swjr-swis

So, what you really need is something that can go up on a Sky III (payload limit 16t) and be as cheap as possible. Could've said that to begin with. The starting budget is a rather heavy constraint. You folks need to design your modules much more with that in mind. How about an alternative design for the hab module that weighs in at just over 15t and costs 24.6k, and offers a 16 seat capacity (8 researchers or 4 tourists)? With just a slight modification, this could be transformed into a fully ready tourism module to start getting extra funding for the remainder of the station. Just over 18k and 11.5t for up to 4 tourists at a time: And still just over 5t payload room left on a Sky III launch. Place one of each of the above and you have enough habitation room for a steady stream of tourists (and funding), while still having plenty of room for researchers (who will require labs to be added). Something to consider.

500 m/s is very close to getting into a minimum altitude orbit around Mun. You could blast away all your lander fuel into suborbital, then get out and push...

You are quite specific in your drawing, so not sure why this requires help. But I have to say, the design leaves so many questions. If you really mean the RCS blocks to be placed at the 90 degree points of the top and bottom cans, one of the thrusters is going to end up on top of the cans' ladder rungs. Why not at the 45 degree points? Same for the two radiators - the way they are drawn, one of them will be on the ladder (assuming the small circle on the cans means one of the windows and not the hatch). You don't draw any solar panels on the hab module. Is that intentional? Do you really want just one set of 3 large batteries under one of the center can window? Or do you mean them to be placed in symmetry under both windows? You don't specify which RCS tanks to use for the center can. Looks like two Stratus-V Roundified placed together? Why not a single Cylindrified instead (more capacity and less parts)? And why 2x2 instead of 1x4? The antenna placement (a Communotron 16 I presume?) is a bit subobtimal for stowage in a cargo bay or fairing. Why not a 16-S instead (same range, same mass)? Why a decoupler on the tug, instead of a matching docking port? It doesn't save any mass, and it only limits the reusability of the tug. No antenna on the tug? How are you going to keep contact with it to control it once it decouples? You ask for RCS tanks (DLC round?) on the tug, but no RCS thrusters. What is the RCS on the tug for? You draw panels only on one side of the tug. Is that really what you want? You ask for 'small engines' (?) in 3-way symmetry on the tug, but don't specify which engines. Correcting for some of the issues mentioned above, is this what you have in mind: Craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8v4n0fvlygy8imv/Rover6428-HabModule.craft?dl=0

The flight recorder will show these transmissions from right before that screenshot: Jeb: "Mission Control, how long before the recovery crew gets to us to open the hatch?" MC: "We estimate about two hours, Jeb. Conditions are good and they're making good time." Jeb: "Yeah... we're gonna need them to hurry up. That last batch of snacks I had before reentry had passed its expiration date, and is now bound to make a violent reappearance in the next 15 mins..." Bill: "Arghhhh Jeb, you idiot!" Jeb: "I was hungry!"

I think the part library and the texture variant schemes could be very usefully combined to make cross-section sizes immediately clear: Decide on a primary/default texture set for each cross-section size to identify parts of that size. Create if needed (probably will need a couple extra texture sets to do this). Make sure all same-sized parts have a default variant in the chosen identifying texture. Here's the trick: make the part library thumbnails show in the identifying texture variant for each cross-section. ... Profit. I mean, Voilá: instant recognition of each size part set. The 'primary' texture variants don't need to be exclusive to a cross-section (some players will still want to create craft with a unified look). As long as each cross-section has its own primary/default, this should help players to quickly identify the parts.

We need to let (EA, Paradox, Dovetail Games, any other game company/publisher making most of their income off DLC) know about this, they all obviously missed the memo...

KSP 1.3.1, pure stock - just under 20 seconds. KSP 1.6.1, pure stock - just over 20 seconds. KSP 1.6.1, with DLC - just under 38 seconds.

