TiktaalikDreaming

The answer is hopefully. There's quite a bit of coding work to do. At the moment, I'm fairly sure it can all be converted to a modern ksp set of part modules, but won't really know until I'm further in to the work. It's somewhat delayed due to me not having enough time to work on it and not having the faintest clue what I'm doing.

I'm not contending that the volume values are useful. I'm just not sure if the game does much with them yet.

Pretty much. There is actually a volume value since 1.3 or so, but I don't know whether it does anything yet.

KSP has never really cared about volume. The rocket equation can be plenty tyrannical without worrying about volumes and densities. All the masses are in tonnes, but considering how ISP works, they could be in kerb stones and the physics would still work fine. So long as the units used for propellant masses are the same as used for the craft mass.

I had a go at making a custom plume for the revised A-4. With the new version (not released, but lurking in files on github) there's a core plume and thrust, and the vanes gimbal independently and have sort of mini plumes that are supposed to represent "reflected" or redirected exhaust. And accompanying thrust of course. I also added some cold gas shrouding, as the A-4 piped some ethanol water mix into the engine bell. It would have resulted in a similar shroud to what the giant Rocketdyne F-1 has, except not anywhere near as visible, and probably would have ignited earlier as it wasn't fuel rich gas generator exhaust, but actual unburnt fuel. There's some limitations simulating all that in KSP/Unity of course, so it doesn't look quite right. In the pic below, there's a small jet firing to the left of centre of the main plume, that's a gimbal diversion. And hopefully you can spot the fuel cloud, which then turns into flame. but what I did today was spend some hours tweaking my control section. And then promptly didn't save the thing. Which I must say is an outstanding piece of silliness on my part. But, the other parts will be getting redone as well. Although some may take longer if I end up redoing them all several times.

Cool, I've had a few moments of "OMG, derp" redoing my Open GCR and can get a bit twitchy if I read stuff that disagrees with how I'm modelling it. I asked about the part because it's actually originally from But FT has already credited me for parts re-purposed, so that's fine, I just didn't know he was using that part as well. It just jarred with the Hard Science theme, considering it was originally made as a generator for handwavium. The text on the side suggesting you not observe the magic krystals doesn't seem in line with hard science fiction.

Cool thread. First up, I apologize for the Orion mod kinda dying. I need to rewrite the code, and coding isn't a strong suit of mine. The system it uses to build on has been deprecated out since like 0.8 or something and it's been getting more and more bandaidy (and laggy) since, but it's finally, as of 1.3, gone for good. It is on my list of things to do, somewhat after learning to write modules and C#. I have questions about nozzles on open cycle GCRs. My understanding was that magnetic confinement, especially in the exhaust, was not particularly effective with GCRs. There's no consistent ionization, and some of the molecules coming out would be very heavy compared to any possible charge they have. But I haven't actually seen anyone crunch numbers on whether you can use a magneto-confinement nozzle. I'm redesigning my Open Cycle GCR from my nexus post and trying to get it as realistic as possible (without having containment fail at more than 0.00001G and explode, which is where GCReactors are at the moment). And, which mod did you get this part from? I see it in a few craft, but it doesn't seem to be in use as intended, as there's no matching tanks. So presumably someone's repurposed it.

Do you mean the yellow and black paint scheme? That's entirely on purpose as it was one of the post war test paint schemes. In particular, it's the only paint scheme I found where all the fins end up painted the same way. If you have firespitter core installed, you can switch paint schemes to the familiar green. If you're using 1.4+ I don't guarantee the fx for the rcs nozzles on the a-10 wing. The parts are being revamped in the background and the colour changing may end up being something I can do using the stock modules now. Teaser

Just having a look at this, yes, there are mining facilities harvesting rarer substances. For example the minimum economically viable gold mining is down in the single digits of parts per million. But, nothing like that is ever going to be mounted on a craft. You can't pop a drag line and gold processing facility on a rocket or plane. Realistically anyone doing isru is going to be using the more abundant resources than things that are a few parts per million. So, ignoring the "it's a game factor" (which shouldn't be ignored, because it is a game) it's somewhat unreasonable to expect a craft or small facility to be processing hundreds of tonnes for a few grand of stuff. If they need that, it's going to be much much more sensible to bring it with them. 5000 000 tonnes of refinery or 5kg of refined thingy. Not a hard choice.

