jpkerman

Just to get the ball rolling... 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 ???

Just to be picky, Armstrong's rank on leaving active service was Ensign but he served in the Naval Reserve for eight years and was a Lieutenant Junior Grade (LTJG) when he resigned his commission. He was actually a civilian as an astronaut.

Generally NASA has a two year training program. If you assume that when a Kerbalnaut is chosen that they have passed the qualification tests but must be trained before being placed on flight status, then "In Training" could be a status for a Kerbalnaut without any awards. Since a Kerbalnaut without any awards is because they have not flown any missions. (Even a mission that aborts on launch should give a EVA ribbon when the Kerbal gets out of the capsule on landing, if they are not killed...) then "Unflown Kerbalnauts" could be an option. Unflown is a term commonly used by the various space organizations.

I offer that the description for the ribbons for EVA on Kerbin be changed. The current 'Kerbin Surface EVA" and "awarded for taking footsteps on Kerbin" seems a little incorrect. Surely they are not the fist to walk on their own planet. I suggest ' Kerbin Surface Science Exploration' and 'awarded for Scientific Exploration of Kerbin" or something to that effect. This can also include the award for first time although that implies that no Kerbal had ever done that before now but since we are dealing with Kerbals I could understand where they have been too busy with other stuff or have just got around to doing this.

Several mods have escape towers (L.E.S.) included but as much as i feel they are needed in a loosely believable way, are they actually needed? With the function to revert and return to a launch or VAB/SPH save, I do not need them but I think it was not envisioned that way. Squad's description of the revert function made it sound as if it was to test your designs before making a true launch. But as long as you stop the mission before smashing into something, you seem to be able to revert. I feel that in career mode there should be two 'go to launch' buttons. One is 'simulated test launch' and you end at 70 KM and the other is the 'Go to launch' and no reverting is allowed after that ignition.

Let us recall that a major mission of the Gemini program was testing rendezvous and docking so a better forward IVA was not needed by the Mercury capsule and the 1 Kerbal pod followed that design. A better forward IVA is needed to make an efficient piloted docking craft but a periscope or forward camera display in the IVA would also suffice. The 1960's space programs were very analog based and KSP career mode seems to be well into the digital age even at the starting levels.

Love the pod and the cramped interior. I do think that each Kerbalnaut should have a door, can not imagine getting over the central console in such a tight space.

LEM sat directly beneath the Command/Service Module (CSM) with legs folded when launched. They unfolded them to land.

When you write "the engine doesn't gimbal at all" I assume you mean the thrust vectoring effects are present in the flight mechanics but the engine doesn't visually gimbal in the game. You only need to produce the effects you are simulating, not the actual RL manifestation. If you still want a visual effect that does not look "weird" just have it gimbal a little visually but still give the effects of the full thrust vector to the flight mechanics.

The first tech advance should have a higher science requirement. At least 5-6 flights should be needed to let novice players practice more and experienced players should have to use the basic parts longer. Once the more advanced parts are available most of the starting parts will be forgotten. Already the controlled play testing of the tech tree is falling apart as every mod maker and their fans are adding non stock parts and reordering the tech tree.

It seems that testing the new tech tree is being hijacked by all the mod makers adding their parts to the tech tree and reorganizing the nodes and such. it seems that Squad cannot release their vision for KSP without it being turned into Star Trek/Dr. Who/NASA/ Red Dwarf/Space X and the Soviet Space program by all the modders. Is anybody but Squad testing the released version of the game? I am afraid the game is going to get side tracked more than helped by the mod sub culture. -Yes, I have my favorite mods and parts, I'm not against the fine features they have inspired or 'blazed the trail' on, but with this last release a mod reordering the tech tree was out before any real feedback was being posted.

The first tech advance should have a higher science requirement. At least 5-6 flights should be needed to let novice players practice more and experienced players should have to use the basic parts longer. Once the more advanced parts are available most of the starting parts will be forgotten. Already the controlled play testing of the tech tree is falling apart as every mod maker and their fans are adding non stock parts and reordering the tech tree.

How fast can you advance techs? I think the current tech tree lets advancements too easy. I feel that at least 5-6 launches with the starting parts should be needed since (for novice players) it is a learning experience and for veteran players it makes them use the basic parts for a while since they become so quickly forgotten once more advanced parts are available.

+400 It would be a function advancement instead of an new part being added. If that works then you could have other parts that could add functions rather than becoming out-dated.

With the tech tree added i think Mechjeb needs to be divided into three types, MJ Mark1, Mark2, Mark3 and correspond to a basic, intermediate and advanced versions at proper places in the tree. Mark1 would have ascent, landing and Smart ASAS, mark2 would add rendezvous and docking and mark3 would add trans planetary transfer operations.