This is a trick question, yes? But I'll bite. Here's what I can think of (aside from things already mentioned above): Part pressure limits Part G-force limits Variant themes (the textures) - offers a lot of promise of quickly giving entire ships a specific look... but would need more consistency, and variants would need to be rolled out over many more parts Part variants (the models) - lot of promise here too, and it's slowly being fulfilled with the revamps, but still a lot of untapped potential Part variants (what they don't do but everyone hope they would) - fuel switching, the big absentee Most part cross-sections miss at least several types of parts (and somehow never the same) - it's like we got a few samples of each size, just to get a taste of what's available, and then we never got the rest of the sets Tech tree - seriously, isn't is about time to sit down and take a good hard look at letting this make just a lil more logical sense? Ore/Mining/Resource system - it's too slow for mid-trip refueling (unless we're all ok with wasting tens of years on 'refueling' to continue a trip), but there's no point to it for long-term stay either. It needs an overhaul or a purpose, probably both. Practically featureless celestial bodies - they need some more reason to (re)visit. The barn - Yes, I said it. Bring it back. Optional if need be, but make it happen. Facility progression really needs a step or two more to make sense. The mythical missing planets Easter egg storyline - really wish they'd write up some sort of 'ending' to this; almost anything would do at this point Signs of life at the KSC: we see the (optional) ground crew and vehicles when in the SPH and VAB... when do we get to see them while in the space center view or flight scene? It is still very weird to see all the activity from inside that goes completely dead when outside. Signs of life on Kerbin in general - all those kerbal recruits must come from somewhere, there's some dead archeological sites... it's really missing at least a couple of spread out population centers. And more landing/launch sites.

Would love that too, but I've been told by people with actual modding skills that PAW buttons for which no module is preexisting require coding - iow it can't be done with a simple MM patch.

Hush. It was right after the holiday feeding frenzy, and Valentina is still touchy about the subject.

We can't trust kerbals with such things. You know where this will lead. Minmus-flavoured icecream-ball catapults and cannons, that's what. There will be war, kerbals will deplete Minmus, there'll be dead fat kerbals lying helpless everywhere groaning with indigestion, and it will all be your fault for suggesting such parts in the first place. Are you happy now? Are you?

A poll asking for a next op from someone named Triop... and it ends at only two options. I am disappoint. But I will help. It has to be fitting with the other two, of course. You have highest, and deepest... how about right in between? Challenge: find the stretch of (barely) dry land where you can drive the longest distance in a perfectly straight line while maintaining a constant altitude of 0m. Stock altimeter accuracy will be accepted. Become famous now. Say no to elevations and descents. Accept your inner ASL. Make that zero-point drive.

A long time ago in KSP 1.1.0, Valentina used a single Kickback SRB to get to LKO... Full album: https://imgur.com/a/7Q0pt (not sure if this works anymore, imgur seems to have killed the albums feature since yesterday.)

The last 'vessel' I planted over the Kraken was basically an Mk1-2 pod, a TVR-400L stack quad adapter, with 'legs' made of two Kickback SRBs stuck end to end and rotated out 45 degrees from the quad adapter. The Kraken fit under and inside this pyramid-like cage. It should give you an idea.

This poll misses at least one more option: add chronological sorting as one of the possible options. I do think sometimes chronological sorting is handy. Other times though, I need other sort options, like alphabetical, when I'm searching for saves of which I know the name but not when I saved them. So useful yes, but only as part of several sorting options that we can switch as needed.

The usual problem is having SAS on. SAS basically overrides any trim settings with its constant adjustments. To use trim, you have to fly with SAS off.

Well, that's one tactic. Me, I do barrel rolls and pirouettes...

This bug should be fixed in 1.6.0, according to the release notes:

Technically...

When: almost immediately after the first install and play-testing a bit, looking at the install files, and discovering that many files were text format and editable. The oldest archived game I still have that I marked as modded is a 0.7.3 install. Why: because the files were editable. Simple curiousity about what the changes would do in-game, or because it showed potential for improvement/correction of a few things I felt could be better.