That's because I'm inconsistent and couldn't really think of an easy way to fix it up after. But, I can now think of a fix thanks to squad's feature to hide parts that they introduced to obsolete the old parts when adding new ones like the mk1-3 pod. Thanks for the reminder

Nope, not layers. The parachute deployed canopy is ignored in the VAB calculation based on the mesh name. I've usually stuck to having my own system for naming parts, esp when components are called out in the config. But this has burnt me before, and it seems it's burnt me again. The parachute canopy name shall be canopy, or twill not be ignored. Fixed in 1.1.6, which contains this fix, and nothing else. All my other musing are already there or still in my head. I have a sudden urge for spaghetti.

I can confirm the height silliness is a factor with no parachute altering mods installed, and that it's these chutes, and stock chutes don't exhibit this behaviour. And I can confirm the same behaviour with other parachutes I've made for other mods. I suspect I've missed some layering. Off to find details, and then update EVERYTHING. (Actually, just a couple of extra mods, NAR_MEM, and aggregate)

We'll never have to hold again!

My understanding is that with realchute, but no config for the chute, you have a part that has an animation (deploying the chute) that isn't ties to anything. And so it probably counts towards the height. Especially as with this chute (and most others that I'm aware of) the chute is animated by shrinking the canopy mesh for when it's not deployed. Rather than a small mesh that is expanded. So the "unanimated" state is actually with the parachute fully deployed. But, I haven't really had time to look yet. Maybe this weekend.

Yep, it takes very little damage to make a vehicle unsafe for reentry.

It's also fairly critical the planet below is at least more habitable than a space station undergoing whatever emergency you're having. I can't see these in use over venus for instance. But yes, basically there are reasons for them, but humanity has never been in a position where they make sense. one is case that is possible in rl but not ksp is covering for reentry is the main reentry vehicle has a fault and there's an urgent need to leave. Maybe a mm strike that takes out the lifesupport and Soyuz on iss for example.

@eberkain they don't make any sense in reality. They're pretty much only useful for reentry from something like a LEO station, where you'd presumably have reentry capable craft docked matching what crew you have anyway. Maybe in an ISS scenario where you use something like the shuttle fitted out for passenger transport there might be a window of opportunity for needing something. But the reality is that they're a staple of science fiction, not reality. But people still want them in ksp. And as with all ksp things, people will find a use for them.

I meant to reply to this earlier. I would guess its adding the parachute canopy. But also I never even noticed ksp calculates the vessel height. I need to check this. It's possible with some config for real chute that the issue could go away.

I've updated the Spacedock (and thus CKAN) release. It IS compatible with KSP 1.4.5, but spacedock isn't yet. I've included a bunch of patches written by other people, called out in an updates license doc. Also, I've put in some custom rocket plumes; Those are mostly there because the stock RCS just didn't really get small enough.

Released on spacedock. I should ask if VITAS has noticed there's a 1.4.5 yet.

https://github.com/TiktaalikDreaming/KOOSE/releases/tag/1.1.4 I'll do a spacedock release after I've done something about making the chute's alignment clearer.

Also, copying and pasting on mobile results in all the line breaks going missing. Which is a bit frustrating. If I get some time at work I'll copy this into a patch file and add to a github release.

I was actually going to include this in my next release, which is basically a bunch of compatibility patches. But seeing I can't get the nest to behave with cls and haven't had much time at my pc recently, that's still not done. Having the patch included at this end means I can change it when /if I model in some lights.

Nice. Thanks, I'll add that to the patch collection. I would guess it would be just a case of changing the locations and the part name of course. Just a guess though. I did look at indicator lights for inspiration, but I typically want to get my basic functions going without dependencies. Obviously too get the lights to signal occupancy or similar things it needs a module though. And there is one written. I may just bite the bullet and make my lights using the mod as a dependency. I say that not because the patches indicators "aren't good enough" or any fecal matter like that. But I want the lights integrated in the pod structure and I want a landed/splashed down beacon as well. Nice work Tonka

@Tonka Crash 1: This had been mentioned, and it's in my to do list. 2: I really want to do flashing lights but have yet to figure out how 3: no, my patch doesn't yet work, even with some very explicit permits. I'm thinking of trying after adding a crew capacity to the nest. I'm just about out of other ideas