tater

I remember you saying that up thread now that you say it again! I did, indeed see the status of that craft as "landed" after I undocked it (the one that warped away so I could never test the docking ports). I forgot the quick save work around. Interestingly, after the crash, it would no longer load the saved or auto-saved craft files at all in the VAB. It would accept them, move the camera angle as if it was loaded, and show an engine icon on the right, but no craft.

Just tested the same craft* minus HE. At least I could actually dock without the station and craft magically kraken-zooming away from each other (so the kraken-drive was HE-related, not a function of the torus rotation). The ST-DOS-TKS docking port works fine, I can both target it and dock. HUB-DOS worked as well, but not HUB-COS. *the craft in both my 2 recent tries (with and without HE) was in fact a LC2 with an MFT full of mono, not an Orion. I tested Orion again, and with the SM it does NOT like being launched on the engine bell with a huge mass on top. It's easy to reproduce a crash. Make an Orion CSM with those 2 parts. Put the huge torus on top. Launch. Game crashes. The CSM by itself is fine. I wonder if it's a combination of the pad mass limit, and engine impact resistance?

It introduces more problems than it solves. Hyperedit a craft with a sub craft to the standard Kerbin orbit (100,000). Decouple the carried craft to practice docking. It now shows my craft as unable to time warp above terrain. Swap to the station to time warp, try to swap back after warping maybe 20 seconds forward (craft was drifting away at 0.2 m/s). Craft is now 40 km away. Hyper edited the crafts separately to orbit to test docking. Started the Orion with the default rendezvous lag. It's ~800m away I think. Hit RCS and think I'm closing... I close a while, then I'm drifting apart, fast when I had just been closing at 2 m/s. I set up a proper rendezvous in the map view. Do the burn, I'll get within 0.2 km. Warp forward watching the intercept... it's increasing constantly. HE puts KSP into bizarro mode, and it has happened in the past on numerous occasions for me. It's unpredictable. I use HE a lot, but it has seriously screwed things up in multiple versions more than once for me. I think my new HE methodology will be to install it for a specific purpose (I've replaced craft that have automagically vanished before, for example), use it, then remove the mod just in case. Note also that I considered the idea that the perfect circular obit of HE might have been a problem, so the first thing I did up my HE to orbit was to push the orbit slightly eccentric to avoid any issues that might cause, then I undocked the test craft to test different docking ports. Kraken happened afterwards with HE, no kraken with it removed. PS---note the LOL, please.

I'm gonna dump hyperedit, hyper edit seems useful for testing, but it's cancer, lol.

My big issue with the mass figure on USILS is that the cupola is incredibly heavy, hence spamming anything with those increases habitability more than adding more living volume, which seems absurd to me. Basically, if we imagined kerbal engineers deciding on part design, they'd say, "what we need is something incredibly small, but incredibly massive---with windows!" A cleaner looking cupola would be a nice part. I'm waiting on some sealer to cure on my atrium (which looks like a giant cupola), then I have to add a coat (I have some corner leaks)... was hoping to test but my son is playing minecraft (he's online, and I "get" that he can't just quit, long time online gamer that I am). Maybe after lunch

Wonder if it was the engine bell of the Orion SM making it bounce into space... Except I never even saw the pad, it immediately switches to a distant view (I can see the craft as an extended dot) but I cannot zoom at all... everything locks up aside from me seeing it rise. Had to pick "taterkerman" as my github name. Not yet. My next test was to try that craft that zipped to space. I put Orion on there as a good craft to use for docking tests. I was going to try the station for port, then retry the multi-hub. I am home today so I can mess around a bit after I caulk a window that was leaking (monsoon finally hit, and we're scheduled to get slammed by some afternoon storms down here in NM). My daughter is finally awake, so I can leave to buy caulk, but I'll mess around later.

I opened a new issue (not well titled, sorry) and included a craft and log file (zipped). I made a craft with the large torus, a COS hub, and a station core, with an Orion attached so I could test docking ports. I hit launch, and the thing flew into space by itself, lol, and I could not hi map view, etc, had to quit KSP. Only mods are SSTU, KJR and hyperedit. I had planned on popping the station into orbit with HE, but it flew into space before I could ever do that. Next testing I will just launch the stuff, but I was being lazy.

