tater

On the gameplay side, Squad's notion of "trial and error" to orbit in the stock game never worked for me (I only ever killed any astronauts later due to a warp mistake on one, and not knowing I couldn't reenter 2 craft at once for the other. RSS/RO, OTOH, I actually had the "blowing up rockets" experience that people talk about for stock that never happened for me (even in stock with DRe, FAR, etc). I searched for a craft repository, but they all seemed to be more complex than I wanted for basic, minimal craft that work in RSS as benchmarks.

I had exactly the same problem a few weeks ago when I started. If someone has to ask, the UI is bad (for that function), period. It's not intuitive, and even the idea of switching between craft you own would not be intuitive in this case, because when you try the usual mechanisms to switch for a noob (tracking station or clicking in map view) the game explicitly informs you that you cannot switch to units you do not own, so why would you think you could switch with ][?

Unrelated to development, I orbited last night after much trial and error (I guess I need mechjeb to see dv while building). On Topic, it might be nice to have a couple .craft files in there that give examples (only "stock" stuff in the mod, nothing even "very highly recommended"---if such is required, make those mods required). Perhaps a simple satellite with launcher, and maybe even a manned ship. Actually, he's an idea for your current outline of "required" vs recommended for noobs. Perhaps Required is annotated to say that it's the minimal required to function properly, and then the next tier is the minimum required to actually play with a halfway decent user experience ("Required for acceptable gameplay"). When I installed, I decided to try the minimum first, partially concerned about possible performance issues. If 10 of the "recommended" mods had been "Required for acceptable gameplay" I'd have installed them as my minimum, if that makes sense. I might add more mods in on your list, I'd just like a clear install picture (which I now think is "all of it" ).

I'm with regex overall. I'd be far more in interested in destructible terrain, personally. At least it would be fun to intentionally design something to make the biggest possible crater (maybe put it in a retrograde kerbol orbit, and slam into the Mun at 2X orbital velocity). The buildings are a lot harder to make feel right unless the damage model is actually pretty complex. All told, meh. That said, it has some utility later, I suppose. On the plus side, I have yet to make any space planes, but SP+ makes me want to, just because the models are so pretty.

If you are willing to accept a possible ~0.5% error, it's a sphere.

Yeah, I understand the rationale around the scaling. It seems that tweak scale should not be sort of required. It's not about having to do it (us the PP stuff), but that as a first installer, it was not immediately obvious that I had done everything right This looks like "megamod" territory (speaking from Silent Hunter modding experience) since so many of the mods touch stuff that is critical to this one/two mods (RSS/RO). Obviously made more complicated by the WIP nature of KSP, for sure (we were happy for a rare patch to SH4, not scared it would break everything every three months ).

LOL. I felt it was my responsibility to the devs given the "WIP" state to experience the base game before I start beating it up too much To be on topic here, why are the capsules scaled, but not the tanks/parts that should fit them? I understand the need to scale from the 2/3 scale, it's just confusing for a first time install to crank it up to find that nothing fits anymore. Also, again as a new RSS/RO install, there are so many possible places I could have screwed up the install (forget one of the many mods, etc), I was sure I had done something wrong

I have to say that the who struts thing is one of the least intuitive things about stock KSP. I assumed (wrongly, obviously) that such reenforcing elements would stagy attached, so until I learned better I would never attach them across anything designed to separate. If you nail a 2x4 to a door, then the floor, the thing is not going to simply fall away when you turn the doorknob, basically.

Yeah, I dropped it in there last night. I just wanted to make sure I had not messed up one of the (too many) installs.

I did a RSS/Ro install last night, and it came up with no error, but while the capsules are scaled up (looks like 2m and 4m), the 1.25m tanks are not. Is this normal (in which case tweak scale is pretty much obligatory), or did I biff applying one of the many mods I had to install somehow?

I experimented with the estimate burn time thing. It never shows up on my mac. Never. Doesn't matter how many burns I have done, or if I have satisfied maneuver nodes. The number only shows up while the engines are running. My install was a clean 0.24.2 (vanilla). The same behavior shows in my modded copy. No estimated burn time. Is it really there in the Mac version? It worked in the demo, never in the paid version for me.

Mine never shows an estimated burn time. Even after burning the engines and burning them on a maneuver node (to satisfaction of the node). Never. Mac OS.

