KerbalEssences

Thank you for your answer! This guy simply overwrites the existing Squad part textures but what if I would make an own mod out of it including seperate parts so you don't have to overwrite something? (I'll edit my original post)

Hey guys, so I do some random custom paint jobs on my parts (no idea who inspired me) and I wonder if it would be legal to share them because I obviously use the orignal ones as a starting point. I tried to look for some legal stuff about mods but I can't find anything specific. My happy little launcher example: edit: What I would like to do is create an own mod folder with the compleete parts so people would not have to overwrite their existing ones and could therefore delete it much easier.

Hey guys, I don't know the exact reason for why SRBs are relatively weak compared to engines (in reality its the opposite) but I assume its due to them having a constant amount of thrust. As we all probably know the real ones work different and there have been rather complex suggestions in the past but what about this one? I think such an option would make a lot of sense since you know you can't throttle SRBs together with your liquid fuel engines. The sliders could be set up by default for the thrust they have right now but you could optionally tweak them. This would give more control over them and you could increase their thrust so they actually deliver what they do in reality: the majority of the thrust! I am not so familiar with modding btw. so I can't really suggest a method on how to implement this. However the system could be similar to jet engines for example. These lose thrust due to air pressure or something and the SRBs thrust could change by fuel amount instead. Feel free to share your opinion. Do I forget something?

It's cool if you learn something while playing a game but it is a completely different story if you have to learn something to play. If you allready know what delta v is, it is no big deal. However, if you don't know what delta v is (and the vast majority doesn't know that before buying the game), you have to learn it and that's bascially math. Adding math to a game is playing with fire. There are some people who will like it but others will run away and maybe return with pitch forks. This means they will tell their friends this game requires you to learn math. It's a school game! I think everybody here knows how fun games are you play in maths class. I remember when I was a kid and I played chess with my father. It was actually some kind of funny. I liked that horse figure in particular (some left memories). Then I had to play chess in school. Never played it again. However, these are just my experiences and I can certainly not speak for many. I personally don't play with Engineer nor do I calculate anything. However, i don't think bad about people who do. They get much more complex stuff done which I wouldn't even attempt. I personally just fear to lose interest in KSP when everything becomes possible. I'm that kind of guy who gets bored quickly as soon as he figures out he can do it for sure. Everyone is different and someone else can actually get motivated from that. I don't know how I would deal with it if I was Squad and I'm glad I don't have to.

Sticking out turbines would make planes look like muscle cars... I don't know if people would like that. I would However... I'm that kind of guy who would then complain about the unrealistic behavior of the tanks. If you stick the turbine inside to be more realistic you on the other hand have to also decrease the amount of fuel fitting inside that very tank.

What I personally look forward to are boosters which do't explode when they flip over splashed down on water. Also I hope they penetrate a little deeper inside the water so they don't actually flip over just come up smoothly into a horizontal position as they do in reality aswell. However, that's just speculation I have not seen a booster recovery on KSPTV yet. Just btw, KSPTV was streaming 1.0.5 the whole weekend and they showed plenty water action. So far it looks really good, someone managed even to land a regular plane (no "fuselage legs" or something) at 50 m/s and it was not destroyed. We can also now build extremely stable water bases and barges to land rockets on. I think we really need some propellers in future which we can use underwater aswell. Just think of a Quadcopter-like craft which uses its propellers to sink underwater. Epic!

I have a video on an asteroid redirection. The hermit Asteroid is not class E (class C I think) and it is allready arround 18m in size. Maybe your numbers are wrong? According to the Wiki class E asteroids range from 850 tons to 3800 tons! It's not like they are all the same size. Moving 1000 tons arround is significantly easier than almost 4000.