I did some quick testing with the large torus with a multi-port COS module (the larger one) on the end. Targeting was only possible on the white port (that one was on the axis of the station), the other colors would select, then immediately say "No Target." I was also unable to dock at all with any of the ports. The only mods I have on this test installation are KJR and hyperedit (so I can throw stuff into orbit fast for testing). Regarding life support, the torus parts should have a huge multiplier. I have always disagreed with roverdude using mass for that one multiplier, it should be volume related. Regardless, the large torus should have a habitability multiplier high enough that pretty much only supplies limit anything. Gravity is a huge LS multiplier from all current data we have.

It was crazy time that in fact prevented another global catastrophe (a conventional WW3 could have many more than WW2 the old-fashioned way). Like any particular point in human history, generally speaking, the Cold War was the safest time to be alive as a human up until that point.

Here's a workshop concept that has other uses. Allow lassoing parts in the VAB (an entirely normal UI thing that should ideally e a thing, anyway). You then have a group of parts selected you can move around. If a craft is saved already, allow the lassoed parts to be saved as craft-specific sub assemblies (a new tab). So you create a huge "Jool Explorer" craft that is too big to launch at once on a rocket that actually looks like a rocket (sorry, my bias is showing here, I never make anything that doesn't pretty much look like a real rocket). You could add a bunch of 2.5m clamp-o-tons to it, and try to launch in sections, but for the sake of argument let's say it has laterally mounted stuff that makes it wide, and that docking it precisely would be hard as a result). Instead, you lasso parts which get saved as Jool Explorer:sub1of7, Jool Explorer:sub2of7, etc. You launch them, and have them grabbed by the "orbital workshop" (a large truss section with grabber arms along it capable of grabbing X number of sub assemblies. The Orbital Workshop would see that they are craft "Jool Explorer" and sub parts 1, 2, 3, etc of 7 total. Once all are delivered, it could load the completed craft and "launch" it (which would simultaneously delete all the grabbed subassemblies).

I have no personal desire to retrofit, as honestly I don't think that should be a thing. I'd be fine with assembling sub-assemblies, and adding parts small enough to be packed in a KIS container (solar panels, experiments, and other stuff to get added to the outside). I'd personally never add/change engines.

Yeah, I got an email saying I should change my passwd.

This reminds me. Squad should stop using "biome" for places without life.

Yeah... I'lll admit I want a bigger one since I usually play at 6.4X, so it would be amazing to see a realistic part from the spacecraft scale standpoint.

Yeah, it would be awesome to have an appropriate diameter for at least 0.38 g or something at a reasonable rotation rate. They say up to 4 rpm with adaptation, with 2 being optimal, right?

Sadly, Mars 5 didn't work well. If we think of the CCCP as Charlie Brown, Mars is the kite eating tree.

That's why I think a "workshop" approach, for an orbital facility makes more sense for stock. Just the ability to put parts together in a way that reduces part count, and increases strength and precision.

Yeah, I see a difference between a facility to enable construction of prefab elements, and a scifi 3d printer in space.

Also flat out "welding" of parts. I can do this with KIS, but it's a pain, and a wrong move can get splodey. I am not interested in having a drill turn out spacecraft, myself, I want the ability to do some VAB-style assembly on orbit is all. The use of the facility can of course pre predicated on having EC, crew, etc. As pure eye-candy, it would be cool if construction took some decent amount of time, during which if you were to visit the station, you'd see the crew on EVA doing the construction To be clear, I'm not in favor od a 1.25m part that magically poops out 3.75m interplanetary mother ships. I want all the supplies to be brought up in most cases as the size they are---though I could imagine certain new parts that could perhaps be collapsed in some way that are designed for orbital construction use

Good points, @r_rolo1, that also reminds me of another problem, that KSP gets only easier to play, not more challenging as career progresses. Life support certainly adds more challenge, as you need to create larger craft for any given mission, and/or do far more planning. There is also the issue related to what you said that the tech tree is the sole reward system in the game, and like it or not, players unconsciously play to reward systems in games.

