destruction on buildings, i would choose the Explosion Blast theory just because it probably paves a road for proper Aero and Stock Atmo-Heating-Damage !!!

WAIT? WHEN AND WHERE DID THEY SAIY THAT?!?! in recent history i just remembering them saying something about 'no new planets in near/middle future, maybe even never' So when did they said they're developing GP 2 ? And will it be Blue?

I'd choose Vall. its cool looking IMO and you have the Jool Panorama without a Tylo Landing. I'd maybe go for eeloo too if it were a moon of a Second Gas Giant already.

But all this uptilting doesn't help you if you'd like to pitch up while still on the runway. for that you need the main gear as a roll angle as i said. Assuming you generate enough lift already i bet i could make your plane fly and take off brilliantly with just a replacement of the main landing gear

I'm not sure if thats it , but i like the idea of getting more punishment for killing kerbals. Other than only losing that Kerbal and Rep. That would make a good reason for Probe missions, if any Kerballed flight caries a bigger risk but also biggr rewards with it. (assuming you play no-revert difficulty, otherwise why not just revert to launch?)

critical for this problem is the position of your REAR GEAR. even if the plane was designed to fly good (CoL-CoM) to lift off you need to place the Rear gears properly. They are the Angle point of rotation when pitching up during liftoff, so they should be as close as possible to the center of mass, but not on it, otherwise your plane could tip on the back even if standing still. Thats the key to that problem. And you have to watch out that your not too low at the tail, so you didnt smash your engine in the runway during takeoff. Tip for your craft: It looks way too low at the tail, make the gear make it (nearly) as high as the front. And place the gear just behind your CoM . Try it and it should fly

One of the Astroliners has a closed back which could be raised , let me search for the video. Bur i could figure out how he made the movable link connecting the movable back with the Astroliner.EDIT: Here the Astroliner 'Altair'. actually he used that small radial decoupler-mount as a link, didnt knew that this would it make movable. interesting... that way it stays actually one single ship also while moving...

Approaching that secret feture logicaly and scientificly: Feature is more likely to happen if you're less experienced-- what happens more if you're less experienced: Disintegration, Crashes, unnessesary fuel consumption , killing Kerbals, stranding things.-- relevant for a possible feture: disintegration, Crashes and killing Kerbals. So to trigger it you'll have to do one of these things (99% sure) Additional info: its not craters as seen in the published explosion pics. a new building has appeared close to the runway and the info:It's there to "make the secret feature happen more often. (Whispers) I might have said too much". That means it can happen without the new building but also with it. The building won't have new mechanics otherwise all players would be likely to look at it and not only unexperienced. So it's just related with the building in its nature as a 'building' or 'other than terrain structure'. that means the new feature can either happen with ALL 'buildings' or even all 'other than terrain structures' (eastereggs). Being given the also mentioned possible triggers and now concluded the objects it involves, the feature will be triggered by colliding things into 'other than terrain structures' . (99% sure) (not yet saying anything about destruction, just how it'll be made happening) So e.g. new Feature will be triggered by crashing a Plane into the VAB. What possibilities do we have in that case: Visual: Destruction of the Structure and visually representing that, maybe even burning buildings, visual immersion things happening at crash site(like Crash crew Kerbals coming to clean up), showing construction-site things during rebuild, maybe hilarious Explosion effects during impact, especially when hitting one of these Fuel/Gas Tanks standing near the Pad, maybe a permanent slight destruction shown so you see how often you already crashed in this savegame, maybe craters on KSC ground(non terrain structure) Gameplay: loss in Rep for Crash/Destruction , needed Funds for Rebuild, maybe Lost Science if hit the R&D, killed Kerbals and Lost Craft(obviously, thats already there), maybe disabling the function of hit structure for an amount of time to repair. So the feature will be either one or multiple things of these mentioned (70% sure. just in case i forgot a possibility)