(lol at the title) Hi, what I always missed in KSP was the ability to take pictures for science reasons like they do in reality. I think it's actually one of the biggest parts in space exploration. Just think about Hubble and rovers who send their imagery daily. The main problem I see in KSP is such a "screenshot" ability would be pretty redundant and taking pictures of rather low res textures is probably not the greatest experience. That could be however solved. Unity 5.2 comes with a new feature to procedurally generate textures puzzling them together in runtime using some small assets. I picture it like so: You take your camera as a kerbal and point it towards the ground. You press a button and it does not simply take a screenshot but procedurally generate the image based on your location and biome. Here a very basic example (manually made) taking a picture from Dunas soil. The white part you see would be some rare special mineral you had to hunt for. It would apear randomly with a certain chance. The more you catch with a single frame the more science you would get. That's just an idea I had and I thought why not simply share it. Another issue is the library you need to store all of this. The more snaps you take the bigger the impact on the RAM which is allready quite frustrating. To overcome this we either needed an external archive, and I don't know if that is possible, or simply neclect storing them. If somebody finds a super nice one he wants to share he could simply press another button to save it in a screenshot folder and the rest would get turned into science instead. Unity 5.2 Procedural Materials: http://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/ProceduralMaterials.html PS. I hope you don't think that I think you have not allready enough to do. I just wanted to throw it in before I forget about it.

We also need a change in how heat is calculated in general I think. Heat alone causes extreme frame issues for me even on craft in orbit - I assume it to be related to the heat because of all the gauges which do sometims just not disapear. Since they are working on it (I think Roverdude?) I'm really hoping for performance improvements on that department aswell. Maybe it's just a bug for me I don#t really know. Another thing I am curious about is can we actually increase the physics calculation distance even more with the multicore support? Reusing boosters and don't having to care about when to drop them would be great! However, this would also require to add some sort of ingame logics so parachutes could for example open at certain speeds autonomously. I'd love that so much!

Hi, upgrading from a 780 to a 980 will give you 0 performance increase. I upgraded from a 560 Ti to a 970 and see no gain in performance either. It actually dropped due to some KSP changes. The big problem for me right now is the new heat distribution system I think. Back in the older days once out of the atmosphere craft even with 500+ parts ran smoothly for me. This is history because we now have heat distribution which kills performance with a lot of parts even in space. A 780 is totally fine in my opinion and there is no need to upgrade especially not for KSP. You will be very disappointed! Hearing they are working on the heat system for the next update is actually something which makes me really look forward to. edit: Something I wanted to add. My GPU runs only 40% max. while playing KSP even if it is a 10 - 15 fps during launch. Check your GPU usage during gaming.

I'd decrease the number of bodies and in return focus on making each extremely unique and add much more detail to them. The perfect KSP for me would be landing on the moon, do my contract work and then just walk arround for a few hours because it is so awesome being there. I'd also love to see some sort of camera function where Kerbals can take ingame pictures of features on bodies which you can not only share with the internet but also use them ingame. Taking pictures is a big part of real life space exploration. I think the most data coming from space is actually some sort of imagine material allthough I have no sources on that one. How about this: Planets show absolutely no features in map mode and the tracking station as long as you haven't taken pictures of them yet. You could either send a suicide mission to a red blob without knowing anything about it or visit it with unmanned probes. The closer you get the smaller the details you can take images of. So you had to map it from a far distance to get the general look of it and go much closer on features you find most interesting. Your landing site would not only be visible via a flag in the tracking station but also by the sheer detail you can see on it. Zooming in you had access to all the pictures you have taken in that locations. Also contracts would only pop up for locations you have high res images of. That would be so cool..

Thanks for the answers guys! That limited part selection is definitely a bummer but kind of makes sense if they use a more recent version of KSP.

Thanks a lot!

Hey guys, I'm planning to do a YouTube video project where I build a space station out of user submitted modules. I will incorporate it into an ongoing series and want potential new players to be able to contribute something as well without buying the game. Since it is not shown what exactly the demo is I just wanted to ask whether the demos .crafts are compatible with the latest KSP version or not? Thank you! Best Regards, Lukas aka. KerbalEssences

Thanks! Wow, now that you mention it.. It's probably because of the background music on the second one. I had none in the first. That maybe screwed up my mastering but I'll investigate it. But it might also just be my speakers which I don't really keep at a constant volume.