Snark

No. Having excessive weight on your parachutes won't break them. What will happen, instead, is that they simply won't slow you down as much. For example, if you put a Mk16 parachute on a Mk1 command pod and that's basically your whole craft-- i.e. under 1 ton weight-- then when you're coming in for a landing on the parachute, your descent speed will be something under 10 m/s and is quite safe. But if you had, say, a 100-ton craft, and still only had a single Mk1 parachute, it wouldn't break the parachute-- but you'd be falling a lot more than 10 m/s, since you've got so much more weight pulling it down. So, you shouldn't need to worry about breaking the parachutes, but you might be descending on them faster than you'd like. If it's too fast, you could have a destructive crash instead of a safe "soft" landing. (If you have any engine thrust available as you come in for a landing, you could use that to cushion it right before landing-- that's what I usually do on Duna, where the air is thin enough that ships tend to fall fairly quickly unless they spam a whole bunch of parachutes.) Note that it is technically possible to break a parachute, if they fully deploy when the vehicle is going too fast. However, in practice this is generally not a problem, because many KSP versions ago, they added a feature where parachutes have a built-in safety feature by default: they know when the ship is going slow enough to safely open, and will wait until then to open all the way. So that's generally not something you need to worry about.

I think they're a great idea that open up all sorts of interesting possibilities... but I also think that it's not entirely fair to lump people-just-using-timers in the same bucket with people who can use the sophisticated automation of a KAL-1000. After all, the original Ōsumi craft didn't have fancy computerized guidance systems-- that's a big part of the point of the challenge. Honestly, "this challenge, but with KAL-1000" actually feels kinda like an entirely new challenge. Tell ya what-- maybe you'd like to spin up a new thread and call it "Automation Ōsumi" (or whatever you like), which allows the KAL-1000? (And whatever other rule tweaks you like-- it'd be your challenge, after all.) I'd be happy to add a link to your challenge from the OP of this one, so that folks who come here would see your thread. What do you think?

Hi @Avera9eJoe, We're very sorry, but unfortunately we've had to remove the link to the unofficial Kopernicus build that was posted above. We appreciate that the author of that site was trying to do the right thing, and included a disclaimer on the website saying "don't go pester the authors". Unfortunately, however, the site doesn't comply with the add-on posting rules, which specify several hoops to jump through that are, alas, necessary for various reasons; and therefore posting a link to it is also not allowed. Things the site would need to do in order to be in compliance with the rules: Declare the software license Include a LICENSE file in the download with the full text of the license, and indicating the provenance of the mod Link to the full source code that the recompiled mod was built from I know, it's a bummer, and I'm sorry for the inconvenience-- it's clear that both you and the author of that site are trying to do the right thing, and Kopernicus is sorely missed, but our hands are tied here. Thank you for your understanding.

I don't think you can do that in KSP. There's a "roll left" control, and a "roll right" control. Those are determined by key bindings (e.g. "Q" and "E") and are a function of the game's control input, and have nothing to do with any part on the rocket. So I don't think it's possible to alter control bindings for a particular part. (I have no idea if it might be possible to achieve that effect by writing custom code in some mod to do it... but I've never heard of that being done, nor have I ever heard of anyone wanting to do that before. Certainly I've never tried to do that in any of my own mods, nor would I ever be likely to.)

Some off-topic content has been removed. Please try to keep it relevant, folks. Thanks.

Some content has been removed which violated the add-on posting rules. Folks, please don't violate the rules by posting links to recompiles and such that don't follow the KSP forum add-on rules. Anyone can post a mod in the forum, but rules need to be followed. This includes posting a link to the source, providing proper attribution, specifying the license, etc. It's not as easy as "I'm just linking to a thing". If someone wants to be an "owner" and sign up for all the hassles that are entailed by maintaining and publishing your own Kopernicus fork within the rules, then that's up to you. But there aren't any convenient shortcuts, folks. Thank you for your understanding.

Shaders simply aren't relevant. This is about variants, which is a KSP game concept. It remembers what variant is used, that's all. The mod neither knows nor cares that there's such a thing as a "model", or a "shader", or a "texture", or anything else. All it does is, it knows that "this part has variants named 'A', 'B', and 'C', and I remember which one of those was chosen." That's all.