This is a thread-idea aimed at all the Stock or Stock+ players: We know that we'll (probably) get Mk 2 Cargo Bays in 0.25. We know Hugo also did some new Mk3 Parts but i don't know if they will actually also come with 0.25 and i don't know if they'll include a cargo bay. (anybody heard anything?) So soon we will have a methode of bringing at least 1.25m payloads into orbit. Sometimes you want to build a bigger spaceplane, but without Mod-Parts. like the big Astroliners seen on Youtube. So i thought this thread could be a collection of how you built something movable just with stock parts (pictures) and tips what you can (ab-)use as a functional component. Not just Cargo Bays, but also movable plattforms, unfolding probes or ships, cranes, and everything else , build without the use of infernal robotics or other movable mod parts

Who exactly developes this mod? Since the OP wasn't active in nearly a month, but Teknoman117 posts as a dev of this too? Are you a team or did the dev changed along the way ? And Teknoman117: what about some Dev Notes , if you have time for it? Nothing big, just like two sentences like "this and that can already done by config file, and this and that has still to be implemented and we are working on it" Just as a life sign of the Mod. Don't get it wrong, i'm not asking for 'when its done', i'm familar with software developement and i know you're doing it in free time and not getting money for it, so take your time and don't prioritize this mod over RealLife-concerns. Cheers

'difficult' to land on the runway is relative and highly dependend on the design of the ship. And you just said yourself that my example does exactly the thing i was claiming it to do: Saving a little more fuel and thus beeing more efficient. I never claimed anything more than the pure fuel-efficency aspect, and that is fully fullfilled with my example. And i never said Fuel stations are BAD and shouldn't be used, it is infact sometimes not the WORST decision to do it with a station, i just wanted to point out that the assumption of it being the most fuel efficient way is wrong. And I don't mean to say anybody how to play or what is the most FUN and PRACTICAL or RELIABLE way of doing things. Sometimes i build stations myself. It is just meant as a clarification that fuel stations are NOT the most EFFICIENT way, which was claimed by some people.

That only makes sense if the Fuel in your station isn't brought there from Kerbin. And i already said they are efficient with Kethane/Karbonite but not without. Without ressources you also have to bring the fuel to your station in the first place and than you have to bring your ship in orbit and dock with the station. You have to bring the fuel up nevertheless, so build a bigger launcher and bring your ship up already fueled up. Saves you two dockings and rendeveous and is more time efficient two, and you need only one ship. The pure energy to bring something into orbit is exactly the same ( assuming equal efficient launchers) no matter if its brought up in two flights or in one flight. So your Scenario would be more efficient without your station. 100% false assumption of 100% falseness of other post is 100% false.

It is still not the most efficient way. Even if you intend to reuse your orbital craft several times with not planning all the missions ahead. Let me explain a way how you could save even more FUNDS: You launch your craft with your SSTO, fully fueled. Then go off to first mission. After that park in LKO. Build a new SSTO with a Payload of EXACTLY the amount of fuel you can put in your craft at once. (it'll probably be more efficient in terms of funds per ton, than your bigger SSTO) Launch and rendeveous directly with your craft. (You saved the amount of fuel for moving your craft to the station, since now the orbital position of your craft doesn't matter) fuel it up. Return the small SSTO. Go for 2nd Mission, head back home into any LKO. Repeat the refuelling with the optimized small SSTO. Try it if you don't believe me. You'll see you can save even more Funds. So Fuel station is not the 'most efficient' way to do it. Even if its fun to use one , don't claim it being the most efficient way to do things. Tell me other Scenarios (with the exception of the already explained Kerbin to Laythe Spaceplane refueling before departure, that might actually be the most efficient way) and i'll explain you a more efficient way of doing things without a fuel depot (Sometimes saving more sometimes less fuel, but always saving something)

Yes sure and it's a legit reason to do these things. Otherwise why play a game at all. That was only for the people saying their building it just as a Fuel-Depot-purpose and claiming that would be an efficient way. I also build my stations for the fun of building it. Nothing wrong with that