I would really like to see a robust construction ability off Kerbin. It would also serve to give Kerbals something to do in space. Have a VAF (vehicle assembly facility) that you have to build, then it needs to be supplied with parts. Small stuff can be bulk-loaded KIS style, but any large components would need to delivered in most cases. Certain structures might be available for actual construction from scratch on-orbit from pieces that could presumably fit in a bulk container of some kind. The VAF wouldn't look like the VAB, just because it would be cool to have it look like it's on a station. It would have unique limits. A similar facility for bases would be cool to have as well, including the ability to create certain kinds of base structures (which might be allowed to be constructed already attached to other facilities). I like it, I see that as an actual use for a station. Note that I see this as a way to more precisely build the sorts of things I already build on orbit. Say I flew up a crew module, and it had transduna injection stages and a transkerbin injection stage on top of that, and it was to be launched in 5 launches, and assembled. I can dock all those together, but trying to get it perfectly aligned rotationally at the docking ports is non-trivial. I'd love to be able to put each segment next to an orbital construction facility which would then grab them (it could have some robot arms that work like grabbers), then all those parts appear in a "VAF" and I assemble them, exactly aligning the parts, then poof, it gets done.

Slow progression in the KSP carer mode? True, that's a real problem, because going from inventing rockets to SSTO space planes is way too slow... it might take the average space program in KSP, what, weeks to reach that milestone? Days or hours would clearly be better.

The point of the tech tree is not to be historical, though that would likely happen with a better tree simply because hard things are hard, and easy things are easy, and the real world actually works that way. The point of the tech tree is supposed to be so that the player has meaningful limitations that impact design choices. Career was never really thought about, and to the extent they did, "tycoon" was a bad model to pick---not least because that mode requires elements they never planned on adding (totally autonomous kerbals to manage). Any tech tree that is designed outside a specific gameplay concept is broken from the start. The two concepts that make the most sense are exploration, and a space race. Exploration requires stuff they have also stated they don't like, like randomness. This leaves only a space race as a plausible career mode to work with, though ideally some part failures would be in there as well---note that my goal is limitations and drivers to push the players into making interesting design choices. Think about replay here. There is no chance of me failing on basic tasks in KSP, ever, in career, and it's been pretty unlikely for a long time. I'd like a chance to not always "win" on a replay. I can set the current mode to hard, but honestly it's just grind to me.

Career should not be a tutorial. That's really the problem, I don't think they had much of a plan about what career actually was to be. I use a "Space Race" example for a number of reasons, and if there was an AI system (including at a "strategic" planning level) I'd happily play such a mode. But take an explicit "race" off the table, and look what sorts of choices a space race puts in front of a player, and see if that describes what career should feel like as a thought experiment realizing that many of the elements of a space race are in fact implicit to KSP career mode. In a race, you have some finite resources, and you are trying to make these exploration and science milestones before the opposite program. Given your resources, and the technological path you start along, you have to actually make hard choices: go NOW with some real risk of failure, or try and develop a better spacecraft first? It's a real choice, because the opposite program might accept more risk and "win" that milestone. The failure might be... a stranded astronaut. Obviously not a thing in KSP because non-player programs are not stranding astronauts... oh, wait, they are. Milestones imply that there is someone else who might be "first" to the Mun, for example. OK, so we have no space race, but the race is implicit in KSP regardless. Assume just that, and look at the tech tree, etc. Shouldn't career possibly think in terms of an abstracted race such that the player might get rewarded for making goals in a timely way? A risk/reward system that makes it possibly pay for sending less capable craft, or picking a novel tech path?

The current tech tree is absurd, and is bad for many reasons, including the most important one; it's bad gameplay. The point of career and the tech tree is to provide constraints on the player such that they have to make pro/con choices to make the completion of missions more challenging. If in career all the parts were unlocked at the first, the Mun ceases to be any sort of challenge. Build a Mun rocket, succeed. Since the game has an implicit "space race" feel (milestones, rescues, etc), but no actual foil, the foil becomes the tech tree... you want to go to the Mun to get "science" to unlock more stuff, but you need to unlock the tools to do so. A better tree would allow for players to pick different paths through the tree to attempt their mission goals. A soviet-style Kerrin-Orbit Rendezvous, vs Direct ascent, vs Munar Orbit Rendezvous, for example, depending on what parts you unlock. The current tree is just awful in this regard.