Gaarst

Sounds like AoA Technologies.

No, as far as I know not in the stock game; even if they are placed in symmetry, the Thrust Limiter bar only affects the engine you have selected. There are however some mods that can help you handle your engines, for example the two below (I don't use them myself so I don't know if they do exactly what you are asking for, but it should be good enough either way).

Part Angle Display to rotate stuff, Hangar Grid to align stuff, Part Wizard for misc stuff are useful mods to make building things easier. Editor Extensions is a good mod for what you're looking for, any reason in particular to not use it?

Sticking a second engine under an Ariane 5 to somehow make it reusable is a terrible idea. Ariane 6 is already planned to be a low-cost rocket and its Vulcain 2.1 is a much simplified version of Ariane 5's Vulcain 2, using the latter would not be the most cost-efficient idea; Vulcain is also not designed to be reused or even reignited (I don't even think it can significantly throttle). However, there's still the Adeline thing in the works which consists of recovering and reusing the most expensive components of Ariane 6's first stage (basically everything but the fuel tank) by flying it back to the launch site. AFAIK it hasn't been cancelled yet.

I was referring to the part where he said that TT's EULA possibly being interpreted as restricting modding on an (ex-)indie game would lead to the bankruptcy of a multi-billion dollar company.

Is this sarcasm? Please tell me it's sarcasm. _______________________ Also, has anyone of you ever read any EULA on any other software ever created? TL;DR: you have zero rights and the parent company can ruin your day if they want to; doesn't mean they will ruin your day, doesn't mean they will put an end to modding, doesn't mean TT hates KSP and its players, doesn't mean they are literally that German guy from the 30s. They tried to restrict modding on GTA V because they felt it was interfering with their online microtransactions (neither of which KSP has or will ever have), people got angry and they backed down because angry people is bad for business.

Don't know about screenshots, but at 25,000 words the forums' editor still works decently if you ignore the occasional lags.

If you downloaded a Chinese version, I'm afraid you'll have to download the English version and move your saves there to correct everything. While most of the text in KSP is stored as strings in a cfg file making it easy to edit, text written in the textures is probably embedded in the texture/models themselves and you won't be able to change it without editing these (which would be a massive pain). If you have the store version, just go to Store, My Account, Download, select your OS and English language there and brace yourself for the download.

I've tagged it as such. I've tagged your Space Solutions mod as compatible with 1.3.1 on both the main thread and the spreasheet, and I have added your Taurus & Amarok and Lionhead mods to the spreadsheet. Thanks for the support! I've also noticed that I somehow missed the "In-flight Information" and "Autopilot" categories from the main thread when writing the spreadsheet, this is now corrected. The first category has been split between "In-flight Information" (readouts and info) and the new "In-flight Utility" (misc useful stuff: navball, action groups... useable in flight) categories. I'm also thinking, since I've changed a few categories in the spreadsheet, I should maybe write descriptions of the new categories somewhere for people to understand them better; this would clutter the OP even more so I'm not too keen on doing it now, maybe when I'm done copying mods around. Anyway, almost 500 mods done, 400 more in the main list and 400 other in the "outdated" list. Then I'll have to add the 4000 released since whenever I stopped adding new mods...

I'm not familiar with licencing, but I don't think this is enforceable. Surely posting a mod on the forums can't override the licence (say NC for the sake of the example) included in the code itself? Especially when you consider that the KSP website doesn't host files: SpaceDock and GitHub are not related to Squad/TT (they have an agreement with Curse so it could be considered as a "company website" I guess), simply linking to an external hosting site doesn't (and shouldn't) engage you to anything. Hosting/submissions aside, would Squad/TT have any rights on a mod whatsoever? A mod is written from A-Z by the modder, and even if it references functions from the game itself, most of the time it does not include any content from Squad; it's supposed to work with KSP but I don't see how this could justify any claims on it. This segment looks a bit strange, especially the last sentence. How does that even work? What if the modder writes a licence in which he includes "No purported appropriation terms or licence modification by a hosting website shall have any force or effect" (or simply uses an ARR licence), who would have the last word? Anyway, these ToS are TT's ToS, they were not written for KSP in particular, they are just your general EULA that you never read (otherwise you'd not use any software ever). Modding is a good part of what makes KSP alive, I don't think they will remove or restrict it. TT is not the Devil™: if something is not profitable they won't do it, they won't remove mods just because they want to make the playerbase suffer and witness their divine rights over the game.

Dunno, last time they tried to stick 30 engines on a single core, the stupidly complex plumbing caused 3 booms out of 4 launches. Falcon Heavy feeds its 3*9 engines from 3 separate fuel tanks.

I'll believe it after its 10th or so launch. Same as New Glenn, Falcon Heavy and SLS: big rockets are cool and showing people that they work is cool as well, but there is still no market. Maybe demand will appear when supply becomes available but I doubt it: even without launch costs, payloads are still very expensive (your average GEO bird is usually in the 9 figures, a large programme and the corresponding payload is in the 10). As for reusability, presentations are cool but if you believe BFR will be sub-$10M with 1000 possible reuses without several major technological breakthroughs, you're at the very best extremely gullible.

