NWDogg

Not sure what I've done, or if this is some sort of bug, or you've changed the way this pack works. I have tested just now with a completely fresh install of 0.25 KSP, and only the USI Exploration Pack (0.2.2 latest release from yesterday) installed. I seem to be missing the mini-SAS, the mini structural girder, and the mini decoupler. These are the only 3 I believe are missing. Did you possibly remove these from the pack, or is something wrong with the install? Also, the AES structural outrigger. It used to look like an octagonal strut with a little cubic strut sticking out of it, like this -O . Now, in my .25 installs, it is missing the connection piece, so it just looks like an octagonal strut. The connection node itself is still there, though. Is this also a problem with the install? Here is a picture of the outrigger, connected to the cargo rack. I've placed an octagonal strut there as well for comparison; also notice the lack of the other parts in the part menu. And output log: http://pastebin.com/075LfUFm edit: Just to clarify, this happened in my original .25 install with other mods. So, I used a new untouched fresh install (from Steam, if that matters) and got these same results.

If I recall correctly, it is FAR. FAR nerfs the jet engines to be more in-line with the way a real jet is supposed to work, but as I understand they are still quite off. It will still get you to space, though...just maybe takes a little longer. edit: Or is it KIDS? It's one of the two, can't quite remember which now.

I think maybe I'm not clear. I'm not suggesting an 'ending' to reach. I'm suggesting that the contract and science system be used to tell a (or more than one) story, to add fluff to the career mode. Simply going through the story, even if just once, is this 'goal'. Again, the story wouldn't be the end-all of the game, it would simply extend the lifespan of career mode beyond the tech tree, and add something to do beyond getting more parts. Sure, doing your own thing is the real goal of the game--the story (told through contracts and science), like the tech tree, is just another part of career that pushes you towards accomplishing that. The career mode starts out by giving you contracts from the Kerbal Record Keeping Organization (or whatever the name is) to achieve certain milestones. This is the basics of a story mode already. Just expand that idea. Specifically worded contracts that ask you to do certain things, for exampe, land on the Mun before a rival space agency. This would be accomplished through several contracts detailing what the other space agency is doing, how your testing is stacking up against theirs', how far they've made it so far etc.. A pre-built ship put into orbit with pre-defined maneuvers, acting as the rival's ship, could be the actual ship you have to beat to the Mun. You can try to just land before them, or maybe you will decide to destroy their ship- that could be up to the player. The rewards might be a bit more reputation than a regular contract, and like the others can simply be declined. That's a very very simple (and not well thought-out) example of an early-game story line, but I think it illustrates the basic functionality of how it could work. The goal here is to not only complete a contract for money, science, and rep, but also to build on the game world. We know very little about Kerbal's world outside of the KSC..this would help us learn just a little bit more. Other 'plot lines' (or call them quests, or just contracts..doesn't really matter) could include things like searching for (and destroying?) the Kraken. Or a series of contracts that ask you to discover anomalies, all the while giving you some bits of back story (through science) as to why they might be there. The search for microbial life on Joolian moons (maybe you don't find any?) Any of these could work, but they are all basically just contracts and science- used in a way to tell a 'Kerbal' story, and add just a bit of gameplay and engagement to the end of the 'career tutorial.' Nothing I'm suggesting is really unique, even...it's all been suggested before, and most of it already exists. In fact, the Science text file even refers to itself as the 'story'. I'm just suggesting expanding that a bit past the tech tree, and giving more of a reason for doing science and contracts beyond the desire for more parts.

I won't argue that, because I agree with it. The satisfaction of being able to design your own missions, with your own restrictions, and carry them out is the fundamental basis of the game certainly. However, the career mode in my opinion is lacking. I don't see the story as being something you finish, and you then put the game down--rather, I see it as an extension of that 'tutorial' to make it more engaging and interesting. Nothing more than that. Career lacks the endgame goal, not the game itself.

