SkyRex94

Don't know if on purpose, but Eve is tidally locked in your config. I'd suggest to change that. Just discovered it while I landed a probe on the Night side and sunrise to load the batteries never happened...

Haha, I found the issue... kind of. Look here, I dug a little deeper into the forums and tried various different searches: This Thread is an addon release thread where this issue and it's cause is described. It seems to be tied to Warp Rates faster than the stock maximum. I use Jumbo32 (3.2xScale) so it was a little higher. every time you warp from inside a planetary SOI, go over the limit and drop out in interplanetary space this bug occurs. Nothing to fix it (at least I found nothing yet) but a workaround: Don't use faster than 100.000 X Warp from inside an planets SOI and make a quicksave everytime you enter Interplanetary. that seems to work around it. So now excuse me, I have to gather Seismic Data from Duna with a Rover for Moving Parts Inc.

...?????!!!!!?!?! Title says what just happened. Closed KSP and reloaded. Timewarping, dropping out- and the same stuff happens again. First time i'm seeing this. What is Tut-Un Jeb-Ahn? It destroys nearly all parts of the ship, and at various locations. Even reloading a save doesn't work, instant dissassemble of the craft loaded. What is going on???

solved, can be closed

So, I've a running Career save. But it appeared now that I can't select flights anymore, which makes it unable to continue launched flights. They also aren't shown in the map view (nor craft icon), so I can't switch vessels too. I deinstalled the mods, installed them again, checked various variables, and it isn't the fault of a mod. (But the craft has mod parts installed, so I post here) It seems to be related to the persistant save file in the save folder. To be more clear: -All Mods installed, but not the savefile in question: everything fine. -All Mods installed, also the savefile in question: No crafts visible in map or tracking station. Not even in new saves, created while the save in question is installed too. - I deleted all the Craft files and only left the peristent-save in the save, and the issue is still there. I have absolutely no idea what could cause this and why it is tied to a save-file... Any suggestions or solutions?

For the misplaced Jool: Why did you even calculated the mass? To fix it in my install I just put GeeASL = 0.8 in there and commented out the mass. RSS calcs that on its own. It's already possible: The Funds penalties directly affect the bulding cost. So 200% Funds penalties mean double building cost. I just started my new career and yes, with that 18t limit you're just barely making orbit, but it feels great overall. I'm exited for the repack you're doing if it really speeds up the launch time of KSP.

Between Level 4 and 5

Hmm just tested the new DRE, 3.2xKerbin, LKO reentry speed ca 4000m/s . Just the 3man Pod with a shield, temperature got up to over 1000C but it only ablated from 1000 to like 925 shielding. I somehow expected more. Setting was on hard Whats exactly is the difference between normal and hard settings behaviour? And which settings should be used if I want a shield to lose minimum half of the ablative shielding during a 4-4.5km/s entry?

RSS dll was updated. I replaced the one that comes with this, but it stops loading at "Kerbin Scaled Space Color Map". Do you need to adjust anything apart from the dll to get this to work in .90 ? EDIT: I commented out the lines for loading the color and normal map in the cfg. Now it works. Finally I can start my career in 0.90 . Yeahaa!

With the 0.90 update there are 101 new biomes. In total there are 137 biomes. I'm might be wrong, but I think you forgot: LaunchPadFlagPole, LaunchPadTanks, LaunchPadWaterTower, LaunchPadRoundTank, AdministrationMainBuilding(Roof), AstronautComplexBuilding(roof) TBH I really don't like the KSC biomes. They could include different reports for them but they should yield 0 Science Points. You might think the Kerbals build these buildings themselfes, so there is nothing new to discover there. Instead of this, they could add natural sites, that behave like the KSC biomes now. For example: The peak of a vulcano is an actual object like a building and has such a building-biome. like anomalies with biomes just so that they are representing natural intersting places. Some more examples: -Volcano peak , Crater-central-hill, Geysier ( Eeloo) , highest peak on planet, caves , lets call them : Places of Interest to small to be a biome, and you'll only get Science when actually AT these location and not from high above them , like the buildings now. And in exchange change the buildings to yield 0 Science would be my suggestion for Squad.

good news

Oh yes I like Especially the idea with the fading below the main belts is a great idea to make them feel more deep and believable without making them too much look like saturns, great work so far. I'm happy and glad that your still working on Syterion

Okay, what do you think about the rest of my suggestions?