In their spacesuits, other than facial cues, there is very little you'd notice. Unless the IVA are going to follow Gravity and have them in yoga shorts under their suits instead of what they actually wear Regardless, it's a small amount of work for their artists. Yeah, that's fine. A slight face change and different hairline.

Considering the tiny amount of time it would take for one of their artists to put eyelashes, and maybe a different hairdo on a kerbal, getting upset over this is absurd. Aside from regex's point (I have a young daughter, as well), it's not about PC, it's about BUSINESS. Why write off half the possible players? MY daughter played minecraft with Steve as he was, but even though she cannot even see her avatar, she was very excited to have one that was "a girl." I've actually met/hung out with several astronauts, and guess what, a couple of them were… women. Who'dve thought?

Yeah, I proposed something similar. I'd like to see contracts to test equipment (which already let you use it ahead of being able to generally) be required to then get that equipment, but make the tests a little else absurd in that case. New command pods, habitation modules, for example, might require that they be in orbit, occupied, for 20 days, or maybe a month or more (hitchhiker). A probe core might require that you visit a world outside Kerbin's SOI, and send back science to get them. Instruments might be required to be landed on the Mun to be able to later buy them. Or some might require a sample return to first develop them, then you have to place them on the Mun. There are many possibilities.

Added your image for you:

Who suggested they would? You can keep the physics, and turn off the consequences. Deadly reentry as it comes is not terribly deadly. Adjust that one value (he suggested to start at 1.12 as I recall), and it is nastier, and presumably if you lower the value, it does even less damage. You could run FAR, but turn off aerodynamic failures to the ship---the atmosphere is there, and acting the right way, but on EZ mode the ship doesn't disassemble. Life support can kill, reduce reputation, or do nothing at all.

The devs have already said there would be difficulty settings. The idea that ships could not be shared is a non-issue, as there are already vast numbers of mods. There is no way to have an "option" without it breaking designs for one setting vs another setting. Even life support, as your Duna ship on easy with a single, tiny crew pod will not work for a 2 year trip.

This, it's the only destructible thing that would be cool/funny.

When you first start playing, it's not the least bit clear. By the time you are getting rescue missions as a new player, you don't yet even have docking ports, typically, so you in fact have zero reason to need to know how to switch between ships. You also might presume (because it's entirely logical to do so), that you cannot switch between something you own, and something you don't. I tried selecting in map view (works for every other ship/kerbal I want to focus on), that didn't work. I tried the tracking station (also works in every single other case), that didn't work. That it only works for a key shortcut (with no explanation) is absurd. These posts will be completely common as long as the UI in this case makes no sense to new players. If people ask how to do things that should be obvious, it's bad UI design, period.

There are so many threads because the problem (yes, it's a problem) is that it is utterly non-intuitive. If you check in the tracking station, it explicitly informs you you cannot take control of him because you do not "own" him. There is then little reason to consider switching vessels to him (aside from the fact he's not a vessel) when you know this. I assumed that I had to get extra close to him, for example, then something would just happen, or I could right click on him, etc, etc, so I maneuvered within a few meters of him (which itself was non-trivial as a noob with no RCS), before exiting and looking here for a solution.

They also said it was funny. As black as my sense of humor is, memorials are not terribly hilarious.

And, for the Nth time, many"realism" options would have a toggle within the difficulty settings. Some stock version of delay reentry is there, but that could have "no effect" (0.24.2 version) for EASY mode, then a slider with ship damage at some non-fatal level, then catastrophic damage, and a "hard" mode where the reentry is set even hotter. So everyone gets to play how they like. No one for more realism is suggesting that anyone have to do math, or even worry about reentry, we're fine with difficulty settings. Many against more realism seem to want to set the knob on "fantasy" and break it off. It's better to design the guts of it as best you can, then tone it down with sliders, as it is easy to adjust, and much harder for modders (and less optimized, I'd think).

The devs said it would not happen to good pilots, but it is hilarious, right? Landing leg on Mun rock, lander tips over, hilarity ensues. Mk1 1 pod gets caught in tree, hilarity ensues. Just spitballing.

Wonder if they could make the scattered terrain features within a few meters of you solid. That would penalize people landing on rocks...