Venusgate

Suggestion for the recompile update when it comes. Now that Squad has a mk0 engine and lf tank pretty early on, it would be convenient to change the starting tech limit for the procedural tank to be able to go as narrow as .625m Love this mod! EDIT- Oh, also I noticed the procedural stack decoupler under the starter lfo rocket engine leaved a gap when attached, where the stock TA-18A decoupler does not. I assume squad tweaked the model or the attachment point a smidgen. EDIT EDIT - Also, also, question about what you might be thinking of expanding into. Whats the likelyhood, or feasibility for that matter, of procedural mk2 tanks?

I don't use mods that intend to make the game easier - and I don't use mods in a way that make the game easier. For example, if you tweak scale air breathing engines you can get some AWESOME performance. The exception to this is I use procedural tanks from the start because it's never made sense to me that the length of a tank should be tech dependent. Number of mods don't phase me, but once the net sum (mod size minus deleted stock parts) is about +500mb, I stop d/ling part mods.

If they're not stock, they're probably from the Mk2 Expansion Mod. The green tubes are soyez green procedural lfo tanks stuffed in the negative space. Adds about 200 m/s delta-v.

Experimenting with a proof-of-concept fish-style re-entry vehicle. The servicebay doors conveniently act as landing struts. Can't decide if I want to go full mono or LFO though... maybe if i can make a adapter tank that holds mono...

More of a challenge than a mission - since i don't know how you'd enforce it, but: Jumps Make a rover that only has horizontal thrust, start in the bottom of a crater, full thrust until crest of crater then cut. How high can you go? "Deliver parts" mission maybe? Like coordinates X/Y on planet/moon z needs [variable quantity of] part w dropped off (maybe an antenna, maybe a Jumbo tank, etc)

Your Radial Attachment Point part may be too far above the wing. try moving it "down into" the wing so the snap point will pop out the other side. Attaching things non-conventionally is also as much a wrist technique as it is design. sometimes thing wont "turn green" for me unless i have a strange camera angle and am aiming the mouse about a half-inch off.

A statement of a positive does not prove everything else is a negative, but i learned my lesson - just build with multi-ports from now on

Something I wouldn't mind seeing in the title post, so as not to lead others astray as I was: This doesn't come with it's own models, so DON'T DELETE SQUAD'S DOCKING PORTS! As I often do with parts that seem to replace stock parts (b9 wings, procedural parts, etc) I delete the squad equivelants to save RAM. Now that I know how the mod works, I realize that wouldn't save any ram, but I deleted the original files at first, and wouldn't you know it, the mod didnt work! Two: I have the mulitport that has all three on it as the main docking ports to my Space hotel (or Shotel, as I call it) and it doesn't seem to accept normal, non-multiport, medium size clampotron. I will try the medium size multiport tonight, but I wasted a trip up there with a stock docking port

Basically, you're engines don't want to push your fat*** plane and want to fly on their own. If you have wings, you have all the pitch stability you need. If you don't have enough tailage, you've got nothing but the wee SAS in your cockpit telling your engines to behave. If you want to keep tailage low, consider putting some SAS over the CoM - that way it's much more optimized. It doesnt really help taht you may have a terrible design, but it will save your asthetics if you can put them in a Mk2 service bay or get a mk2 shaped SAS module.

What part of "George Clooney falls off the space cliff" is not a matter of fundamental physics?

best rocket design is locating things that use torque closest to the center, and keeping fins farthest out. I know some people go one or the other, but i find using some of both keeps things from going too nuts one way or the other. Also, in general, build out at the same rate you build up.If you squint your eyes, you should see an equilateral triangle on the launch pad

Clooney falling off the space-cliff, though.... Came here to say: You couldn't re-create gravity in KSP because KSP is too realistic! Imagine! A few reasons why: Blowing up a satellite would create such little debris over an area the size of low Earth orbit: The Kessler syndrome would occur... but it would take at least a few months to get that catastrophic. The Kessler cloud of debris comes around every 90 minutes in the movie. Earth low orbit period is 88 minutes. So the debris cloud is stationary? Space cliff. Apparently all the space stations in orbit happened to line up within 100km of each other....Talk about luck! (To paraphrase): "I'm running low on EVA fuel.... GONNA HAVE TO BLOW IT ALL NOW TO MAKE IT!" (Have you ever tried to do a suicide burn with a kerbal on eva more than 10km away from your intended target?) /rant

Hi! I've loved PP from .90 I realize that you probably put quite a bit of thinking into the tech limits, but (and this is a question for the whole gang, as well as the author) am I the only one that tweaks the cfgs to bump up the starting techs? When I use this (and the other procedural part mods) I delete the stock tanks/probes/etc to save ram and to declutter the partslist - however, not being able to use those parts as soon as I would normally get the stock equivelant is a little frustrating. Eh?

Meant to get better photos of this lander stage, but im tired and ksp keeps crashing The main engine and all the spiders are on the "brakes" action group, on opposite toggles, so when i 'm about 100m off the surface, i hit the brakes, and flip 90 degrees and let the 1.1 TWR spiders to glide me down to a healthy, stable landing.

I would d/l and use the Procedural Parts mod and change your stock boosters in to procedural boosters. With procedural boosters, you can modify the thrust of the boosters (at the cost of higher fuel consumption/sec) but you should be able to get the exact size you need.

Kerbals on rescue don't become yours until you "load" them (get within....1500m?) so you reloading your save may have reverted him being loaded. Also, I encourage [, or ]. they are invaluable

i have this issue sometimes when i EVA a kerbonaut that is on contract to be rescued. I think it might be a specific bug than kraken.

Might I suggest just turning revert flight option off on moderate difficulty? There are also mods out there that add a "cost" to reverts. I think construction time is one of them? This way you can simulate "testing" costs. Realistically speaking, rockets are simulated for YEARS before they actually leave the launchpad. The issue I have with hardmode is the building grind. It's enjoyably challenging once you get your first few teir 2 structures, but the grind up to that point is a little disenchanting.

I don't know what these folks are talking about with target staying on "CoM." That is not what i've experienced. That said, your problem is peculiar. have you considered slapping a reaction wheel on your probe, rolling around, and seeing if your navball changes targets when you switch?

Was going to say this. I will add that doing this, you will discover a whole new world of design challenges: learning how to build a craft that doesn't flip and stall on hard turns! (If you're going for maneuverable/fast toys that is) Also consider: the more utility you pack into an aircraft (cargo hauling, science packages, etc) you'll likely be sacrificing some maneuverability. So learning how to fly bricks is not a bad skill to have .

If modded: you may have too many. Consider lightening the load, or getting the Active Texture Management mod If not modded: i would try installing a fresh copy, or if you use steam, rightlicking on the game in your library >properties>[forgot tab]>verify game cache If you have 4gb of ram or less: consider getting more ram!

Things seem to be working for me except the SRB rightclick menu doesnt come up. Ideas?

Anyone else see the R19 was last modified 4-28 on github?

By "effects" I assume you mean the visual sound barrier wave/heat wave? Atmo is logistical with altitude, so different speeds at different altitudes will have different amounts of drag. For launch, if im below 240m/s @ 10km, no effects, below 500m/s @ 20k, no effects. Out of curiosity, why are you trying to avoid them?

Used to empty out a few Piccolo Petes into a square of aluminum foil, light a fuse to it, and create mini mushroom clouds....