MR L A

I use what I call "Stock+" which means I use a few mods that don't really alter the game in a significant way or just improve the exiting components of the stock game i.e. I have KER, Chatterer, RealPlume (when it works) and KAC installed I would use Scatterer but my PC is too low-spec to run it at an adequate frame rate

I like my ships to be organised. Currently, I have family names for craft in alphabetical order. "Balthasar - LS1" to "Balthasar - LS3", being the smallest family with size increasing with the Launch System number i.e. LS1 is the smallest, LS3 is the biggest. This family is followed by "Centurion" LS1:LS3, then the Delta family which is a series of shuttles. I then have "Module" for miscellaneous pre-assembled builds such as "Module - CM Daytona", a fleshed out 3 man Command Pod ready to be attached to a rocket and launched. Occasionally I have a series of missions specific pre-builds, for example, a series of rockets that are to be launched in sequence for orbital construction. These rockets, however, will belong to the Centurion or Balthasar families etc, and not a unique family of their own. What I would like to see in the game, when opening craft files in the VAB, is instead of a long list craft files grouped only by their name, is the ability to create sub-folders for specific families or project. I imagine the pathway looking something like "...ships/vab/Centurion Family" or "...vab/Project Dres". It would just be really nice to have my 3 Balthasar/Centurion/Delta craft in a single, expandable/dropdown family folder instead of a single, long and messy list

You'll be back.

Wow... I never actually noticed how bad KSP shadows were until you pointed them all out and fixed them! Incredible work and really insightful (I have extremely limited knowledge of game development - had a go at making mods for Skyrim, I could create worlds, new items, spells etc, but lighting/shadows/cameras were never something I really got my head around at all).

but I'll forget to look at the screenshot! I've been meaning to do this for... well since we had the option to play x64. I just keep forgetting haha

I know what you're talking about dw. I've had some really weird sliding glitches and related phenomena... It's highly annoying when a perfectly stable lander decides to fall over. On a flat. When I haven't touched it. At all. I had a weird slide down a slope before too though. I could spin the kerbal round on his/her axis but could not walk in any direction and nor would it allow me to RCS off the surface... one time the issue seemed to happen on a proximity to the lander craft basis. I went to tracking station and back... seemed to fix the issue.

Can you remind me to do this in like a months time please? ahaha

*Pantomime crowd boos*

Do you specifically mean cockpit or just any crew capacity? Personally, if its just cockpits then I agree with you. Nearly all of my SSTO's are drone controlled but have one of the crew cabins on board.

How on earth is this "false goodwill"? They decided a LONG time before the announcement of the DLC who would be getting DLC and who wouldn't and when the cut-off period was.

Just clip it downwards... it fits beautifully then

Wut?

I've had Elon, which was cool. But also Lana.. LANA.. LANAAAAAAAAAAA

Splitting it up is a VERY good idea. I was just talking about adding the whole thing in one dollop.. that's what would be overwhelming imo

It can be ignored and should. I'm telling you to ignore what the dev notes said and look at it logically. One part has a progression that allows it to transfer fuel bidirectionally. Another part becomes available that forces one way fuel transfer. They aren't really related to each other in any meaningful way beyond that.

I get this sometimes too, often with my shuttles. Either the front or rear RCS will just completely stop for no apparent reason.. its like the game somehow loses the connection between the port and the fuel.

Respectfully disagree. It's just one part that gets a part upgrade with the fuel node. Before the upgrade it can only attach and then jettison things. After the upgrade, fuel can be transferred through it too. That seems like a pretty logical and linear progression to me. I'd ignore any reasoning tied to the fuel line, it only confuses things unnecessarily and both parts/functions remain separate and relevant anyway. For example, once the fuel node has been unlocked, the decoupler allows fuel to be shared (or not) between tanks and subsequently jettisoned when empty. The fuel line allows the flow of fuel in one direction rather than both. perhaps it would be useful to think of the decoupler as a bi-directional fuel line?

I think a lot of us forget how much of a new experience was when we first played KSP. Understanding how prograde, retrograde, radial and ascending/descending nodes work, how to do transfers, how to dock, flight stability, heck even how to get into orbit is a HUGE learning curve for a completely new player. Adding mods like MechJeb, InfernalRobotics and even KER would be an extremely confusing and un-enjoyable experience for new players. As experienced players, we forget that we have pretty much mastered the stock abilities of KSP and seek to add more complexity as we progress. Having said that, I will reiterate how essential KAC is - though I do think even this may appear a little confusing to a brand new player. I think SQUAD should have a play of Stellaris with the tutorial guide thing switched on. Possibly the best way to introduce a player to any game I've ever seen

Download mods called Scatterer, EVE and RealPlume They're available on SpaceDock or Curse

Ha, some good ones on here guys lets keep 'em coming!

I second, third and fourth the Mk2 nosecone there's a mod with a pretty sexy one in but I didn't like the rest of the parts, with the exception of the Linear Aerospike, which was just plain sexy! Though iirc the textures weren't quite perfect Other than that, the only parts I actually want to see are the Porkjet overhaul things that didn't quite make it to the game... I've been using the mod, and it is absolutely gorgeous (SQUAD, if you read this, I will pay a large amount for it to be included in a future DLC, that's how much I loved his work on RPO). Shame the 2.5 meter stuff is so ugly, especially that decoupler...

(Hopefully this is the right section) Hi everyone! Last night I was scrolling through Instagram (yes, I'm one of those) and I found an interesting post. It was captioned "The last two games you played have merged into one... How bad did it turn out?" The OP had GTA V and Mario Kart As this is the KSP forums, lets keep it to Kerbal Space Program and X. So, what game did you last play other than KSP? Do they mix well? Mine was the original Star Wars Battlefront II... So, I guess Kerbal Klones using blasters?

No. Of course scientists didn't go to the moon to build the F1, but they did, however, do a hell of a lot of other science things before the built the F1. You just have your example backwards. A proper refutation of your nonsensical argument is that scientists DID go sub-orbital (the German V-2), then orbital (Sputnik, Juno, Atlas) before they built moon capable rockets (Saturn). The reason for your confusion is the apparent lack of an even bigger and better engine/rocket as a result of going to the moon.

weird.. I did this literally an hour ago haha fortunately my insertion stage sill had 700 dV left and my lander had over 1000... so as soon as I realised what had happened, I burned a combination of retrograde and radial out (my orbit was taking be closer to the sun) - allowing Kerbin to catch-up with my craft. It was not an efficient way to manoeuvre, but I wanted Jeb back asap, managing so in approx 20 days (more efficient manoeuvre's would have be waiting the best part of a year). Yes this was in career, also, I play with reverts turned off, so I HAD to get Jeb back!

I imagine the reason behind this is similar to why KER can't detect acceleration coming from RCS thrusters or acceleration due to gravity - only works with currently attached engines