It's interesting to read all your posts. But to all of you claiming a Fuel-Station is a good thing: It may be fun to build one. it may be a fun way to do your missions that way. But a Fuel Station is not 'efficient' in any way! (Asssuming your playing without Kethane or Karbonite, then it would be efficient of course) Look at it from an engineering point of view: For Mun and Minmus the most efficient thing are suborbital hops to reach the next Biome, not achieving Orbit and break an Orbit everytime you change biome. A command module can be efficient, so it also carries the drive to get back home, and after every 5 Mun landings you refuel there and store the experiments. But the efficient way is to do the mun all at once so it stays a command module and not a station as you'd never refuel there again. And for the Spaceplane gas station. Unless you need your wings and airbreathing engines at your destination its ineeficient, because you don't want to take your wings and Jets with you on an interplanetary tranfer, because its dead weight. Except maybe a direct flight to Laythe Surface and back, thats the only option where i think a fuel station in LKO might be more efficient than anything else. But apart from that there are always more efficient solutions, from an engineering point of view.

The Parts itself are in the same Nodes as in the Stock Tree. And there is the same Mod support as in the stock Tree, parts will be added in the nodes where the mod puts them, like always. If you've mechjeb installed you'll see it'll still use the Tier 9 Node 'Automation'. I don't changed any of the Part-in-Node Places, just reconfigured, reconnected and repriced the Nodes itself in a IMO better way than stock. Mod support is exactly as StockTree Mod support is.

I created a config restructuring and reconfiguring the Stock Tech Tree using your mod. Thought i share the link here, too. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94220-T-7-Technology-a-reconfigured-more-flexible-and-beleivable-StockTechTree?p=1425439#post1425439

Presenting: The Tall Transpositioned Tritium Titanium TechTree (T-7) UPDATE: 0.25 allows to set the Science gains yourself, so you can adjust the difficulty on your own. Therefor i updated the late node numbers, to make it possible to beat the tree in hard mode. New numbers: Get all stock parts: 14860 Points , Finish Tree : 40860 Points. Version 1.0: https://kerbalstuff.com/mod/193/T-7%20Technololgy This is a reconfiguration of the Stock Tech Tree. It gives you more flexibility and believability in how you want to do things. It offer possibilities to start with planes without researching rocket tech first, or rockets from the beginning, or probes at the beginning, or you can get even simple wheels as a starter technology, so you can start with Rovers without even lifting off. Just as you feel fitting to your playstyle and how you feel what should come first. It offers much more flexibility at the start and makes the start more believable for everyone. But near the end it becomes much more expensive than the normal stock Tree, and so gives your Missions a more Science related purpose. If you're really patient you can still unlock all stock parts in Kerbins SOI (it requires exactly 14860 SP), but its near the maximum Value of Kerbins SOI, so it would become really tedious, encouraging for missions into deeper space. And it also offers the stock-mod-nodes (aka Tier9), although some of them wont unlock anything new, they are shown and can be researched, giving you at least something to spend your Science Points on. Finishing the Tree including all the non-part-nodes requires over 40860 Points, which is close to the maximum of the over all available Science in hard mode. So if you unlock all of the Nodes you can proudly say, you have researched everything KSP has to see. Made using ATC-Mod: This project includes the "Alternative Tree Configurator" plugin to modify the tech tree. Details can be found in the ATC release post. ATC includes version checking using MiniAVC. If you opt-in, it will use the internet to check whether there is a new version available. Data is only read from the internet and no personal information is sent. For a more comprehensive version checking experience, please download the KSP-AVC Plugin. Modify the configuration as you want. Just don't claim the original unchanged (or current release) configuration as your own! If you tried it or using it, share your opinion here. Cheers SkyRex94

I thought i'd share the result of my thread in 'Gameplay Questions' , as i think it could be interesting or helpful for the general public. It was about how much Science there is in Total inside of the 'Kerbol' System. (OT: i don't like to call it Kerbol System as the Star is clearly named as the Sun. but can you call it Solar than? because Solar comes from Sol and not the english 'Sun'. So maybe the Kerbals call it Sunar System? But that sound weird, isn't it?) Here's the Result: