PunkyFickle

I don't quite understand the wording of the problem. You are above the Mun in a highly eccentric orbit and your target is also in orbit, but on the other side, isn't it? And in a circular orbit, I guess, so you have to not only change your inclination (about which burning closer to the apoapsis and farther from the Mun makes it indeed cheaper) but also circularize, which would in no case cost only 10 m/s. By the way, your target will perform several rotations by the time you reach it, so it won't be on the other side for very long... Well, I am confused about what "I needed to do a 180 around the mun" means. Edit : OK, time to go to sleep for me. @Martian Emigrant is right.

Oh, I didn't know that. But I exclusively play with FAR, so I guess that I'd have to push a bit further to find that limit. You cut the relevant part in the video. You might still have the whole footage, though, if you are really curious. (Centrifuge award : start preparing the sample for analysis by applying more than x g to it upon reentry.) Yes, I'm rather puzzled as to why you went to the cautious nuclear reactors approach, when the challenge clearly favors brute force and piling up boosters (thus its subtle title). You missed the full thrust award by not much, by the way.

That's a decent amount of boosters. Well done! You started reentering at 7700 m/s. Be happy that the science container did not vaporise. You had quite a bit of ablator left, though. Could you provide your list of mods for the records, please (GameData screenshot will do)?

Yes! Here are your shiny winner stickers : Hmmm... I feel that @Pecan will suddenly and unexpectedly come by here soon.

By the way, just read that and it makes me think about how the Kerbal Academy contract pack works well along with Kerbal Health. I like the idea of experienced Kerbals not being able to venture too far from Kerbin because of the accumulated radiation and retiring in a way, while still being able to transmit their skills to recruits, so that their experience is not lost.

Yes, I know about the tooltips. My point was that it is difficult to get a good understanding of which factors impact the HP trend in which way, especially on big vessels or stations. Because of the variety of parts and because of the impossibility from the VAB to know about Kerbals quirks, condition and total HP. Here's a simple example tottery to showcase how tedious it can be if you are not familiar with all the mod's features : OK, Valentina loses more health. But why? And Bill will also die faster, despite having the same rate as Jeb and Bob. Either has he less health or it is related to the part he is in (it is not, I know, but that might be what a player new to the mod might conclude). I uncheck stuff one by one to see what varies with Kerbals, it's confinement alone. Ok, but there is no way to know why. I have to go to the launch pad to open the health monitor (easy that thing of mine, might be more tedious when planning space stations). Bill has less health because he's less experienced and Valentina is a Loner (too bad for a badass Kerbal, RNJesus was not on my side on that one). Alright, she is more vulnerable to confinement, I guess.* I might sound picky, but I think that micromanagement is quite important with Kerbal Health. Besides, I really am not condescending, but I feel that you can struggle quite a bit if you just started with the mod or didn't read the wiki attentively. And I fear people might drop because of the lack of information despite how enjoyable it is. About the implementation, I understand and it doesn't seem too thrilling indeed, but I was thinking about a second comprehensive window with the details, in addition to the preexisting one (so no fancy mouse hovers windows or drop-down list annoying to code - although I don't know Unity, I don't know how it handles tables), with a table of the factors induced by different parts and one with the Kerbals health information (basically the one you can open in flight with a few tweaks). Here's an example (made up figures and wrong mechanisms, but that's the general idea) : Vessel parts health factors (base, see specific Kerbal modifiers) Confinement Microgravity Recuperation etc. (Radiation exposure (?)...) Mk1 Lander Can 1 (0.6 living space) 0 0 PDD-10 Hitchhiker Storage Container 0.375 (1.6 living space) 0 +3 HP/day ... ... Raw effects on Kerbal HP =sumcol*-5 HP/day *Another suggestion to annoy you a little more. There are two little things I think would be useful (and I think quite easy to implement, that time) : the detailed effect of the quirks and mentioning the badass trait somewhere (add it as a quirk?). Nowhere in-game are quirks explained, as far as I know, and it kinda forces the player to open the (otherwise well written) wiki every time quirks are involved - that is, if he knows its existence. For example, instead of only displaying Loner, the window could prompt Loner (Immunity to loneliness, 110% Crowded factor effect). Thanks, that's everything it needs for both mods to run along well. I actually ran a few test yesterday and they indeed are shown as dead in the monitor. Also, it would be useful to have a part for supported mods mechanics in the wiki. I saw other questions about TACLS in previous posts, for example. That would alleviate the annoyance of answering those for you.

Well, I don't want to seem cautiously pessimistic on that matter, but, again, I reckon that this next big thing that could appeal to a wider audience (the most probable commercial decision, sadly for hardcore simulation enthusiasts) would be focused on that part of the audience supposed to fill in the gap to the "wider" step. So there would not be a lot of point in winning back the trust of the existing community in that regard.

