theJesuit

Reduced LF to the ratios you've suggested.

Yup adding O is one of the first mods I did. That and adding O to the small fuselage. Peace.

You'll also need to adjust for humans if that is what you are going for. Multiply amounts per second by 4 in that case. Peace.

It depends. Does Kerbin's day and year length change? If not I wouldn't change a thing. A good shielded craft can easily do ten current kerbin years, along with all the amenities. So 'realistic' then. If the day length changes you'll need to adjust the default profile and the consumption rates as they are designed for a 6 hour day. Peace.

Also the unkerballed moniker isn't that catchy. Neither is my own usual fallback of "uncrewed before crewed.' How about 'probes before bros' or KAP 'Kerbals after probes'. POS 'Probe only start' UnCrewed Start UCS. Non-kerbal Probing. Advance Before Committing Crew. ABCC. I like this the best. If you aren't keen on it I may even work into Simplex. Peace.

Are you looking for more stockish or would something like Simplex Techtree with contract specific mods? I would be very open to some contracts being written to go with the tech tree or some suggestions to force flight before spaceflight (which appears to be what you are suggesting)? That's not my passion but happy to integrate someone elses work. Just a thought... I personally used to always collected science from the KSC biomes for several career playthoughs until I realised I was getting bored and discovered KEI. I mean personal tastes and all that. But I always thought that wheels are designed for off world stuff like low atmosphere stuff like the apollo moon buggy. Peace.

@taniwha i went for a more vanilla launch trial with fancy new EL launchpad2 no worries (except when I tried something with launch clamps . Perhaps then the issue is with Keridian Dynamics? Except that it would just that once when the build happened okay with the KD side launcher (as in the file) with a 6.3.3 build, save reload game with 6.3.2 and then finalise. Oh well, I'll keep fiddling. Also can you pleae let me know what the base Lance clamp things are in your video? Is that a KIS/KAS thing? Peace.

<learns how to make parts in blender> <creates obsidian knife> <installs KIS> <heads to the Mün with Jeb> <follows instructions> Nothing. Maybe my blender-fu is still lacking. I find people who use it are like wizards. Peace.

Thanks and thanks! You are very correct. What version are you using? This should have been moved to advanced Aerodynamics in 6.2.1.20181223. This version is also compatable with KSP 1.5.x as well. The engines were intially balanced due to ability rather than size. I guess the MH engine nerf might have changed this reasoning. I don't play with mod (including MH) engines so I probably didn't notice. I'll take a look but if you want to suggest where they would go that would be great. I'd like to keep ability intact though rather than size. It just so happened that the MH stuff fitted nicely elsewhere in that particular tier. Thanks for the feedback. Peace.

Hi Sauge, Are you running KSP 1.6? This is happening to me on 1.6. I'm not saying that to complain - I just realised the OP is still 1.5.1! But just wondering. Peace. EDIT, same thing happens 1.5.1. I'm trying a different version of EPL. EDIT2 - Yea, definitely a 6.3.3 issue @taniwha The same build works with 6.3.2, but freezes up and crashes ksp in 6.3.3. Did the resource thing you thought changed between 6.3.2? Also, what are the stands (launchclamps?) that are holding up the base in in your video above? EDIT3 - just ran again with my AngleCan mods (testing a Reources release) not included and it did it again on 6.3.2 (KSP 1.5.1). I'll keep testing a run a Issue on Github. Yes I first experienced this (admitidly haven't built anything in a very long time) when building with two resources, but this is a vanilla issue as well - Keridian Dynamics tank and side launch. It did work once, but not again. with 6.3.3. or 6.3.2. I've PMed you the code.

Do you github? Are you able to raise an issue/ bug please?

Totally unaware for me. Looks like i know what I'll be doing this evebing ti sort it out. Great find! Peace.

Trajectories or the latest versions of Kerbal Engineer Redux. Welcome to the Forums too! Peace.

I don't have the unofficial release and apart from the warning message it seems to work fine. Peace.

IVAs in SSPXr can be a drain on the resources for some computers (haven't tried in KSP 1.6 yet though). Regardless of stockalike, they do look great. Also, Nertia knew that and adjusted stock parts to suit! A stock rotating habitat (deployable of course) could be on similar lines to the porkjet one which is in the which is now in the Tokamak pack maintained by Linuxgurugamer. It only needs a rotating IVA. But IVA's i think are useless if they don't have external windows. So a rigid one (still deployable) with windows. The trick would be to NOT make it like movie ones, but hold six crew, enough for a full staffed landing crew with backup at another planet. Peace.