Thanks! I've gotten that myself, from time to time. It's an annoyance to me (even if it doesn't seem to hurt anything, it offends the OCD perfectionist in me)... but it's never quite risen to the threshold of getting me to plow into it. BetterCrewAssignment is probably the most "snarly" codebase of my mods-- it has quite a lot of code in it, and it was one of the earlier mods I wrote before I really "hit my stride" with how to arrange things elegantly in KSP, so the code is creakier than I'd like and debugging/maintaining it is a chore. (Its internal logic and design are quite complicated.) Another thing that's been dis-incentivizing me from going in is the knowledge that it's actually doing it wrong from a fundamental design standpoint-- KSP "professions" (like engineer, pilot, scientist) used to work differently than they do now. Many KSP versions ago they significantly reorganized how these work, in a much more elegant "traits-based" way, but BetterCrewAssignment was written using the old assumptions and isn't currently well-suited to the KSP design. It still works, but there's an impedance mismatch with the actual design intent of modern KSP. I know this, and I'm basically a poster child for "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good"-- I find myself reluctant to touch the code without fixing that problem, but fixing that problem would be a seriously labor-intensive overhaul of the code base, and the chore is so intimidatingly big that I just don't even get started. Anyway, yes, I'm aware. Fixing BCA up is one of those things on my mental to-do list that I keep putting off. I hope I'll get to it sometime, but not sure when that might be, since it's a pretty big job.

Hmmm, how vexing. I wouldn't have expected stuff to break a lot going 1.8.x -> 1.9.x, as I don't think that was a major internal disruption to the KSP code. Alas, I haven't been in a position to directly help right at the moment, as I haven't actually played 1.9.x yet (it arrived when I was right in the middle of a 1.8.x Kopernicus game, and Kopernicus hasn't updated to 1.9.x yet so I haven't updated. And haven't had a lot of spare time to debug what's going on. I don't have any suggestions-- would have to take a look at it myself and debug what's going on to have any idea. IRL has been really busy lately, which is why I've been a bit scarce. TYVM for the heads-up, though-- I'll have a look as soon as I'm able, just not sure when is all.

And it manages to mystify folks (the ones who are new to it, anyway) every year.

My niece shared pictures of her fancy-cupcake baking project for the day.

Nice! Welcome back, looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Moving to Spacecraft Exchange.

Thanks, guys. I've been laggardly about marking all my mods as "works in 1.9.x" because I was right in the middle of a Kopernicus play-through in 1.8.1 when 1.9 hit, so I haven't actually played 1.9.x yet and therefore haven't had the chance to verify that the mods are working. (I'm pretty confident that they all will work, because they're fairly simple and 1.9 didn't change much of KSP's internals... but as a matter of due diligence, I don't wanna go and mark that they do work until it's actually been confirmed, by me or someone else.) I've now marked this one as 1.9-compatible, thanks!

Many posts have been removed due to some combination of: pestering modders for updates (see forum rule 2.2.p) berating people pestering modders for updates (3.2) haring away on off-topic tangents about the philosophy of modding, and modders' relationship to users (2.2.o) Folks, it's great that you love Kopernicus. We all do, myself included. And I'm sure everyone means well. Please remember, though, that: Modders are busy and have no obligation to anyone. It'll be ready when it's ready. Please don't pressure them. Starting a sentence with "No pressure, but" is basically a red flag that you're pressuring. (Just as leading with "no offense, but" is a sure-fire indicator that you're about to say something offensive, etc.) The way to avoid pressuring people is to actually not pressure people. Adding an empty disclaimer like that doesn't somehow "make it not count". Asking "when will it be ready" is pointless. If the authors knew when it would be ready and wanted to make an announcement about it, then they presumably already would have done so. Until and unless they get around to that, then the answer to this question is the same as it always is: "As soon as the authors have time and inclination to do so." Please don't tell others what to do (or not to do). You're not a moderator, it's not your place. If you see someone whom you believe is coloring outside the lines, please just report the post and the moderators will have a look. It's what we're for. Please try to stay on topic. The topic of this thread is Kopernicus, and how to use it, and what it can do, etc. The topic is not to have endless arguments on the nature of modding. There's nothing wrong with having discussions like that, but this thread is not the place to do so; feel free to go spin up a topic in Add-on Discussions if you like. Thank you for your understanding.