Pretty interesting debate about where the science mechanic and career mode should be focused, and the direction it needs to take to fulfill everyone's playstyles. I think there is a major piece of the puzzle not being considered on either side, though, and that is 'What is the purpose of doing science and contracts, when the end result is obtainable from the get-go?' In other words, what is the end-game goal? I think, no matter which direction you want to push the tech tree or science gains, there needs to be an underlying purpose to it all, other than 'more parts'. That purpose, in my mind, is a story mode. I imagine a fully fleshed out story (with multiple plot lines) that slowly begins at the beginning of the tech tree and contracts, builds itself up to near-climax at the end of the tech tree, and finally comes to conclusion well after the player has unlocked the final part. This would actually tie the science and contracts together, push the player further and further out into the system regardless of how fast they unlock parts, and give the player the satisfaction of an actual end-game goal that simply doesn't yet exist. Of course, there are a few key mechanics I have in mind that may need to be implemented for this to work. New science gathering mechanics, a more structured contract system (you would need to write out contracts, rather than the randomized nonsense we get now), possibly a primitive AI system for a space-race type plot line (this sort of already exists, with the Kerbal rescue contracts...just needs expanded a bit), the 'Kerbal-world' itself would need to be canonized instead of left to interpretation (this one is probably the biggest hurdle). Not a huge amount of work, really, to get something basic...I don't see epic CG cut-scenes or extensive dialog, but simply using a slightly enhanced contract and science system to add that little bit of 'fluff' to flesh out the game world. Maybe, just maybe, you could get a different plot line with several different career saves, but even a completely scripted-event story system would drastically increase the usefulness of career, in my opinion. I have actually been considering trying to tackle this with a mod. At a basic level, it probably wouldn't even require a plugin. Though to get something interesting going on it certainly would-- of which I'm more than unqualified at the moment to handle. Anyhow, sorry for the off-topic ramble...biomes are gonna be cool, right?

I love the design of this pod, it's so slick. Stock-like but still realistic; you've done an amazing job so far. Question though, do you plan to implement the Draco engines? If you do, will they be integrated or separate parts? If not, there are a few radial engines that might work, but none that will really look right with the pod. I hope you are at least considering adding the engines, in one form or another. As for the size, 2.5m is perfect. 3.75 is far too big for a versatile, everyday-use pod like the Dragon.

I really like the the reduced-size MK1-2 heat shield and decoupler, since they fit perfectly on that pod, and the UP13 decoupler fits perfectly on the Mk1 pod. I would love to see an actual 2.5m size heat shield and decoupler, though...I use the MK3-9 pod from Near Future, and the UP25 and 2.5 heat shield don't fit. Procedural Parts creates a nice form-fitting heat shield for this pod, but that leaves a major gap with any regular decoupler. Would a module manager tweak be enough to create these 2 parts, or would they need to be remodeled?

Ok, so I finally figured out why 'hover' was not working! It wasn't that I was doing anything wrong...I was fairly frustrated when all the suggestions were to do things I was already doing. So I had some time to play around with it today, and I found out that the problem is with 'KIDS'. Specifically, the 'Thrust varies with ISP' and 'Extend curve to zero' settings (not sure which one exactly, I'll test some more.) With these settings turned on, the hover feature ceases to function. As soon as I turned these settings off, the hover feature works exactly as I expected it to. The actual ISP scaling doesn't seem to matter...I tested it on the 'FAR to KSP, Universal' preset and it worked just fine. I'm sure these fans weren't designed with these settings in mind, so it isn't a big deal, but I thought I'd let you know just in case someone else happens to come across this combination. If this was already common knowledge, then I apologize...I couldn't find anything about it. Thanks everyone for trying to help...I really should've looked at KIDS to begin with, but I was short on free time and thought maybe I was just using them wrong.

@Fraz86: Yeah, I have RCS on. Like I said, flying the thing is a breeze. And I can land, if I'm very very careful with throttle...but that hover just does not want to work. @Mischief: I'm actually using 5 fans. 4 vertical, and one horizontal 'tail' fan, like a rudder. I set action groups for 'hover' on the 4 vertical fans (no need for the tail fan I assume, it's at 0 throttle limit, RCS only). I turn the engines on, and throttle up...I go up, obviously. I throttle down, I go down. I turn 'hover' on...it does nothing. I can manually hover, for a few seconds, if I play with the throttle a lot...but that hover function doesn't help here. By nothing, I mean it has no perceivable effect, especially on the stability of my altitude (which is what I had assumed the feature did.) Maybe that's not what 'hover' actually does? If I go straight up to, let's say 300m altitude (with throttle at, say, 20%) and turn on hover...should my altitude stay there, then rise or fall by increasing or decreasing hover height? If so, that's not what it's doing. At a throttle level that increases altitude, the craft keeps going up, and at lower throttle it falls. If I cut (normal) throttle with hover on, or cut throttle then turn hover on, it falls. It never 'hovers' at the same altitude, like I thought it would. Is this how it is supposed to work? Also, I thought maybe the 'hover height' is the desired altitude. So, doing all of above, I set 'hover height' to 300 (assuming both altitude from sea level and from surface), and again no effect at all. So I'm completely lost on these things. I absolutely love this mod, the crafts I've built fly beautifully. I just wish it were easier to land them, due to the 'lag' in the throttle response. Edit: It appears an older version of Firespitter snuck its way into my install. I switched it back to the version included with the latest USI Exploration pack...but same behavior with hover. So I'm assuming now that it just simply doesn't work the way I thought it did.