Instead of building your wings like this: ( plane ) ----> flies that way | | | | | | | | (wing segments are all attached parallel and only connected to the fuselage) Build them like this: ( plane ) ----> flies that way _______|_______ _______|____ _______| (single segment connected to the fuselage as long as the wing span, and other segments connected to it) Because there is more stress along the span than the chord the second design will bend more under load but will keep together better than the first design as long as the load is attached to the "main segment". This works very well for high aspect ratios; for low aspect ratio wings, you might need some autostrut at the very front of the wing to avoid having its angle of incidence going all over the place (a "grandparent part" autostrut on a single segment at the front of the wing or a single physical strut from there to the fuselage will usually be enough, especially if your wing is built of few large segments). You may also use some autostrut on the segment to which your ailerons are attached to make roll a bit more stable if needed. The second design also had the advantage of being rooted to a single part, making it much easier to adjust your wing's position, di-/anhedral angle, angle of incidence, sweep...

Yes, I somehow assumed the first post was about PA because I can't read. I don't think I ever tried your mod, but now I will.

[I apparently can't read and mixed up Atmosphere Autopilot which I don't use with Pilot Assitstant which I do use] I use AA for atmospheric flight and while it's good for cruising it doesn't help for more active flight. What would be needed is a proper "flight" SAS setting, by that I mean decoupling roll/yaw/pitch control (so that banking for a turn doesn't send me crashing into the ground) and not resetting your trim everytime you even look at your keyboard (say I want to slightly pitch up, touching the control resets SAS and it will take ages for it to stabilise). With proper controls you wouldn't even need an altitude hold because your plane actually goes where you want it to. I've stopped believing dV readouts will ever happen. While I like KAC for managing multiple missions at once, there isn't any reason to do this in the game. Kerbals are immortal, there's no boiloff, no wear and tear, contract margins are ridiculous and so on. Would be nice to have but not a priority in my opinion.

@Elonmuskrat I don't recommend it. It's better to learn how to properly design your rockets and why they fail than to shove the problem under the carpet and never learn from it. Spricigo gave a few instructions for you to provide more information so that we can help you. General guidelines to avoid this problem is to avoid building rockets that are too tall or that have too many stages (tank-decoupler-engine-tank junctions tend to be very wobbly), reduce the gimbal of your rocket engines as too much can cause wobble, improve the rigidity of your rocket by using longer parts if possible, reducing the number of junctions or using struts...

I'm (finally) back to the library, after a pause of 3(?) months. I'm continuing to move mods to the spreadsheet, I have about 25% done (300 out of 1200) so far. Hopefully I won't disappear for 3 months too often and the rest will be done faster. I intend to make the spreadsheet the main library: although incomplete it is the most updated since I don't intend to touch the "thread library" too much. I have added a mark showing how far the spreadsheet reaches (just after Tech Tree mods as I'm writing); for mods in categories before this mark go to the spreadsheet, otherwise you have a 3 months outdated library (it's still fairly complete, don't worry). I probably will not be adding new mods to the library until I'm done moving everything to the spreadsheet, so bear in mind that mods younger than about 3 months will not be listed.

Remove everything in GameData except for the Squad folder. Mind that this will most likely break your saves.

I'm curious, how do you obtain this value? I've tried to determine the optimal dV for a rocket stage (ie: most dV per unit mass) and obtained between 2200 and 2600 m/s for LFO engines (obviously higher for NERV or Ion engines).

"Required but not produced" means you have means to store electric charge (batteries) but not to produce it: solar panels and RTGs produce electricity (so do some engines with their alternator, but I'm not sure if the game counts it in the engineer report thingy), batteries store it. With just batteries you will be fine for a while but you will eventually run out of electric charge, making your spacecraft unusable. If you are doing a short LKO mission it shouldn't be a problem, but for longer missions you will have to watch your batteries carefully. Also note that transmitting science back to Kerbin consumes a significant amount of electricity.

No. Someone created the thread saying it was "a clear ripoff" and that it should be reported, and then about one third of the people agreed with him, one third were enthusiastic about the game, and the last third was standing somewhere in the middle. (They might not be exact thirds, I haven't run exit polls) The people arguing it's a ripoff are a small part within this thread which is itself a small part within these forums which themselves are a small part of the KSP community. It's not representative of what the community thinks nor what "we" want.

Did you guys ever hear about the C&D Orbiter sent to HarvesteR in 2011? Me neither. A flight game in early Alpha that has many times more depth than KSP will ever hope to have. Not only this does not look like a ripoff (it's a space/flight game and that's it, if you go that way Atari might as well start to sue the entire video games industry), but it will be a very serious competitor to KSP's soupodynamics if its development keeps on. Best of luck to them.

Moon orbit? Sure, that's the goal of EM-1, even though it will not be crewed, in 2019. EM-2 in 2022 will put people in lunar orbit. On the Moon? No. You don't build a full lunar programme from the ground up in 2 years.

Backspace works for me. Anyway glad you found a solution, didn't read your edit at first.

Backspace.