Well, I had the same feeling a few years ago. KSP was indeed lacking rigour in its development and seeing it under a more "mature" management is rather positive for that reason. However, I am not as enthusiastic as you are about its future, as I am skeptical about the actual profitability of a 2011 (!) game which commercial glory days clearly lies behind. Things are to be done and the game can improve in many ways, likely becoming more appealing to more people (the point where vanilla becomes playable is closer than ever), but I reckon most of the core target audience already own the game and it is a bit too niche as a concept to appeal to a broad audience even with an hypothetical huge advertisement campaign. So I really wonder what TakeTwo plans in terms of business model regarding KSP. Did they buy it under the effect of a passing infatuation, had no real plan and will drop its development as soon as they lack funds to finance their activities? Do they plan on multiplying DLCs to sustain them? KSP 2?

*Proceeds to not only trample a Monolith underfoot, but to also plant a flag on it Noticed a pattern yet?

Hello, Fine idea! I don't have good answers to give you, but this topic posted yesterday is basically the same question. You might want to check it for further answers.

Hi @garwel, Love your mod (because I only experienced a few aborts so far, but I'll consider you personally responsible for any Kerbal death in the future). It truly adds the depth I seek to the game. I have a few questions and suggestions : The planning window in the VAB would benefit from being a bit more comprehensive. It is difficult to tell, even with the wiki open next to you, why some Kerbals have different stats or which part affects the confinement malus and how. So it would be nice if we had every factor affecting the HP modifiers on display. Maybe in a separate window. Is there any way to know how Kerbal Health interacts with the other supported mods? I can't find anything on DeepFreeze. (I will conduct tests, but is there any documentation somewhere?) On that regard, I reckon DeepFreeze would be very nicely integrated in KH. First, with a chance on thawing for the Kerbal to get wounded/killed/made exhausted, second, with a mandatory health debuff/immunity drop for a short time after thawing. You would therefore have to invest even more on recuperation facilities, increasing further the cost of freezing your crew rather than bringing life support. It would be useful to have a warning pop-up when launching a vehicle with a Kerbal suffering from low health/wounded/sick. (Didn't test everything)

Hmmm, I would find hilarious to see someone attempt to setup a Fulton style system to lose as few time as possible.

Hello Fellow Kerbonauts, We know from the Impact the Mun challenge that it is possible to fly to and crash something on the Mun in a mere 12 min. This is a great first step towards adding boosters to stuff in order to go fast, but only shooting the Mun isn’t that useful, right? This challenge aims at proving that our rockets can be fast and useful. So for this challenge, you’ll not only need to reach the surface of the Mun as fast as possible, but to also bring a rock back to Kerbin as a proof you got there and to demonstrate the scientific relevance of adding moar boosters. Rules : Depart from KSC Reach the surface of the Mun Take a surface sample Bring it home Your place on the leaderboard depends on your mission time when the sample lands on the ground Challenge ends on the 28/02/2019 at 00h00 UTC (just one month; how handy) Not limit on the number of boosters used (obviously) Rockets or planes, It doesn’t matter Undock/dock as many times as you want Launch as many vessels as you want, but the timer starts when the first vehicle takes/lifts off and ends when the sample gets to the ground (show METs on the tracking station screen if you used multiple vessels) Land, bounce or lithobrake on the Mun, as long as you manage to take a sample and bring it back Only the surface sample has to make it to Kerbin’s surface (but the Kerbal can land as well) No Kerbal should be armed in the process, though. This includes the command chair; no prolonged use, not in harmful environment. The surface of the ocean is part of Kerbin’s surface We need the sample (mostly) intact for the science we’ll get from it, so smashing it on the ground doesn’t count if whatever contains/carries it gets destroyed/killed No fiddling with the cfg files, hyperedit, Kraken exploit, etc. Stay fairplay. Latest versions of the game only (when was the last aerodynamics update? 1.0.5?) No DLC engines or fuel tanks Pictures are good, videos are good(er). In any case, make us understand and enjoy. Multiple submissions are allowed. Mods : If you used any, provide the list Stock aerodynamics Stock engines and fuel tanks Modded fairings and wings are allowed Nothing that messes with the physics engine Ask the permission to use anything else than mods that blatantly do not interfere with the challenge (RemoteTech is OK, Alcubierre drive is not OK) Awards : Precision delivery : Have the sample landing next to the KSC facilities so that our scientists can start analyzing it as fast as possible. Relay race : Bring the sample back with a different ship that the one which brought your Kerbal to the Mun Sepratron : I like the separation (who doesn’t?). Use sepratrons as a significant source of thrust in your design to please me and earn this award. Full throttle : Do it the most kerbal way and maintain full throttle for all the duration of the mission (with empty stages for the landing?). It probably is not possible and certainly is not reasonable, but I know how crazy some people are. Vanilla addict : Stock and only stock. No mod award. Temporary leaderboard (last edit : 04/02) : @Laie - 1h 19m with a good amount of boosters and an interesting packaging design. (Prev. time : 1h 30m 43sec) Rewards : No pics, no submits Nice badges like this one : I will make some with medals and awards when I find the time. Feel free to recommend other awards if you think of any. Same for rules amendment if I missed anything. Also, if anyone else feels like remaking/improving the badges or making medals, please go ahead, I’m not that confident with Gimp Photoshop. Fly fast!