Ok thanks. I've actually done exactly that. Unless I am grossly misunderstanding what 'hover' actually does, this just isn't working for some reason. Perhaps it is a problem in my install, but I doubt that. I'm leaning towards 'I have no idea what I'm doing' being the problem. I'll play around with it some more tonight after work...in the meantime, has anyone made a video flying a craft with these fans? Maybe if I see what others are doing to hover, I'll understand what I'm doing wrong.

I actually have no problem with doing that, unless that requires creating a new partition. The only limitation is my single HDD is only 500gb, and I have a LOT of games on it, so I'm working with just about 75gb at the moment (and soon to be less). Certainly not enough room for a separate Linux-specific partition. However, if I can run KSP through Linux, from the Windows partition, then that solves most of the problems I've been having trying to set this up to begin with. I may go ahead and post over in the Linux thread, to get some help setting that up.

I'm having some serious issues trying to fly any of the little ships I've built using the micro ducted-fans. Well, actually, the flying part is absurdly easy...it's the landing I can't figure out . I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how to use the 'hover' function. I can land if I'm extremely careful with the throttle, but usually I come crashing down too hard or give it too much throttle and fly back up. I've built a perfectly stable craft, set all of the action groups to toggle throttle, hover, engines, RCS, etc.. No matter what I try, hover just does not seem to work. It tends to fly up or down based on throttle input, but no matter what I do it will not 'hover'. Does anyone have some advice on how to use this function?

I've been using OpenGL for about a week now, and my main install went from 2.9gb at load to just 1.8. It opened up enough room to install a few more part packs that would've easily crashed it under DX. I don't seem to have much performance loss with it either, though there is a noticeable, but very slight, drop in framerate at certain points. The shadows don't seem to render correctly, and I'm not sure about AA but that doesn't seem to work as well either. All the above is well and good, and I can live with it (especially since I have more room for mods!) but the real kicker for me is that OpenGL almost literally destroys texture quality. I don't know if it's just me, but when I run OpenGL the textures are reduced to ugly, barely recognizable blobs of color. I imagine this is why it saves so much memory over DX. Now, I do use ATM (on both OpenGL and DX) so I first thought it was just ATM being ATM, and I hadn't noticed before...but I then loaded up the exact same mods (minus a couple part packs), with ATM on a new install, ran it normally (no force-opengl) and the textures were sharp and clear, with vivid colors and nice contrast...a complete 180 from OpenGL. So, for me at least, the texture quality issue is too big to run OpenGL on anything but my 'super-heavy' mod install when I want to test certain mods together. If I could figure out the texture problem, I would probably switch to OpenGL exclusively. For now though, I'm going to jump back into the Linux world (been away from that for a few years) and try to get a Lubuntu USB flash drive to work (I don't have a separate HDD at the moment, and I don't want to give up any room on my Windows partition.) Hopefully that texture problem doesn't carry over into the Linux version...I know it uses OpenGL only, so that sort of worries me.

Check out Roverdude's USI Survival Pack. There are radial, and inline 'floats' in them...they are mostly meant for splashdown, but I've been messing around with them to make a hovercraft. I haven't yet succeeded, because of COM issues causing the craft to flip underwater, but I believe it should be possible to get one working.