The other reason this would work well is that modders could could add modules to the ISRU. Say when ISRU is introduced you can only make LFO. The next tech level adds the ability to make indivual LF and O, the next tech level adds in Monoprop too. I'm thinking still aimed at modders, and not just these resources. This is just an example. Thanks! Peace.

@The-Doctor, documentation for you. (sorry for the ping N70) Also the active shield config for its shielding is found in Kerbalism/System/Radiation.cfg at the end of that file. Edit in your fav text editor to overpower it to your hearts content. Peace.

No, and I and i don't tend to get that far in saves to utilise them. That are modules to add to parts. You also need big numbers of resources. Also radiation is now cumulative. So for interstellar, deep freeze is still probably required as you don't want to keep habitats pressurised losing all that Nitrogen. But Deep Freeze doesn't reset kerbals stress and radiation either. Peace.

It works with CommNet. The big difference is that the connection always takes EC so that trains smiting doesn't require *more* EC. Ie in stock you take along enough battery to do your one off transmissons. In kerbalism now you have to generate enough to effectivly be always transmitting. If you don't, your connection is lost when EC is drained but then the batteries recharge, but then connection is made the batteries drain again. So take enough generation. Peace.

Humph. Changing the KerbalEVA so minpressure for safe remove being 0 doesn't allow for safe removal in the vacuum. But at 69,999m on kerbin it does. There goes my cfg manipulation. Any ideas anyone?

Just checked. The KV-1,2,3, series have integrated decouplers, not solid propellant seperators. The third one (3 seater) is in the 90 science node. Excellent. We'll settle on advanced rocketry then. The change is made at my end, but I don't think its worth pushing an update just for that change yet. Peace.

Have a look in the technical help forums. The exit thing seems to be deal, but maybe verifying install through steam might be necessary for you too. Maybe bring it up in the discord server. This must be a widely experienced issue. I haven't got round to playing in 1.6 yet! Peace.

Thanks @septemberWaves for the suggestion. I guess, that it hasn't been moved, but the propulsionSystems and precisionPropulsion nodes are up a level, costing 160 and 300 respectively whilst in stock they cost 90 and 160. So, the question then is, where it should be in terms of the Simplex TechTree logic?... so you'll get to watch my thought logic here (Merry Christmas!) The sepMotor1 is currently in its stock node of precisionPropulsion (300 tier, but stock of 160). Staying, it stays with the the twitch, spider and and puff, tiny radial engines. Moving it one up the tree to propulsionSystems (160 tier, but stock of 90) it would join the spark and ant, tiny but non raidal. Whilst the sepMotor1 is tiny, I'm not sure i'd classify it as precise, not would I use it for 'propulsion' itself. It isn't a control feature, so bumping it up a node would make it cheaper I think moving branches makes more sense. So lets look at heavyRocketry (160 tier, also 2.5m size tier) with the poodle, skipper and kickback SRB. I guess that the longer kickback might be the first booster that would need to be flung sideways faster than a stock decoupler, and the same with those tanks. So this could be the right place. However, we could be quite radical, and push it up further to advRocketry (tier 90). The reason for this, is that side LFO boosters could be used with Making History and the 1.875 tanks. But in this node there I don't have a stock solid rocket engine. The Thumper is one before (in generalRocketry), and the Kickback one after. It is also the tier that I've but all the 'odds and sods' tanks like the radial ones and the more powerful decouplers are in this tier too. So congrats on reading thus far. I'm going to keep the rest of the engines as they are - I think they do makes sense where they are still, but I'm happy to move the separatron as per request in the next update, which will also include support to Missing History, but this isn't going to be for a good number of weeks. I'm going to place it in advRocketry unless you'd be keen for heavyRocketry? If you want to move it yourself, the name is sepMotor1, and the tiers are bolded. Open the SIMPLEXStock.cfg in your text editor of choice and move it as you see fit - the nodes names are also bolded for you Peace.

Thanks for the update! Just to let you know I'm going to add support to this in the next Simplex Tech Tree update But what I really wanted to say was: nice dinky rocket

That sounds unfortunately like the documented bug with ksp 1.6. If it happens exit the game through the menus ie exit to KSC scene, exit to main menu and exit the game via the men option. Then restart the game having NOT adjusted anything. The game should now work properly. This fault is in the way the game generates the partdatabase.cfg or somesuch. Peace, and goodwill to you.