jpkerman

Thanks, I will look into that also. There are certainly many fine and fair folk among this forum, and only a few who are not.

Have not come across that, so many mods, so little time. Thanks I'll look it up.

"So imagine that, you are breathing out something that could be converted to fuel to power a space craft. " I thought we were all breathing out greenhouse gases and threatening the planet. I much prefer your version. I can understand the appeal of realism in a simulation. I like the Tac-Life Support Mod. I just wanted (aside from the debate on the storage space requirements of dehydrated food) to mention that old time adage about 'keep it simple' and sometimes, 'less is more'. I was hoping you might consider a simplified part. But it is late where I exist and I must work in the morning, so I bid you Adieu. I shall sleep tonight and dream about exhaling rocket fuel.

I like what it does, I just do not like the impact on the resource panel. That is why I posted here. I delete the individual component tanks and just use the 3-in-1 tanks.

Good points, but KSP did start with just a single catch-all 'Liquid Fuel' when I got into the game. I still wonder what it matters to the over all game if I have a bit of oxidizer left when the Liquid fuel runs out. To Jeb "Engines no go whoosh" is all that matters. I remember the point being made many versions ago that 'this is not orbiter' in many of the forum responses for a more complex simulation of physics and aerodynamics. In the example you cite, A single container of life support for 1 kerbal in a spaceplane tweaked for 3 days would represent your 'more O2-little bit of water-and a snack' balance without adding 3 separate resource bars to the display. If mass matters, make a tweakable for 'Basic, Standard' Extended' and change the mass for your craft concerns but only have 1 bar in the Resource panel instead of 6.

Why do these resource mods complicate the issue with multiple components? They spend so much programming (and add multiple parts) to model consumption/recycle rates and spawn so many debates. Why not satisfy the resource need and simplify the issue with a 'all-in-one' Life Support container that containers whatever it is that a Kerbal needs to survive. One part, one resource, to represent all the LS balance the crew needs to consume/resupply or recycle. If you are running out of O2 is it a game concern that you still have room for 3 days of garbage? The fact you need a return or a resupply is the game issue. KSP has enough parts and debates about 'how much does 3 days of water in zero gravity really weight?'.

With .24 and the gain of science with just completing contracts the amount of science to unlock the advancements in the tech tree needs to be increased. I can get enough science just by completing contracts and ignoring the science experiments. I notice that science is being gained with just the completion of science gathering contracts, separate from any experiment you perform. Those contracts should award prestige and funds but the science you gain should be from the experiment you perform. The early testing contracts seem to be available after the parts are being used to launch the first ship. I suggest the first contracts be testing the starting parts before you get the 'Launch a ship" contract.

With .24 and the gain of science with just completing contracts the amount of science to unlock the advancements in the tech tree needs to be increased. I can get enough science just by completing contracts and ignoring the science experiments. I notice that science is being gained with just the completion of science gathering contracts, separate from any experiment you perform. Those contracts should award prestige and funds but the science you gain should be from the experiment you perform. The early testing contracts seem to be available after the parts are being used to launch the first ship. I suggest the first contracts be testing the starting parts before you get the 'Launch a ship" contract.

"I can think of is how to mod this so that it measures from the closest launch site or just defaults to a flat rate. Suppose I should get my dev environment up and running again... " If multiple 100% sites can be supported this would open the possibility for multiple designated landing/recovery areas other than the KSC such as the small Island Airstrip and perhaps an ocean splashdown zone with ships standing by? Your fund recovery would be calculated to the closest recovery area. This could also incorporate Prime recovery areas (higher fund recovery percentage) and Emergency/secondary recovery areas (less percentage) much as that other space program on that human world.

"...may consider the evacuation feature to be a "cheat"..." While it is a nice mod that fills a needed niche simply and efficiently, it cheats in more areas than just CLS. For its size it carries too much life support and fuel, it needs a heat shield with its current surface configuration of hatches, nozzles and stuff. I am going to 'go with the flow' on the viability of an structure/material that could withstand not only the inertial physics of spaceflight, reentry and changes from a vacuum to heavier atmospheric pressures while being 'inflatable' since this is supposed to be another planet/race and technology environment and is a concept found in other mods. It is a nice concept and mod. It could also function as a Soyuz style orbital pod on a space craft that is not deployed till in orbit. But, IMHO, it has a bit too much resources for size and is not externally reentry friendly.

I just delete everything but the life support tanks. It just leaves me with 3 parts, O2/h2o/co2/food/waste container all in one. If I ever put up a space station I might add back the recyclers but will probably just add that module to the main station crew tank.

Maybe something like: "HAL: I've just picked up a fault in the AE35 unit. It's going to go 100% failure in 72 hours. "

Will we have to re-register on the forum?