If it hasn't changed from 0.25: Every Building on KSC is its own biome, distinct from the biome its standing on. even Water Towers. try it out. There are VAB-WaterTower, LaunchPadFlagPole, SPH-Tanks, everything. KSC alone has over 30 biomes in total. maybe even 40

I like the general idea. All of that in a 3.2 scale right? Some opinion/addition: - I would like to let the Suns name stay the Sun - Making Gilly back to stock size is great idea, since it really loses the Asteroid-character when scaled up to 3.2 - Not sure what Iphis would really add to gameplay value, i would scratch it - Tylo: I would rather like to see a Iapetus analouge around GP2 instead of tranforming tylo - Voon: I'd prefer another name, we already have this obvious double-o in 'Jool' (Some time ago I came up with a name for GP2 : Syterion) - Daphy: I would set it at the Edge or even lower than GP2s Rings, for great View. - Potatus: Has to be small like stock Gilly to justify such a high inclination, but would also make great views from the top of the rings. - Fonso: This should be the Titan Analouge. So maybe a yellowish Atmosphere color. And some dark-grey lakes and rivers made out of methane, between the big mountains inside the thick Atmo. Don't really like the name Fonso, but don't have a better one right now. -Addition: Iapetus analouge. Sillas/Nepth: As can be seen on your ideas of moons for them , and the moons in real life, there isn't so much addition having 4 GPs, so I think just 3 GP's are enough diversity for KSP, if GP3 is a combined analouge to Uranus and Neptune. color: if GP2 is blue and Jool green, maybe yellow, red or bright blue-turquis-white. Instead of making it rocky, what about making a surface which is just one big ocean? so you go through veeery thick atmo and can then float on the ocean. would be a little more realistic than a gas-rock transition for a gas or ice giant. GP3 Moons: - a Triton analouge with a retrograde orbit relative to GP3s rotation. - a small moon that is stretched and irregular instead of spherical ( maybe possible with the right height-map?) - a rocky-coal moon, where the surface is so black, that you can barely see anything when youre in the night (or in GP3s shadow) Bluto: don't like the name, but like the idea of a Plutoid-moon Addition: A comet. size of stock gilly with high eccentric orbit. Addition2: An Io analouge: a volcanic active moon either around Jool or GP2. what do you think ? Edit: Fonso alternative names: Kyulox , Kulox, Twrukyotev, Urtos (I'm not so good at thinking up names, the idea was to make a contrast to Laythe, since this will probably be the most popular GP2 moon , as Laythe is Jools)

Personally, I would prefer a darker blue. Just slightly lighter than the real Venus. Wait, i'll search for a drawing Felsmak made for my idea of GP2 some time ago. EDIT: here I found it (all © goes to Felsmak) Right now, i'm eagerly waiting for RSS to update since I decided I will make my 0.90 Career in 3.2 scale. Stock is just too easy by now for me and the Low Orbits in this just look so much better, while still having good looking terrain and not a stretched boring plain. And money will really start to matter more, since you'll need a bigger craft for everything compared to stock, and i want new challenges. Another question: do you recommend a certain EVE-Pack that looks good and isn't too resource heavy? During 0.25 testing i found that Astronomers pack lets the mun flicker at the higher points from far away.

What exactly are you arguing here?!?!?!?!?! It's not like KSP just has 3-4 options like medium-hard-eas etc. to chose from. They implemented the difficulty panel exactly for this reason: EVERYBODY has a different OPINION and enjoys different things. In the difficulty panel you can adjust all the values yourself. Not enough money? Set the money payout up. Too easy Science? set the science payout down. To hard penalties? set them down. So what exactly do you want? Should squad change normal-setting? Why ? Some people like it now, and they will then start to dislike it, Squad can't satisfy everybody: but you can do that yourself, just set the difficulty how you like it. For the reason of finding the right settings faster without much trying, I just recently started a Thread, where everybody could post their settings, and tell how the experience is on that difficulty settings. Not many answered though, but threads like this appear, where people say 'normal' or 'hard' is not to their taste. Then change it so it fits your taste. (Wait, i will lookup where my Difficulty-Settings-Collection thread went, for those of you interested) Edit: here

So i'd like to add this Challenge badge to my Signature: May i just entry with my own Skylon Challenge Entry? Stock Skylon replica It qualifies for : -Payload to Orbit -Landed at KSC Runway Cheers

ESA Flags ! Suprise , good Suprise!!! I will bring the ESA forward to explore space really deep! Spending much more Funds than the real ESA would... Europe !!!!

okay, that with the Atmo-height makes sense. It still looks a lot better than stock, from Orbit. (And if I really want t, I could just reconfigure the config). But this d(sqrt ofx) law is new to me, and it doesn't really seem to work. Taking Stock with FAR Launch: ca. 3500m/s. 3500 * 1,788 = 6261 m/s. But in my Test i only needed around 5600 m/s to Launch From 3.2xKerbin. And i also don't know which numbers you used. From my Eve Rocks Challenge entry, I needed just above 11km/s from under 100m to Orbit (without FAR). According to this Rule that would be just above 19km/s for a Launch, so with FAR i guess it might be more in the 14-16km/s area. Still a lot but doable, especially if maybe launching from a higher point. So i might really do my 0.90 Beta Career with 3.2xScale. (But i will turn off Eeloos Atmo, it's just too light to keep one. Although i might keep spinny Dres, pretending it's made out of compressed iron so it doesn't tear apart) But i'm interested where this 'law' comes from? And another Addition: in the OP you wrote: [maybe]Give Eeloo a moon (using Kopernicus) IF you really want to add something and are graphically talented enough to make textures ( i've ideas for a planet pack but aren't a talented graphics designer) what i would propose to add instead, since it will get probably more attention (and i would like it more): Add a second Blue Gas Giant with Rings, with SemiMajorAxis roughly == Apoapsis of Eeloo. AND Move Eeloo(with RSS) into the orbit of this GP2 , making it more like Enceladus. And then you could add an analouge for Titan: medium sized moon and gravity, but with an Atmosphere as thick as Eves or even thicker.

