tater

Just entering any part in this mod clears the inventories it seems. You can add them for seats in the VAB, but they are not clickable in KIS once on EVA.

Yep. Another, simple idea for ground bases would be simple proximity to fulfill contracts. Have the elements within 50m of each other.

The part count can be very low. A CM/SM combo is about 13 parts. You can make a lander for that many, easily. They could cap the parts at 15-20 and have interesting crafts.

This would be a great idea. I'd ask for another nod to realism that I know mods could add... The Mun should be larger and more massive. It would be a cool design choice if the player's first missions past kerbin had some legit choices like Apollo: Mun direct ascent, Kerbin Orbit rendezvous, lunar orbit rendezvous, etc. 1-or 2-stage lunar landers... That or swap the Mun and Minmus and do this (Mun in the inclined, farther out position, but larger).

"From yourself" would be budget, really. But that's the way it should be (at least as a strategy). Be a "national" space program, and get budget based on Rep or something.

Yeah, I have seen that as well.

No, because the difficulty of landing, etc increases with terrain fidelity. Better is better, and squad actually agrees, the procedural process for crater was supposed tone applied for all bodies. Actually, you did. You said austere environments were better for sandbox. So the trend is austere to detailed correlates with best to worst. If the detail of the non-mun worlds was better (say equalling the Mun), would that game be better, or worse? You apparently are arguing worse.

So you are saying that perfectly identical, flat worlds would be even better for sandbox? More complex terrains are unambiguously better, sandbox or not. I don't think this is even debatable. Regardless, Squad said that the plan was to use the same procedural cratering on all such bodies, there's a blog post about it from them. More importantly for KSP, plain terrain makes landing operations trivial. What KSP actually needs is variation down to the scale size of a lander so that landing it not as boring as it is now.

Everyone likely uses MM for something, anyway, that's a dependency I don't mind. I've had no memory issues with this mod. I have had intermittent issues with EVA kerbals not switching focus. Ie: you hit EVA and the verbal appears at the door, but the game is still focused on the craft the kerbal left from, it does't switch to the kerbal. It caused a slight issue as I still had a decoupler attached, and I EVAedm reflexively hit space, and had the hab fall off the lander. No worries, some KIS/KAS EVA work fixed everything up.

? Ice inside the orbit of Mars (which would be the entire Kerbol system, if Kerbol was as bright as out sun (which it isn't)) starts to sublimate the typical example being a comet. An icy Minmus is in effect a captured comet. We don't have comets in KSP, but if they have tails as far in as Kerbin, then Minmus should have a tail, and sublimate away to space. Any ice on the Moon, for example would necessarily be in permanently shadowed craters. Minmus must be made of pixie dust, not ice. - - - Updated - - - What's the point? The Mun is by far the best looking body in terms of terrain detail (elevation). All the airless bodies should be cratered, it only matters how much. Distant vacuum and near vacuum worlds could have far fewer craters if they are icy, or otherwise active (an Io analog, perhaps) so that they can be eroded/covered. Squad actually said the plan was to apply that level of terrain detail to everything once upon a time, and until then, the rest of the solar system is pretty "meh" to look at terrain wise, IMO.

Awesome idea! Also, they should rename it Mission Control, since Mission Control tracks/operates current missions in flight. Their "mission control" is a contract office or something, it has nothing to do with current missions in flight.

Career is working? I haven't even DLed any RSS/Kopernicus stuff because career is borked.

Better, but still ugly. BTW, that makes it look like ice, how is it that ice melts in sunlight on Kerbin, but not minmus.

Yeah, I play career, but Minmus is too ugly to bother with much for me, and I also play with LS, so I wait for more distant stuff until I can manage the logistics.

In general, the "hulks" should be better, and the missions more varied. Goethe claw, and all of a sudden you have to bring the entire wreckage back to Kerbin? Why, exactly? Better to have a full ship, but out of fuel, and you must dock, and refuel. Or a ship with no power and broken solar panels---send an engineer to repair. There are many options that are better than most all the current contracts (which almost universally stink).