Dang, so innovative! Much practicality!

Well, that's a huge improvement! And I can confirm that the 64 bit version of the game is indeed the default one. I didn't notice that.

HOLY THRUSTERS! This advanced technology is amazing!

If I remember well, modders would state that they would not provide support for the then experimental 64 bit (or was it multi-core?) version and it seemed to me that there was quite an opposition from the community to this feature or (most likely) the way it was handled. Is that a thing of the past?

Well that is an aspect I overlooked indeed. I remember fan attempts at translating the game that were particularly unsuccessful for that very reason. I already do! In the space of a few days, I filled it with close to as many mods as before and I didn't experience any crash yet and the loading times are very reasonable. I also briefly flew a few rockets and planes in stock and started a vanilla career to check it out and it seems very playable, which it was really not prior to 0.90. The lack of at least a dV and TWR display was especially critical, and I'm surprised at how long it took for the game to include those, especially since there are console versions that don't allow for the use of mods.

@DeltaW7 Welcome to the forums! Docking port alignment indicator is rather popular and easy to use too. @Snark How do you embed a post like this? I can't find anything on the how to use the forum thread.

I plead guilty of overdoing it to make myself understood. @Xavven Kerbal Health indeed simulates damages done by microgravity, which you can alleviate with spinning modules. It also takes into account confinement, loneliness, radiations, random sickness, injuries, etc. Please, give it a peek and comply to the divine law. I like the idea, but it's quite radical. It could be very nicely integrated into Kerbal Health, though. First, with a chance on thawing for the Kerbal to get wounded/killed/made a tourist (trick used by KH to render a Kerbal useless and stranded when in bad health condition rather than killing it straight away), second, with a mandatory health debuff on thawing. You would therefore have to invest even more on recuperation facilities, increasing further the cost of freezing your crew rather than bringing life support.

Ca fait un long moment que je n'ai plus touché à des fichiers cfg, mais il me semble qu'y retirer la partie concernant la ressource qui t'ennuie devrait suffire, oui. J'ai fait un petit tutoriel là-dessus en 2014 (tout cela ne nous rajeunit pas...). Depuis le temps j'ai oublié ce qu'il y a là (ça me semble inutilement bavard et les mises à jour du forum ont bousillé la ponctuation, en plus), mais tu trouveras peut-être ce qu'il te faut. Les valeurs de la spreadsheet ne sont probablement plus à jour, mais tu peux aussi y jeter un coup d'œil au cas où ça t'intéresserait.

The "cupola modules" are not exactly what you referred to in your first post, thus my question. But your reference to those convex windows and your connection with water is VERY interesting too. Keep going, please.

I'm not so knowledgeable about how balanced DeepFreeze is, but I guess that with enough constraints on your game (as religion compels), whether you have to freeze your Kerbonauts or not can become an actual choice you really have to think about. Let alone technological curbs (first trip to Duna will have to be kerbed in order to unlock the cryogenic technology for the next ones, for example).

Kerbals being able to perform photosynthesis is a well known fact. The fact that they might be bioengineered (by who/what?) is a widely spread theory, although no actual evidence was brought to light yet, to my knowledge. You can either face confusion as to how Kerbals survive interplanetary journeys or embrace the True Faith and never fail to the Commandement that states that thou shalt not play KSP without a life support mod and Kerbal Health installed. Heretics. The Kerbalism branch of the cult might gain in importance in the future, if it manages to overcome a few theological flaws. I'd say that the whole point of DeepFreeze is to be ran alongside a life support mod. Tell me more about your childhood.

I hear you, but localisation is rather the exception on the list. Close to everything else is gameplay related and the most impactful (by which I meant important for the highest amount of players, not just regarding my own subjectivity) things I referred to were impactful in opposition to, for example, being able to remove the neck ring. Additionally, I feel safe assuming that the developer(s) working on the game physics for example are not related to the Russian translation and were as available as before on their core duties, so that time and those resources spent during the localisation process were not lost for gameplay improvement, at least in theory. I assumed a slowdown in activity given the few gameplay improvements that occurred in 4 years (!), the release of a "finished" 1.0 version, the fact that most of the developers left the company and the fact that it got bought (which can easily mean financial difficulties - but your last post tends to refute that) . But I didn't follow last years' events of course, so I could be very wrong. Edit : reread my last post and figured out I answered the last part wrong.