Warzouz

On my space station, I also plug satellites radially. It works fine

@Snark, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't speaking of dropping probe in Jool atmosphere, I was speaking of creating dedicated missions to get biome data. If Jool has no biome a simple flyby is sufficient to get nearly all data. So you don't need any low Jool orbit probe The same proposition could be done for the SUN. Why not adding biomes to the sun ?

KAC is a quite complex mod, if you really list all features, with multiple options and data display. KAC wouldn't be needed if OP's idea would be implemented. We could lay nodes to manage events. Very easy, very user friendly. Sure it wouldn't have ALL KAC mod features, but only the most important : Node alarms It seems SQUAD don't like complex windows and displays. I agree with that, even I find their point of view maybe too extreme (really, no TWR or dV display ? Not general Heat gauge, no drag indicator ? no window alert ? If you want more that stock, you will always have KAC. But this single OP's idea would make KSP a real SPACE PROGRAM game and not a SPACE FLIGHT game.

Well, there is 2 (nearly identical) cases where you want to do precise landing in Kerbin Space planes and Shuttles, but they are designed to have much control autority and even power to fly to their target (usually KSC landstrip) Recoverable rockets (SSTO or not), because you want high recover value of this expensive vehicle to soft your launch price. You need to lande them near KSC. Those vehicles usually have little control authority (especially since airbrakes were nerfed) Other than that, I agree there is not much use of precise landing of a few cheap price parts return vehicle. As for Kerbin exploration, the best is to do it by plane, if you like that stuff.

Hmmm, I always go for big stuff : why launching ONE probe when you can launch 2 with a 2 time bigger rocket ? For my Laythe/Tylo explore mission I sent 4 * 1.25m landing probes on a single mission. 4 probes on a Rockamax size rocket with one fairing which detached before entering Jool SOI (so all probes would arrive at different time. For my Eve probe lander mission, I even sent a "probe carrier" with 8 rockamax sized probes on it. That was big, but quite light as the probes weren't really powered except for deorbiting around Eve. When I launch a single 1.25 probe, I usually use a 1.25 fairing and 1.25 rocket. The head of the rocket is a bit bigger, like many IRL rockets.

Yes you can, but it'll be very wobbly. As other said, add struts in the middle. You can also reorganize your space station to have big parts at the bottom and lighter parts at the top. It's not rocket-wise but will reduce wobble. You can also us KJR mod (Kerbal Joints Reinforcement). In any case I suggest you put your survey scanner on a separate satellite (you can attach it at the top). I agree that your space station is awkard. You have too much batteries, and you should favor the hitchhiker pod rather than the various lander cans. And why do you have a ore tank when you don't have any ISRU onboard ? RCS i useless, add reactions 2 reactions wheels instead. Why don't you have any fuel tank ? It's nice to be able to refuel when docking on a space station. I suggest you add a large docking ring at the bottom so you can expand the station. Finally, I recommend you DON'T put docking rings new solar panels, you risk to destroy them it you mess a docking. Here is my generic space station : Salamander Exploration Space Stations

Another nice idea. That would give the need to drop some low orbit probes around Jool instead of a one time flyby

That's a VERY good advice. We rarely forget to place ladders, but we can misplace them so you can fail to reach the pod. Always test the lander only on the pad. Get out and get in.

I remembered testing my Laythe lander on... Kerbin back in beta 0.9. As for Tylo (SSTO low TWR) lander, I didn't tested it. but I brought a secondary (staged high TWR) lander which I was sure I would land on Tylo. In 1.0.x, I use Hyperedit on a sandbox save to put lander is low orbit, then land. I used a lot in1.0.4 to design my Eve lander. I successfully did it after 25 tests... But in most cases, as I always use the same lander which is quite a simple design, I'm used to it and feel no need to test it.

Thank you for the transcript. I would very much have a graphical improvement in 1.2 AND a better sound design (more and better sounds, and more contextual musics)

Thx. Where can I find a basic template source for a plugins project ?

Hi, I've a very newbee question I want to look at plugins devs, I used a lot VB.Net few years ago. I just went through a C# tutorial to freshen up my syntax. I'm installing VS 2015 (cummunity version). My question is : As I want to create some "window" oriented plugin and not "part" oriented plugins, what version of Unity do I need to install ? Thx

OK, I wondering going into mod development. Maybe be that's the incentive !

True, because localization support without accented letters is NO/useless localization support.

Hi, Congratulation for this nice mod ! I was thingking about such a feature, but I was wondering if it would be possible to ADD not contracts but "objectives" to a mission. objective wouold be only texts without logic behind. The, the fabulous feature would be to link actual ships to missions. Those ships would be trying to fulfill all the contracts. Then finally, in the tracking station, you could locate ships by mission. Would those features (or part of them) be possible ?