It's funny, I often go back to the Mun since it has better terrain than pretty much every other body in KSP.

Where is this in the IAU definition of planet, exactly? I see no mention whatsoever of the S-L parameter. If that is what they mean, then use it in the definition. That's the point of a definition. I am arguing the definition is crap, and it unambiguously is. If you need to bring in any outside ideas to make sense of the definition, it's a bad definition. Change (1) to (my changes bold): 1) A planet [1] is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around a star, ( has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape (add in the required maximum eccentricity to count, because math), and © has an S-L parameter >1. There, was that hard? (note that you'd still get people arguing that >1 part, what about >0.99, or another, arbitrary value. Such definitions are always arbitrary, it's for "bookkeeping," not because there is necessarily physicality involved, and that is fine, we what a manageable number of major bodies to concern ourselves with.

Yeah, I can play with everything dialed up in stock, but it crashes after a while (usually later in the game as I have visited more bodies).

Missions would be self-limited in duration if the game included life support, and half-life for RTGs (mods do both these things). Simple LS mods like Roverdude's USILS or Snacks! are not hard to deal with, and set hard time limits up to a point (more so when you use either mod with LS=0 killing kerbals, which I do with both). RTGs losing juice at least make distant missions time limited, though inner system probe missions with PVs will obviously not have this limitation. (then again, look at Opportunity still limping along).

I'm trying to keep my mod count as low as possible so I can play for reasonable timeframes without crashing, though. There is often a call for mod developers to add more and more features, then they have many dependencies, and some of us might get rid of the mod for that reason. Optional support is obviously different.

Then why not dump "clearing the neighborhood" and set a value of µ and be done with it? µ > 1, 100, 100, 137.5, whatever is considered "clearing the neighborhood." Had they done this, I'd not be arguing. Still arbitrary, but at least it's consistent, and everyone could do the math and say, "yep, not a planet." You cannot argue about the specifics of clearing the neighborhood when it's not in the definition. It's sloppy. I'd say the same about the hydrostatic equilibrium. I know what they mean, but the definition could include, you know, math, and there is no argument. There is no requirement that the definition must fit within a twitter post.

The definition doesn't say this. I'm not arguing that the result of the definition is wrong, I'm arguing the definition is bad.

Yes, I've read that, which is why I mentioned setting a value for µ. The definition does not set a value for µ, however, so it's not on the table. Its a bad definition, period. Sloppy. What about exoplanets? A robust definition needs to work for all bodies in all solar systems. I can certainly come up with endlees gray cases where we'd all be starting our heads (pretty easy when by the current definition it seems like Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Neptune at the very least have problems with their planet status dues to their neighborhoods being somewhat less than empty (clear usually refers to a lack of contaminants in plain english, and it has no specific meaning in jargon for planetary science, just a few papers). To be clear: I'm fine with making an objective definition. I'm fine with Pluto being bumped from planet status by an objective definition of planet vs dwarf planet vs small body, etc. I just want a clear, unambiguous definition that includes everything needed to make a determination within the definition. - - - Updated - - - I agree completely, and the number of bodies in the solar system (any solar system, really) is going to be quite large. My real issue is how sloppy the definition is. You cannot argue that the current definition is unambiguous.

I have put wheels on a few. I also made a rover with a claw on it, and simply pushed them (modules with no wheels) together to dock them (I landed them VERY close, then assembled gangways with KIS/KAS, and only had to nudge them maybe a meter).

I might agree (actually, I do ), but the definition doesn't say squat about Lagrange points. Like I said, incredibly imprecise. Amazing it would occur to them to define something and not bother to, you know, define it. They should be explicit about hydrostatic equilibrium, as well. Define acceptable eccentricity, or just go with a mass, they can certainly pick a theoretical value for a mass that fulfills this. It;s also better because they can get the mass far easier than the shape observationally for faint objects.