From not quite three feet away. Had to switch to a dedicated pair of "computer glasses", what with worn-out middle-aged eyes, and bifocals were becoming tiresome for it. You're what make the KSP forums my favorite place on the internet. I've never participated in any other online community to any significant degree, because I find them some combination of uninteresting and/or actively toxic. This is a neat place because of the people in it. It gets the job done. UI's clunky in places, but to be honest I've never seen any forum software that made me wanna write poetry about it. My favorite social circle. "My, folks sure seem to find some silly stuff to get worked up about" They're listed, as others have pointed out already. KSP's still my go-to hobby. Other than that: reading (a lot!), hiking, drone photography. Had no profile picture for the first couple years on the forum, nothing really seemed right-- what would a Snark actually look like? Henry Holiday was decidedly coy on the subject. Then one day I came across this image and immediately thought "that's it!" An airplane on a treadmill would have no trouble at all taking off, for obvious reasons. This is not a hard problem. (Though a lot of folks who don't understand how physics works tie themselves in knots over stating the problem in an illogical way that presupposes an answer.) Well, obviously if I told you, then it would no longer qualify, now would it? Evidently not.

Several posts have been removed. Folks, please remember that forum rule 3.3 forbids open discussion of moderator action. If you've been moderated and have an issue with it, please take it up privately with the moderators, via forum PM. Don't post about it publicly. Thank you for your understanding.

Several posts have been removed. Folks, private communications are private. It's never appropriate to mention in a public forum anything about what one person may have privately sent another. Please don't discuss other people's PMs in public.

Moving to the Lounge, since this appears to have nothing to do with KSP in any substantive way we've been able to determine. Also, some content has been removed. Let's please avoid reference to sexual content, shall we? See forum rule 2.2.c. Thank you for your understanding.

If you want to float in a medium, you have to be lighter than that medium. For example, if you want to float in air, you need to be lighter than air. That's why helium balloons float on Earth. If you want to float at a gas giant, then your balloon needs to be filled with stuff that's lighter than the atmospheric gas surrounding it. In the case of gas giants, that stuff is often (for example, in Jupiter's case) hydrogen. The problem is that nothing's lighter than hydrogen. A helium balloon on Jupiter would sink. Folks mention hot balloons because heating them up is one way to make that work-- e.g. a balloon full of hot hydrogen could float if surrounded by cold hydrogen. But that then raises the problem of where you'll get an unending supply of heat from, that's light enough not to weigh down the balloon. Thus the problem.

No, it doesn't. Rationale: A user is allowed to request a name change exactly once. The reason for that is to prevent user abuse by hopping names around a lot, which would make life confusing for forum members and a hassle for the moderators. However, if we are the ones forcing them to change their name because we believe it to be inappropriate, then that's on us, not them. So we generally give them the benefit of the doubt by not having that count against their one name change.

Solving multiple contracts with one flight, as folks have suggested, is good. Be aware that you get better contracts when your reputation is higher. Doing some of the initial tourist contracts (like simple suborbital hops) can be worth it-- they don't pay very much, but they give quite a bit of reputation and may unlock better contracts. Contracts to rescue kerbals from LKO are handy to do a few of-- good rep, around $50K funds, and free crew! What have you researched? Once you've got the tech for solar panels and docking ports, you'll start getting contracts for space stations and outposts, and those can pay quite a bit. Have you been to the Mun and/or Minmus yet? Going there for the first time gives a fair amount of cash bonus, even without any contract for it. Even just a flyby is worth something, I believe (though landing is considerably more IIRC).

Here's the tool that I like to use: http://ksp.olex.biz Just put in your origin (Eve), the height of your parking orbit (let's call it 150 km), and your destination (Kerbin), and it does all the math for you. In this case it's saying you'd need an ejection burn of 1338 m/s. So no, you don't have enough dV; you're just over 400 m/s short. (And that's assuming a perfect transfer window; you'd need more if the planets aren't correctly lined up.)

Whatever that is, it's not KSP and has nothing to do with KSP or this forum. Moving thread to the Lounge, since it's not about KSP.

Let me put it this way. As you approach the atmosphere-- i.e. before you fall below 70 km-- how high is your Pe set to?

Just how fast are you going when that happens? And at what altitude? I've had plenty of unsuccessful reentries myself... but it's generally because I had an unstable craft that flipped over and thus fell outside of its protective heat shield umbrella. Having the heat shield itself fail is generally not something I need to worry about, in my experience. Are you diving straight down, or something?