Yes that's true. It's very hard for a new player to handle transfer window (I've been trough less than a year ago). The MJ display is much too complexe. That should be set by some display in the trascking station. Transfer window could be displayed like a planning and some kind of quality. dV is not really needed (you can get it by simulating it with a probe in orbit), only dates of departure from LKO.

I agree with you that MJ is a VERY nice and useful mod. I've already told it twice on the MJ topic. It's a great piece of software, probably much more complexe than most of other mods. But even if I use MJ often (strangely I don't use the same features in 1.0.x, I used in beta 0.9) it changes the gameplay quite a lot. You can do the same with or without MJ, but skills and gameplay aren't the same. The only MJ part I would really see in stock KSP is the node editor, even if Precise Node mod is more user friendly. The stock maneuver node is very hard to handle. Also, there are few drag data that KER lacks, (I think) Integrating mods into the game should improve or expand the gameplay, not changing it. Adding ores in 1.0 expanded the gameplay Adding sat network in 1.1 will expand the gameplay Adding KAC like fieature would improve gameplay

I was wondering about tweaking around sound by using Module Manager, but it seems that whanging sound in sock require to change particles too (definitions seems to be locked). Dev of this mod has stopped ?

and Kerbal Alarm Clock (or any other way to display/manage ships event while controling another ship)

Stock sounds are not fantastic / KW Rocketry has better ones For quite a long time, I'm not satisfied with the rocket engines sounds. KW Rocketry has much better sounds than stock. You can check here the sound of the engines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONP9jS14toE (my favorite KSP video) KW rocketry is a nice mod, but if you want to play with stock parts you don't have the sound... Using KW sounds to Stock parts So, why not using KW rocketry sounds ? Module Manager has tools to do it. When l look at the part file, there is 2 type of sound definition. 1- Legacy's sound definition It's defined by sound_vent_medium, sound_rocket_hard, sound_vent_soft, and sound_explosion_low and also manage plumes and smoke with fx_exhaustFlame_blue, fx_exhaustLight_blue, fx_smokeTrail_light, fx_exhaustSparks_flameout 2- New sound definition It's defined in the EFFECT node with items like running_closed, engage, flameout, shockDiamond, then subnodes handleing AUDIO, PREFAB_PARTICLE and MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE What to do ? To use custom sounds, we need to convert the part files to the new curstom definition without wrecking everything. There are some examples of "New sound definitions" in stock game (Cluster engine, Rapier, MiniJet, SSME...) and there are plenty in KWRocketry. My issue is to know how to convert existing old definition to new definition, other than copying the same engine FX. Are there any rules of thumb to convert old definition to new one without altering the visual effect too much ? Has this subject already been addressed in the past ? Thx for your help

This is mostly unreadable. Please use text formating

I've not much experience in SSTO space plane (I've only build one used for passenger and Kerbal recovery). My design is more about small wings and bigger engine. It's a 36T plane with 2 rapiers and 1 ramjet. It has quite a punch from 0 to 10km and can cross sound barrier while climbing (even I use the prograde SAS to reduce drag). It goes to space with around 500m/s left (which allow comfortable docking or double kerbal rescue) Atmoshperic return is quite delicate because I don't have much drag to slow down and I must reignite the engine (only the ramjet, not the 2 rapiers) to land. I usually recover control on the plane quite low in atmoshpere (before, it falls like a rock, maybe the advanced canards are not enough). Anyway, It flies carries it's 10 passengers to LKO without taking forever to reach. PS : I'm more of a SSTO rocket fan

Yes, Tylo and Laythe SOI are hard to miss (even Vall is). It's a very nice place to explore though. I hope there will be anohter gaz giant with a subsystem in KSP 1.2/1.3

First class liners may have Canard IN plane I don't use canard on plane I prefer them on a plate ! This discussion about Canard made mu hungry (off topic but irresistible !)

I use a lot of space stations. I even created a generic space station (Salamander Exploration: simple and efficient space station to everywhere). Space stations are very efficient to explore target planetary bodies. You can use a very small science vehicle which will refuel to redo multiple launches. The you return to Kerbin with a dedicated vehicle leaving the space station and landing véhicle in place (you can return only with a small ship) About stations around Kerbin, I still don't understand the purpose. I've a station there, quite a large one, but I never use it, except to refuel SSTO space plane which would like to go to high orbit (which simpler craft could do easier) Kerbin space stations could be nice if contracts, XP and vehicle despawn could be validated while docking on a Kerbon space station.