Drake1500

My apologies. I play on Linux, the keys are all different on other platforms. For instance: So: Alt for Windows, Command for Mac, and right-Shift for Linux.

Personally, I think that if you do implement a pay-as-you-go option, it should be just that - an option. Some people obviously really like the idea (I think it would be interesting - it would allow me to start building a big ship that I don't have all the funds for right away, or at least put it in the pipeline to be built without actually having to pay for it). Other people will be against it wholesale. Once you have a way to implement it as a choice, then we should be talking about what the different choices could be. Right now, I'm seeing three major options that have been voiced: the pay-upfront (as it is now); pay-as-you-go (the idea that started this off); and pay-in-instalments. The pay-upfront option wouldn't have anything that would need to be calculated. However, the other two COULD be tweaked by formulae. For instance, assume that there are three stages to the build: 1) upfront cost; 2) building cost (pay-as-you-go); and 3) finalization cost (or launch cost). By setting a formula to calculate the percentage for the building cost (and also how quickly it is paid - quicker at the start, or slower, for instance), and another for the division between the upfront and launch costs (similar to your rollout/pad-repair calculation), you would then be able to tweak these three costs, giving you a range of options. For pay-upfront, all you need to do is set the building cost to 0, and the upfront/launch costs to be 100%/0%. For a completely pay-as-you-go, you would need to give some formula for building cost, and set upfront/launch costs to be 0%/0%. As far as I'm concerned, the only gameplay benefit is allowing me to build things - or put them in the pipeline - without having the necessary funds right away. If it were implemented, I would probably use it in my next game (after it was implemented), but I won't be upset if you don't implement it. Personally, I think it's more trouble for you than it's worth.

The answer for both of you may be the same: when you're in space, you can start physical time warp by holding Shift and pressing the ">" key (or whatever key increases warp speed for you). If you don't hold Shift, it thinks that you want "on-rails" warp, which doesn't let you accelerate. Physical time warp, on the other hand, does.

Sorry this took a while for me to get to, but I've made a config that works (at least, it works for me ). You can download it here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/c9742wtyria9swh/Strategies.cfg?dl=0 I used the grouping that I posted, but moved Live Feeds in with Defence Initiatives and Staff Downscaling, like you suggested. Let me know if you run into issues.

Can confirm. I use Kerbal Alarm Clock myself, and have not seen any issues. I also use SafeChute, and it interacts exactly as expected - although at high physical time-warp, SafeChute can activate a bit.... late.

After installing, there should be a little arrow beside the warp speed at the top left. Click that arrow, and you can change the set of warp levels, or even make your own if you fancy. Once you change it, just use warp like you usually would, but recognize each step will be different. (Eg: 1x - 5x - 10x might become 1x - 25x - 100x) The set you choose will show you what each step will become.

Can't say for sure about adding to an existing save, but there is a file in the KCT folder - KCT_formulas.cfg - where you can change the formula for the cost. For example, to change the cost in funds, take a look at the UpgradeFundsFormula: min(2^([N]+4) * 1000, 1024000) 1024000 is the maximum. Change that, and you change how expensive it gets. If you want a single, unchanging cost, just replace the whole thing with a single number.

If you'd like a history of the contracts you've completed, there is a history in the Mission Control building; go to the tab "Completed Contracts" and it will list all the contracts you've done in that career.

In the meantime, action groups are really helpful for this. No camera negotiation, even in midflight. And AG Extended is helpful for action groups. (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74195-1-0-2-%28May13-15%29-Action-Groups-Extended-250-Action-Groups-in-flight-editing-Now-kOS-RemoteTech)

This is what I see in your .cfg for incompatible groups: Appreciation Campaign/Fundraising Campaign/Defence Initiatives/Staff Downscaling Open-Sourced Technology Program/Unpaid Research Program/Science Academy Patents Licensing/Outsourced R&D Recovery Transponders/Outsourced Recovery Aggressive Negotiations/Conservation Directive Launch Spectating/Sponsorship Deals/Homegrown Parts/Safety Procedures Space Camps Meteorological Authority Live Feeds Some of these just don't make sense to me (like Defence Initiatives and Staff Downscaling being where they are, and why Conservation Directive and Aggressive Negotiations are incompatible). I would recommend something like the following: Appreciation Campaign/Fundraising Campaign/Sponsorship Deals Open-Sourced Technology Program/Unpaid Research Program/Science Academy Patents Licensing/Outsourced R&D/Space Camps Recovery Transponders/Outsourced Recovery Aggressive Negotiations/Homegrown Parts Defence Initiatives/Staff Downscaling Safety Procedures/Launch Spectating Conservation Directive Meteorological Authority Live Feeds Some of these I'm more convinced of than others. I'm not really sure Homegrown Parts belongs with Negotiations, for instance, but Safety Procedures and Launch Spectating really seem like they belong together.

Hm. Well, OP does say that it uses ORSX, although at a second glance, the changelog on the OP hasn't been updated since 0.90 either. - - - Updated - - - To be fair, I do use CKAN, and I knew for a fact that Karbonite was not required, as it is not one of the dependencies there.

No, Karbonite is not required, but it does use ORSX, a fork/extension of ORS. (It comes prepackaged with it) If you're concerned about dependencies, I would recommend using CKAN. It handles all the dependencies for you.

For what it's worth, here's my 2 cents: I don't feel any lack of 1.25m or 2.5m pods. On the other hand, as MarcAlain has pointed out, there is a bit of a dearth of 3.75m+ pods. I have definitely felt the lack of longer ladders, especially longer fixed ladders. If you had a pack that consisted entirely of ladders, it would probably be an insta-download. I haven't felt the lack of long service bays, but now that I think about it.... they would be pretty useful. I've definitely stacked up the stock service bays to get more space. I do like the look/functionality of the stock service bays but haven't seen any replications; is this something that is doable?

OK, thanks. I was worried that I was missing out on what little efficiency I had! I don't suppose there's any way to easily remove that option from the action group menu? Not asking for myself, but I'm thinking it'll save you answering the same question when others pick up this mod and think the same thing I did!

Fair enough. I decided to try creating my own categories (such as Planets,C) and they worked. I still don't know why, but they did. I do agree, though, that this feature NEEDS documentation. One thing I've figured out is that incompatibilities are in groups, which means you can't have the situation like A+B and A+C are incompatible, but B+C are compatible. Anyway, if you have an idea for how you want the compatibilities for SKB's strategies to work, I might be able to play around with the .cfg and find a suitable configuration for you.