Bobcat has put in a lot of work in the past just to see it broken by a new KSP version. Maybe he is waiting for .24 or higher before releasing again.

It needs an apostrophe to replace the missing letter, so pedantically speaking 'Tis is correct.

Instead of 'derelict ships' which begs the question 'if you didn't put them there, who did?', they could be obsolete or malfunctioning satellites that need to be recovered and returned to Kerbin.

Looks great, while there are several shuttle clone mods this could make a B9 Mk2 based shuttle design to compete with. My only reservation is this design seems (to me) to beg for a 'clam style' hatch opening for EVA. A two door (top and bottom) with steps on the bottom part so on the ground the Kerbals could 'walk up the steps' into the crew bay. I am not suggesting you halt or slow your work to implement it (since it would entail quite a bit of work) but for a later variant (Mk 2b?) or modified part. No new missions till this part gets added!

I like the current 'many ribbons' approach but to address the 'less ribbons' argument: Many ribbon multiple award devices consist of a roman numeral being added. Each planet could have it's own ribbon and each mission that enters it's SOi (or achieves an orbit) would add a number which increases. A docking, landing, EVA ribbon would also be involved with a numeral device to show how many of these activities were achieved. These devices would most likely graphically be an applied alpha graphic that overlays the ribbon however and may involve redesign of the mod.

From an earlier post on page twenty... (lowest to highest) Kerbalnaut Junior Grade Kerbalnaut Kerbalnaut Senior Grade Kerbalnaut Command Grade Kerbalnaut Captain or... Kerbalnaut Kerbalnaut Assistant Kerbalnaut Supervisor Kerbalnaut Leader Kerbalnaut Superintendent or maybe... Kerbalnaut Kerbalnaut 3rd Class Kerbalnaut 2nd Class Kerbalnaut 1st Class Kerbalnaut Chief Also... posted by Nereid "The ordering isn't quite right (the most important should be centered), but this is only a minor annoyance I think." Most 'order of precedence' for ribbons on some far away world called Earth places the 'highest' or most senior ribbon at the first or beginning location. In a centered location one would beleive the less senior would be on the outside edges and that begs the question which goes left and which right? There was an older Earth system where 'mission' type ribbons went on the top rows and individual 'I did that' ribbons were on the bottom rows.

Now that the custom ribbon bug seems solved, I have been wondering if a small science value should also be given when ribbons are awarded. Let me defend this thinking. 1. The ribbons signify achievements or 'doing things'. 2. In a science or exploration program 'doing things', even if you only learn what you already found out previously actually has some merit to confirm what you thought you had learned. 3. The current science system in KSP 'dead ends' science discovery after a point and negates the small but actual discovery repeated missions would add. In example, long term manning of a space station or launching missions to carry spaceship parts to be assembled in orbit. A science value connected to the repeated missions award or time in space award would make such endeavors actually valuable in the game. Small amounts, perhaps 1-3 science points. Fast orbit ribbons, long mission time ribbons, missions5,10,50 and splashdown or landing on Kerbin ribbons (making it back alive, even if nothing else is gained is worth something) should be considered. custom ribbons should not since a player could 'spam' science points by handing out ribbons too easily.

It sounds like they are pronouncing it as a word, not individual letters.

I second ethan829, SLA Panels.

Please quote source.

If this helps your planning... "as well as parachutes sometimes breaking up etc..." Three types of parachute malfunctions. Total, major, minor partial malfunctions. Each is either high-speed or low-speed. Total is self explanatory, chute compartment does not open or drouge does not deploy or packing tray does not even open. Major is usually the classic twisted up chute (cigarette roll in english) or deployment lines are tangled. 'Blown panels" (in english) is the most common minor chute malfunction, usually at higher speeds than the material can withstand. Individual panel seams in the chute rip loose. This stops once enough panels are gone to allow the drag pressure to escape and leaves you with a less speed reducing chute. In the Apollo 13 book the chute compartment had a warmer to keep any moisture in the air when they were packed from freezing. It was turned off when the CSM lost power and there was fear the chutes were 'blocks of ice'. During descent of the Apollo 15 one of their three parachutes failed, landing successfully with only two. It was found that three of the six shroud lines on the failed parachute were damaged when the RCS fuel was dumped before landing. Orion is planned to have five parachutes. The capsule needs only two main parachutes and one drogue. The extra two provide a backup in case one of the primary parachutes fails. The Apollo landing system deployed a landing signal antenna and flashing beacon when the main chutes deployed. You could consider adding something like that to the parts sometime

I have. I think it's part of the 'reloading on save' bugs that keep resetting the cumulative mission clock.