I second this motion. The 'real' RSS and 6.4x scales are awesome, but sometimes I just wanna play stock. Well, honestly, stock size isn't that great...it's way too small. FAR and NEAR are required, in my opinion, but they make the ascent (the funnest part, I think) way too easy and quick. KIDS sort of fixes this, but not in a preferable way. So a 2 or 2.5x scale would be just perfect for that 'stock' feel with decent aero. I feel like I've seen this done before though. I can't remember who did it, or where I saw it, but I vaguely remember seeing someone post a 2.5x scale config. It may have been in one of the realism debate threads, I know it wasn't more than a month/2 months ago. I'm sure if that's correct someone will be along to point it out...I look forward to trying it.

That is amazing. As always...I don't even know why I'm surprised anymore, to be honest. I absolutely love this size 0.625 stuff, it's so cool. What are Al and Eldred sitting in there? Doesn't look like a command seat or PackRat seat...must be something new, unless I'm mistaken.

Yep, that's exactly what it is. I was just able to reproduce it using the thrust-plate from PF. Here's a pic to show it: Sorry, couldn't figure out how to embed it properly under the image tag (25 years working with computers and I can't post a picture correctly..I'm ashamed of myself.) Anyway, the green node above and to the left of the pod is the culprit, caused by reducing nodes on the plate.

I've seen these. I'm not sure I could pinpoint it to this mod, but I've seen them in every 24.2 install I have with PF (and about 10 other mods that go in every install.) They are single attachment node icons, the green spheres, that hang off to the sides of the VAB. They aren't connected to a part, don't appear with any particular part (that I can tell) so seemingly at random, you can't interact with them, and they appear to not cause any negative issues. Also, I couldn't find anything about them in the output log...so they are, for all intents and purposes, 'ghost nodes'. Weird, but not harmful in my experience...I'll try to get a picture for you if you don't have one.

I thought it would be underwhelming, because I was fully expecting it. However...those explosions looked pretty darn awesome. And the way the buildings crumble is nicely done. Sure, it will get old fast, but the possibilities for 0.26 features because of this are great. It's a nice feature that didn't need to be added, but it's cool that it was. My biggest question is, and maybe it's too soon to ask, but will modders be able to tap into this feature? That is, will we be able to mod in our very own buildings into the KSC and destroy them? Perhaps buildings that have mod-specific functions even?

I'll probably play through career mode for about an hour or 2 before I get bored, then wait patiently for (imo) necessary mods to be updated. I might even start working on my own mod idea I've had brewing in the back of my mind, while I wait for those mods.

I completely agree, but if it possibly lays the groundwork for a customizable/upgradable KSC in .26 then it may be worth the dev time. It would also be nice to have an open system for modders to implement their own buildings into the game as well...I can imagine a thousand uses for that. Or...how about a 'building builder' building...where, you can build buildings...in a building. I dunno, that sounded cool in my head.

I am 99.99% convinced that the secret feature is destructible buildings, or something very very similar (not sure what would be similar though...it has to be destructible buildings.) I think the feature will prove rather pointless, but hopefully it sets up the groundwork for customizing the layout of the KSC, upgrading buildings, adding buildings (starting with just a small VAB and Mission Control, maybe?), or even allowing custom buildings to be modded in. All of these features would be pretty cool to see, but simply destroying buildings wouldn't add anything to gameplay.

Man, I can't wait to hear the announcement. I've been looking forward to this for a good while now, and it just re-sparked my interest when I watched the Bloomberg documentary on Netflix 'The Next Space Race' (or something along those lines) over the weekend. So exciting. My money is on SpaceX. The Dreamchaser looks nice, and the CST-100 is a safe bet (being not much more than a new Apollo CSM), but the Dragon has the technology and real-world track record to not only get the job done, but also to spark major public interest in space travel again. It just has a 'cool factor' that the other 2 don't. SpaceX all the way.

Those options aren't in the stock game. What you were seeing is the settings from FAR or NEAR. That's why they don't show up...you need to install one of those mods. Edit: Sorry 'bout ninja, Ges.

I've always thought of life on Kerbin as evolving differently than here on Earth. My thought is that the original single-celled organisms all developed similarly to plant-life on Earth, and so every single organism living on Kerbin is a plant. The Kerbals are plants as well, except they evolved to live not only on photosynthesis but also to get nutrition from other plants...basically, Kerbals are the top of food chain on Kerbin. They would be equivalent to carnivores on Earth, except they aren't carnivores because they eat plants...so they are herbivorous plants. If that makes any sense. Just my thoughts, anyway.