Addition: I would suggest to set the Atmosphere heights back to stock values. You know 70km is not 10 times smaller than real earth, and so to scale even 70km would be to big for 3.2 scale. And It would allow a little lower Orbits, which feels more authentic without increasing the size any more and washing out the terrain.

-Beuitification is fine. I even turned the sun white for my entry. -KAS is not ( I could allow it IF you wouldn't use it for stability improvement and/or mounting parts to places where they haven't been before and/or docking; And what else stays there ro do with this mod? If you considered it for refueling in LKO: you could also use a Klaw on your Tanker) -B9 : Parts of it yes, most of it no: look in the rules which parts are prohibited, and all that aren't are fine to use (for example: No B9 Engines or Air Intakes etc.)

So i started messing around with Kopernicus a little bit. Started with PF revived to see whats possible, got my own Config working which moved and resized some of the stock planets to see if it's faster than RSS configs, turned out it's not really. Then i wanted to start with my own planet pack idea and configed 2 new planets and moved Eeloo. At this point it stopped working completely, not even showing the PF-revived or my Resizing config anymore ingame. So my question is: Is there any order or conflicts to watch out for? What does Kopernicus need aside from the System.cfg and the .dll in Kopernicus folder? What could be reasons for it stopping completely, so where should i start to search and troubleshoot?

Yeah okay I admit it is not optimal documented. As a maybe little excuse: It was my first mission log made as a Video and not as a slideshow, so i kinda forgot to hit F1 as often as i may have done in lets say my Jool 5 Log (over 400 pics), because i simply thought "Yeah why pictures, all can be seen in the video at the end". Additionally i never gave a thought about that the watermark of bandicam may block some important readouts... (But you can actually read the Apoapsis, so while landed equals the altitude, in the KER window) . I discovered all these issues AFTER i've put the video together. So the mission was already done, and I couldn't go back to take more pictures... Thanks for approving the mission anyways. Otherwise I'd have to the mission again to take all the pictures (Not that big of an issue, since I know everthing worked, but it would be doubled time and the trial and error again for hitting an under 500m landing spot) What I've learned from this: With my next mission log for anything I will probably return to just taking a lot of pictures.

I have done both of them succesfully (still waiting for Laie to see through my entry), And here some opinion: Eve Rocks Challenge: The Challenge here is to design the Lander, getting to Eve is easy, getting back home too, landing is even easier(maybe requires a few tries until you hit where you want to land). But the Launch from Eve is really difficult, in terms of craft design. You have to develop it smart OR suffer the consequences of carriing a super heavy lander to Eve. But the actual flying of it is not soo difficult (if you designed it could). But it definitely is the most difficult 'Launch' possible in stock KSP. Jool-5 Challenge: The Jool 5 requires even more planning, here the sheer complexity is a challenge of its own. The requirement to go as one ship, makes it really complex to design, you have to test a lot more different aspects of your craft especially if you plan to reuse some parts. The single units to do a single landing may be not as hard to design as Eve-Lander but fitting and designing them together in a complex ship makes the engineering even more difficult than Eve-Launch. And here you'll have to deal with a lot of different flying challenges too: -Aerobraking at Jool and Laythe -Tylo Landing: The most difficult 'Landing' in KSP -Laythe: hitting an Island or build a floating lander. -Orbital mechanics: to move between the moons without spending too much fuel. -(optional, but i've done it) A suborbital flight in Jools Atmosphere, very difficult. - several Rondeveus and dockings, maybe rearranging modules ( compared to only one docking(at most) at Eve) So flying is definitly more difficult in Jool-5 than Eve Landing. Engineering is due to the sheer complexity also a lot more difficult than Eve Landing. My Jool-5 required a week of planning, engineering and testing, before i was ready to go. Eve Landing required just a day of engineering the Lander, and the flying was also waay shorter. So under the line Jool-5 wins by far. only thing more difficult in stock, would be a grand tour. but Eve Landing comes directly behind, although with a huge gap in between. (Of course if you compare Tylo-Landing versus Eve, Eve wins, but the question was for the Jool-5 as a hole, and not the hardest Landing of it, the complexity plays in huge here) Don't really understand how so many people voted for Eve. I hope all of the Voters have actually done BOTH of these Missions! P.S; might be important, to judge my opinion in comparison: Eve Rocks: Level 3 , landed under 100m, report from oceans Jool-5: Jebediahs Level, 7 Kerbals, current Science Record holder.