Gaarst

I'm planning on rearranging the "Efficiency" and "In Game Utility" categories which are not well defined right now and pretty much the same. I was thinking about making a "In Flight Utility" category containing mods helping specifically in-flight (eg: Easy Vessel Switch, Precise Maneuver Editor...) and a "General Utility" category for mods which don't really fit into any other "utility" category (eg: KAC, Transfer Window Planner, Alshain's Modlets...). Thoughts?

Thanks for the info, I fixed the link!

My thoughts exactly, which is why I have started writing the spreadsheet and put the transfer of outdated mods on hold. It was listed as 1.2.2 simply because I didn't update the versions recently. For the library I've chosen to only show the latest released version, even when previous versions are still available for download, to keep the formatting tidy, however I never really considered the case when previous versions would be supported in parallel with the latest. So I've updated the kOS entry on the list to 1.3.1 and I've added a note saying that the 1.2.2 version was still supported. ____________________________ For the spreadsheet, I've been thinking about adding a "tags" column for each mod. It has been puzzling me for some time that the list was not great for actually finding new mods, which is a function that I would enjoy having, to give the library an utility other than simple archiving (right now, it does pretty much the same thing as CKAN minus the automatic installation). If you don't know what mod you are looking for, you obviously cannot search for the mod name, and even though I want to improve our current categories they will never be great for finding a new mod. Since the description are (thankfully) not exhaustive they are not that useful either when searching for a specific mod. By using generic tags, you would be able to find mods by Ctrl-F'ing a lot quicker and more easily. For example, you'd be able to find Real Solar System by searching for "RSS", or TweakScale by searching for "resize" (these are not great examples since the download links use the mods initialisms and TweakScale's description already includes the word "resize", but you get what I mean).

Isn't this supposed to be part of the DLC?

Unity update, a few bug fixes, many new bugs, maybe a couple new (ie: previously announced then ditched) languages. Depends on who you ask, but I personally feel like the game mostly lacks polishing. In an ideal world? A better game engine, a more stable base, revamped art, completely overhauled career mode, new rocket parts, improved performance, improved graphics, a proper sound design, a part failure system, life support, aerodynamics that make some sense, Earth, real fuels, less bugs, and probably a bunch of other things I can't think of right now. Realistically? Fixing more fixed bugs than are added would be great. Hopefully not too much of a performance/stability hit and a new feature too, but I feel like I'm being too optimistic there.

Both these mods add recent versions of the Soyuz (4th gen., so TM and further, they all look the same) and Progress spacecrafts, among other things. The first one has very "realistic" style models while the second one has a style closer to stock. Edit: actually, it seems the first mod doesn't contain the Progress.

JATO? Or JATOA (Jet-Assisted Take-Off and Ascent)?

Yes letting the game automatically fix a corrupted file and re-write the initial stock values is definitely cheating. In fact you should have deleted KSP the first time it crashed.

Probably not. 0.13.3 was released about 5 years ago IIRC, in that time the "main" mod hosting site changed twice ([first one whose name I can't remember] -> [second one whose name is apparently censored because it became a malware hosting site] -> Spacedock). You may have better luck with mods hosted on different sites (eg: Curse and Github which usually keep track of the older releases) or file hosting services (Dropbox...). Mind that most mods you may come across on the forums simply did not exist back then. May I ask why sticking with 0.13.3?

Updated! Updated! Added! I was away for a bit of time so I haven't followed the 1.3.1 release and its effects on mods. I'll read up on that update to see which mods are/could be affected. Since I've lost quite a bit of time because of various issues and haven't been able to work on the library in that time, I think I'll just forget about moving 1.2 mods to the outdated section and start working on the spreadsheet instead (which will make it easier to keep track of updates). Thanks for the notification! Though, as the library is still "officially" maintained for 1.3 and as I don't know the extent of the incompatbilities between 1.3 and 1.3.1, I won't edit these changes for the time. I'll start building the spreadsheet and will include the updates there, whenever it is released. DoubleDouble is a mod in development. This library is meant to be for released mods, so I will not be adding it for now. Ask @CarnageINC to include it in his Development Mod Library if you want it referenced now. The status of mods in development is ill-defined ATM: we have in-dev mods in the "release" library that normally shouldn't be there, but there are in-dev mods with very advanced releases that should be there. We need to sort this out, and hopefully things will get easier once we implement the spreadsheet as main support for the library. _____________________ [Important stuff about the library below, please read] I was originally planning on moving 1.2 mods to the outdated section before doing major changes to the library so that mods for the latest version of KSP would be easier to find. However, I was not able to edit the library for about a month and I couldn't do the updates I was planning. In the meantime, 1.3.1 was released and apparently there are compatibility issues between the latest patch and the 1.3 release. I haven't really followed the release and the mods activity recently so I don't know much about this yet. All in all, I have two possibilities now. Either I move 1.2 mods to the outdated section and look at which 1.3 mods are affected by the update to get up to date with mods releases and updates. Or I start working on the spreadsheet which, among other things, will remove the need for an outdated section and make updating mods easier now, leaving the library on standby for a bit longer but allowing for easier upkeep in the future. Since I've been pushing back the spreadsheet thing for quite a few months now, I figured it might be a good time to actually start it. I don't really know how long it will take for the spreadsheet to be "complete" but don't expect big changes to the library in that time (I will still update/add mods when notified, but I won't be moving 1.2 mods anywhere, for example). I will try to keep you updated on the status of the spreadsheet regularly, and if things go well I will be releasing the incomplete version of the spreadsheet (that only I will be able to edit, for now) pretty soon so that I can get direct feedback and suggestions. Edit: spreadsheet link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SxrQS319Vup1NcE9ehrk5hHAtosynH9_O0Qqq4q3nfM/edit?usp=sharing