Ok, made reentry with a mk1-2 with two Kerbals aboard. deployed chutes at 5000km at a speed around 190m/s at 500m the mains deployed. the chute/docking ring ripped off and reappeared in orbit at escape velocity from the sun. Had to terminate mission. the mods I run are: Mechjeb mod, chatter mod, crew manifest mod. Possible contributing factors (beyond something only on my computer) that makes me wonder are: 1. The ship had been docked at a space station. When I docked I selected the docking port as 'control from here' and as I understand it, when I decouple from the station it should revert to the capsule in control but the capsule disappears and the game centers on the ring as 'the ship' in the tracking station after the failure. Am I still in control from the ring and is that causing the failure? 2. I only had two kerbals in the capsule. I also have a lot of oscillation when I reenter. Does the docking/parachute ring have an off center effect to make it hang at a tilt beneath the chutes or is this something only on my flights and could point to a glitch in my install?

Are you going up or down and if it's popping off upon deployment what altitude are you deploying at? -Descending, drogues deployed, it was on the night side and took me by surprise the first time so I was not tracking speed but I had passed 500 meters and it caught my attention that the mains had not deployed (they were tiny size under the drogues) when 'pop' off came the docking ring. I had deployed about 5000 meters with speed under 250 m/s (my normal max speed to deploy chutes) Were you using physical time warp? That causes a lot of parachute failure. -No time warp. I'm going to set up some unmanned Mk1-2 capsules and try to replicate the result.

Twice I have had the Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port - Parachute version, detach from the capsule a few hundred meters above the ground. Anybody else?

If you want players to be able to actually use this to analyze their flights and why they may be unstable or failing to achieve their goals, RCS usage, engine gimbal angles, throttle setting (not just thrust amounts) and reaction wheels usage would be nice to have. If this was a flight recorder on real life that is the input info that engineers and crash investigators would want to know. What was the crew/flight computers having to do to fly the ship.

Since the Tech Tree has not been implemented yet, the 'How' may have to wait.

I did a test with 1 capsule, 1 parachute, 1 antenna, 1 SRB and got up to 13KM with a flight path that arched the ship out over the ocean. The entire assembly successfully splashed down at 7.6 speed. If that qualifies for a first suborbital launch to advance the tech to the next level then the game could begin quite simply. If they want a 70KM goal then a larger assembly would be needed (that is too heavy for the basic chute) and the lack of a decoupler in the teaser screen shot could pose an interesting problem. That is if the starting parts have not been reworked. If a 'purchase' feature is included then at least the part cost must be addressed beyond the placeholder '999' cost of most stock parts.

I wonder if a random %number generation check could be incorporated at low odds (say .01) that could result in a malfunction to ignite despite ignition methods. A first 'system breakdown' for the game.

Like the concept of the capsule and crew quarters but don't like the B/W swirl textures. Could be very nice as space station parts. Other parts nicely done (not visually in 'style' with stock parts and most mods) but I don't use infinite power parts. You seem to have the understanding of IVA modelling but the textures are not as refined as other mods. A very good addition to the game and I would look forward to more of your work. Don't like the spiky antenna on top of the capsule. An attachment point on top for a docking hatch would open more possibilities of that part.

Mocha2007 wrote "Am I seriously the only one getting these bugs?!" MJ is working fairly Ok for me. No VAB breaks and stuff and I run it from my downloads folder. It seems to me that many of the MJ problems posted have a bit to do with certain other mods in addition to MJ's weak areas. I really only use the Ascend, Orbital information, rendezvous, docking and landing functions. My most common problem is getting within 100 meters to select a docking port but that is probably because I do not properly set my orbits but just launch when I want to. The twitchy/stability issues seem to come when MJ and the new reaction wheel/input 'set' period are interacting. MJ is either 'on or off' while the reaction wheel SAS has a period after keyboard input (which is how the .21 setup will interpret MJ commands) to determine what headings you want it to hold. Pre .21 when MJ turned 'off' the capsule SAS was immediately applied. Now there seems to be a period of reduced control. Rendezvous to other planets always need a periapsis correction and autoland needs to be watched in case manual takeover is needed. (but happened to the first moon landing IRL) While the other attempt to fix MJ is notable and needed, it is having it's own problems and the lead for that attempt has stated they "...can do some minor patch and use patch from others.", so I do not know if high level re-coding will be possible. My greatest fear is since Squad has alluded that an autopilot will not be in the final release and with MJ being the only comprehensive assisted control mod, that further game improvement will not be concerned at all in not breaking MJ and it will become deprecated. It may become needed that rather than patched a 'light' version of MJ basic functions needs to be coded that works in .21 and a 2nd generation MJ be created. For me, the last build of KSP that works (even if buggy) with MJ will be where I stop with KSP.

Love the Vostok. Bill is currently in orbit but he is in the dark. Isn't there a light in the capsule?