My suggestion would be to keep that same pace then. It should be a welcome tool whenever it is ready.

Would love to finally see some use of this feature. This comes as a close second in the list you mention. But: How close do you feel you are to a starting release for this? Depending the answer, this one might be worth sticking a bit more time and effort in so the other things can benefit from them as well.

I do remember. This is why I first voted up your answer so it will be clearly marked as a valid response to the question, before I even hit Reply. And my reply was entirely in jest since I felt you had answered the question quite comprehensively and clearly... there wasn't anything to add. Point taken though; I additionally edited my reply to more explicitly state the useless frivolity of my interjection and point the reader where to seek applicable wisdom.

Anything that can be done with horses can be done with hamsters. It's all a matter of how many. (hint: it's a joke. Listen to Snark, he got it right.) Having flashbacks now to my nephew's Technics Lego contraption powered by a literal hamster wheel because the battery motor had been misplaced... (No hamsters were harmed in the operation of said contraption.) (The hamster may have been miffed with certain larger mammals though.) (Sorry hamster. I still laughed though. Sorry.)

Still on 1.3.1 too. Still have my 1.2.2 alongside, as 1.3.1 is a bit of a compromise between a much faster load time and some quality-of-life improvements but also a number of additional constantly-encountered bugs that 1.2.2 didn't have. I haven't yet had the chance to assess 1.6.0 well enough to determine if it's good enough to take the place of 1.3.1. On the plus side so far: it loads even a fraction faster than 1.3.1 as long as I leave out MH (which makes load time double that of 1.3.1). It also has the pretty revamped parts, and can load external seats directly, and a few other nice-to-haves. dV readouts, of course. I really really want the new control-point orientation feature to make a difference too. On the 'meh' side: MH - still too out of stock to fit in. Still disappointed that the mission system is completely separate from career saves. Still cannot really figure out any fun use for it as a standalone feature. Still miffed at structural parts that have no 'historical' relevance whatsoever being in MH instead of in stock. Definitely still miffed at alternate launch sites and mobile launch bases not being in stock. A few of the other shinies are nice. But add the doubled load time compared to stock and it's quickly uninstalled again after just a few loads. There's just not nearly enough I want from it to feel like dealing with the annoyances. So it ends up uninstalled and not helping the case of upgrading. On the minus side: working on a craft feels very impaired by the part selection menu being completely unintuitive with the reshuffling and all diameters of parts having indistinguishable thumbnails now. Those horrible, horrible jet sounds still make my ears bleed and quickly kill any joy of flying my atmospheric craft. Drag has become an even more unintuitive factor with variants not performing as one might expect from how they look or how 'flush' they fit. On the side of 'this already existed in 1.3.1 or before but annoys me more with every newer version that fails to fix it': SAS still tries to murder my kerbals with self-amplifying oscillations when switching from Hold to any other mode. Floating origin still makes control surfaces and gimbals 'flutter' every reset, which still causes unpredictable heading instabilities. Landing legs/wheels still cause unprompted oscillations and explosions. Unpredictable phantom forces still occur and affect craft that are not under powered acceleration. The Mk3 cargo ramp still randomly attacks parts of my payloads. Mirror symmetry and rotation are still braindead and thus incompatible with my symmetry-loving OCD, forcing me to break symmetry and forego the benefits of symmetry groups. "Cannot deploy while stowed"... still, to this day, still! <cry>. Autostruts on legs/wheels are still mandatory and unchangeable and defaulted to the worst option. Kerbal drag cubes are still completely out of proportion making craft with external command seats perform worse than could logically be expected. I really like some of the new shinies and quality-of-life improvements... but they're having to compete with a load of annoyances that seems to weigh heavier every version. 1.4.x was a complete skip, I hardly touched 1.5.x... not sure if 1.6.x will make the difference, but it's not jumped at me yet. Wait, what? 1.6.1?? Where?