Less than 0.4% of Steam users have VR headsets. As said above, VR is a niche inside a niche. Haha, no.

All command pods have full SAS capability as long as you have an experience pilot on board (in career). All probe cores but one (the Stayputnik) have as least a basic SAS function (heading hold), but some don't have any reaction wheels or very weak ones, preventing them from effectively using SAS.

The stock comm system is a good idea but unfortunately it is not complete. Something as simple as a circularisation burn should be able to be programmed; having to maintain direct communication with Earth/Kerbin to do it is stupid, especially if you consider comms are not instantaneous IRL. The difficulty in the comms system should not be "you want to capture but you can't since you're on the wrong side of the planet", it should be "you can follow your mission plan, but if something goes wrong there's nothing you can do". Simple programmable tasks (I'm not asking for a full autopilot) such as single burns should be programmable when in comm range to be executed when unable to provide manual control. This would make the probes a little bit less insignificant when compared to manned vessels (which don't have any drawbacks in the game since there is no life support and don't need a comm link).

Yeah, because Musk is going to engineer, build and fly this rocket all by himself... You guys all need to chill with Musk and SpaceX. SpaceX lowered prices of rockets, and that's it. Reusabililty? I don't see anyone else doing it, and until proven otherwise it is not profitable. Changing the market? The old companies are still here with their old expandable rockets and doing fine. SpaceX is cheaper than other LSPs but they are less reliable and have great difficulties holding a schedule, if they didn't have these issues they'd be the first LSP be a wide margin. I haven't watched the video, but I'm guessing it's about getting to Mars in ten years with a new rocket smaller than the ITS? (Because the ITS has always been a joke, I'm 100% sure no one at SpaceX ever seriously imagined the thing flying in less than 50 years, its just PR) 1) They are going to be late. 2) Until they start building it, humanity is not going anywhere. 3) Making a new video doesn't magically solve all the issues with going to Mars (health mostly). 4) Musk's funny conception of maths aside, there's still no economic interest for going to Mars and it's still going to be very very expensive. Let SpaceX launch their Falcon Heavy, let them demonstrate the benefits of reusability, let them master manned spaceflight in LEO... before we start making crazy plans to Mars or whatever.

No. All Atlas V have been models numbered xx1 (401, 411, 551...) indicating a single engine on the upper stage. Edit: damn ninjas

There are about 1100 mods in the mod library I am maintaining, including outdated mods. Say we've been slacking a bit and that a bunch of mods were never released on the forums, and you can bring that number to 2000.

There is a mod adding a notepad to the game, but I'm not sure it fits your description exactly.

I saw your message back then (I dont remember if Carnage told me or if it was in the thread), and I did add DCK to this library, I forgot to notify you that I did though. OTOH it is probably still in the Dev library if Carnage hasn't replied.

Thanks to both of you for the updates. However I don't have access to my laptop for a bit and there's no way I'll edit this list on mobile; so it might take a while for the library to be updated.

It's probably what I would have done if I ended up not liking FAR, but besides the better atmo, I enjoy the complexity that it adds to building planes. I personally enjoy complexity in the gameplay itself (e.g. RSS) rather than building complex stuff with no other motivation than trying to melt my PC with hundreds of parts. So I prefer building a simple plane working nicely in FAR rather than a gigantic SSTO in stock.

I think it's the fact that the wheel is close to the spoiler in front of it. You need to have quite some space between the wheels and the parts around it for them to steer properly, but even then it's sometimes weird: in the picture below the wheel (left front) steers further to the left (backwards) than to the right (frontwards) even though it's closer to the beam behind it than to the elevon in front of it.

Proabably. Wheels get steering reductions even from parts that are pretty far away and that would not touch the wheels even when fully steering. It's hard to tell without a screenshot.

After playing around with FAR for a little while for the first time and comparing it to the stock atmosphere, I now officially hate the stock atmosphere (or drag coefficients, whatever you like) and will never build a plane on it ever again. I realised flying an airliner designed for efficient long range flight with a L/D ratio lower than the Space Shuttle is stupid. Not being able to get it to cruising altitude is even more stupid. Doing both these things while having more than twice the thurst of an equivalent real plane is what made me stop trying. My days of brute-forcing my way through the atmosphere are over. Do yourself a favour and get FAR too, plus it makes designing planes a lot more interesting than stock.

Is FAR OK? (Just to see if I need to tweak a plane I just made for stock aero)