kcs123

Some stupid question poped up. Is is it possible to make science cost for empty nodes to zero ? I'm not so familiar with MM, but it could do checks if some node contain parts or not. If node does not have any, force science need to unlock node to zero. It will be still silly to some degree for players to click on every single empty nod to unlock it, but at least it will be more fair to some degree.

Just follow directions in this post.

It seems that Yemo already make something usefull. SETI balance mode covers some of things that was discussed in this thread. It is based on Comunity Tech Tree mod. Although I suggested wider root of tech tree, that will alow even more customization for various moders. But even without more nodes in career start looks promissing. I thought that many people missed those threads and could find it usefull.

Oh, sorry, didn't read carefully OP. Still, even if you don't want to rearange parts (left it to modders decision), multiple starting nodes instead just one starting node like vanilla game could allow more customization for all moders and anyone else who wants to extend this mod in future. Wider tree at root will allow more customization and easier maintenance in future when more mods become supported with this one.

#3 - Less confusing for both, players and modders. While tech tree looks decent already is it possible to have several starting nodes, not just one. Also some of parts shold be reorganized slightly. There was a lot good suggestions in other TechTree thread, you might want to look at this for ideas.

Second this. They don't need to implement all of FAR features, it is possible to calculate only a few, so aero system is closer to arcade/fun play style. As sal_vager said, for us who search for more realism there is still option to install whatever version of FAR will be called in future. But what they should adopt is new voxelization system that solves a lot of issues, is some part cliped or not, only partly cliped, does some other part in front of airstrem protect part behind it etc. Also collaboration with ferram could alow him to easier maintain his mod, whole KSP project and comunity could benefit from this. Why SQUAD still refuse to collaborate with ferram even when he offered support is mistery to all of us. I doubt that money is issue, more likely it is stubbornness of some key SQUAD members. Well, we only play this game, don't know if we are allowed to criticise SQUAD decision. Despite numerous positive and negative feedback there was little response from SQUAD that they even noticed those feedback.

@jofwu - check link in my signature, although those tips are from older FAR, doubt that pitching issue has changed so much. It is just fine tuning center of mass, main wing lift and lift from tail surfaces or canards near nose. I suggest to deatach tail (if possible) to see where center of lift from maing wings only is. It should be behind center of mass. Then add tail again and fine tune pitching moment. Like everyone else I'm waiting for nuFAR stable release, but if I find some more time I will try dev version and update some of my crafts.

There is also other mods arond that rally on firespitter like MKS/OKS, Adjustable landing gears, B9 procedural wings etc. Probably some more, but those are on top of my mind and there is reports for mentioned mods that are working properly with KSP 1.0.x So, yes, even if it is not compleatly confirmed as "stable", firespitter should be added to database. At least more people wil ltest it and report any bug they come across with.

I highly recommand notepad++ for editing config files and such. Plenty of plugins available makes editing even easier.

Second this. Especialy for us that loves FAR and Deadly re-entry. I would prefer building basic aircrafts prior rockets, just to train pilots more before going to space. It is shame on SQUAD that they didn't use almost anything suggested in this thread. They were having most of stuff ordered and more-less balanced, but they didn't even a try. I hope that they were alow to tech tree be more modable or at least easier modable than in 0.90. Also sorry that I have not been of much help with feedback on tech tree topic, quite busy elsewhere lately.

I loved this procedural wings in KSP 0.25, but it was glitchy at least to me in KSP 0.90. Similar things as you have described, can't attach wings on craft, null references in log etc. Probably not all problems were related to PW, but problems arise when you install some other mods. Haven't enough time to figure out those conflicting mods and B9 procedural wings were produced, so I turned out to them. We all have to be patient until DYJ make update for procedural wings, so far in OP it is still stated compatibility for 0.90 not for KSP 1.0, no wonders if it still not working properly.

Usualy "I didn't touch anything..." actualy means "I don't realize what I was changed that everything was gone south..." Try to think about it, what you have changed afterall. Even if someone don't have coding skills, steps how to reproduce some bug can help a lot with solving it.

Maybe just to be patiant for cople of days before deadly re-enty is updated.

True, but probably some time will be passed until all moders start to distribute modes with DDS textures. Until then, this will be one of important tools for KSP, some moders could even find it usefull for quicker conversion old textures to DDS.

Wow, that was fast. Thanks for updating one of my most essential mod.

Squad servers have been overloaded all day, could not download 1.0 until now. I'm curious how stock aero behave now, probably give it a try only for few days until FAR is updated. Stock aero could be a good choice for noobs to game, but all of us that have used to FAR simply could not play this game without it. Thanks ferram for making it and keeping this mod updated.

If I use your mod, and get more readable info in one window, I would most likely close other screens from FAR, Kerbal Engineer, TSFC or MJ. That is why those info while redudant with othe mods is not useless. That's just suggestion, not necessary that you have to agree with that.

Well, who knows, if you released those models erlier, maybe NASA would make their RL vehicle based on your game model

Great work on this. Thing that I would like to see is current thrust that engine currently provide and fuel consumption rate. In current release fuel consumption is in direct relation with ISP and ISP changes with thrust. For KSP 1.0 it will be oposite, fuel consumption will be constant with throttle, while thrust and ISP will change with speed and altitude. In both KSP versions those values provide valuable information how to fly craft more efficiently.

If you are using FAR, reduce wing mass size. You will most likely not need strength coeff of 1 nayway. If you are using tweakscale mod, try to make large wings without it. There was bug with tweakscale in past that might cause issue even in latest version. Just guessing here, haven't tried latest versions of tweakscale.

There is also language definition for notepad++. It can't autocomplete or suggest legal words, but it does good job with syntax highlight. You can find link for notepad++ kOS script language somewhere in this thread. Sorry, don't have exact link for post.

Try the firespitter.dll from USI (MKS/OKS) mod or KAX mod. They using updated version of firespitter plugin, that fix some of wierdeness. Those fixes are reported on github, but I'm not sure if firespitter is officially updated or not yet.

Yep, I know the pain with those S3 cargo bays. That is a reason why I put landing gear on struct panel and then whole panel attached on wing instead of cargo bay. I was used large thick wings, so I was able to hide landing gears inside.

With offset tool it will look like: And for that reason gears are half cliping inside fuselage or cargo bay. For fuselage is not a big deal as for cargo bay. So it is up to players to learn how to design plane and overcome that problem. By placing on fuselage or thick wings for example, or having less space in cargo bay if there is no other solution. Be creative, think about possible solutions, people were designining amazing crafts even with only stock gears.

Switching to FAR from stock aerodynamics could be painfull at first, bacause you will have to learn new construction tehnics. But once you overcome basic difficulties, you will enjoy it and since KSP 1.0 will be much closer to FAR than it is to current aerodynamic, it will be good building practice once KSP 1.0 is released. There is nice tutorials for FAR around forums that will help you to overcome difficulties. I can recommand Basic Aircraft Design thread from keptin. There is also Kerbodyne SSTO Division thread with varios craft examples. You should also read FAR wiki. In my own KCS spaceplanes craft repository thread I have tried to cover gaps that is not fully explained in already mentioned links. @Starwaster, there was discussion in B9 procedural wings thread regarding shielding. Is it possible to tie shielding to texture used ? B9 PW alows to choose different texture for uper or lower part of wing, so it will be nice feature if that can also determine type of temperature shielding and maximum amount of alowed temperature. It will alow much more customization than just "active" cooling or none at all.