swjr-swis

Indeed a 1.6-worthy improvement. A clickable altimeter with different modes would be awesome, and would require no new UI real estate. Sounds like lots of return for little investment. Pretty please add a depth-under-the-keel mode too? Many happy feels would ensue.

Well, I guess you're old enough to know now, so here goes. When we are in the mood for new kerbals, we travel to the Mission Control building, where we can usually find a rescue contract or two. Select a willing one we fancy, and then we gently click the offered button. If we click the button just right, the contract gets accepted and a kerbal spawns somewhere in orbit! All we have to do is build a stork rocket to fetch it for us and bring it to the space center.

The link I gave you shows 1075 actual craft specs made by people that looked at the Poodle and thought: This is perfect. They not only used the Poodle, they felt like the result was worth showing off and sharing. I figured that by looking through them you could determine what you may be missing. If none of those craft fulfill any of the use cases you can dream of, then in your context you are not missing anything, which would also be an answer. I do notice you put the lower bound on acceptable solutions on a Terrier, and then add an upper bound which is also a Terrier. If those are the bounds, then we can wrap up this exchange: you're not missing anything - the Poodle is indeed not very good at being a Terrier. Because, well, it is not a Terrier.

Precoolers are specifically configured to soak up more heat, conduct it slower, and irradiate it more efficiently than most other parts. They're not as efficient as radiators at it, but they don't use EC to have this effect and add very little drag. They do not need air to do this, their thermal effect works in vacuum too. Precooler downsides: It 'only' carries 40 units of LF compared to 150 for the nacelle or DSI, but I never really understood why (or where?) this part carries any fuel anyway, so those 40 units feels like a bonus already. It only really affects directly attached parts, where radiators draw heat from further away (static attached+1, deployable the whole craft). Squad toned down the heat buildup of the Nervs quite a bit at one point, to where they hardly ever need special treatment anymore. I find precoolers to be effective enough now even for prolonged burns. It sure beats the heavy drag and EC penalty of radiators, plus they are one of the best air intakes for spaceplanes.

I've had it happen with a tiny 0.625m craft with just a single EAS and kerbal. I remember ending up having to quicksave with the kerbal floating in EVA just above the craft, because any quicksave with the kerbal in the seat would reload with the gear all bent.

I've experienced this a few times, to the point of having to give up on saves or craft files because they would only ever load with the gear completely crooked. The angles at which the gear get bent seemed completely random to me. I suspect it has something to do with kerbals in an external command seat.. because that is the only common factor I noticed between the times it happened. If I'm not mistaken, you have a lot of kerbals in EAS there too.

https://kerbalx.com/parts/64 Over 1000 Poodle use cases all neatly on one site to peruse, with downloadable craft files. A few examples: Landers, of course: https://kerbalx.com/sixstrings/Skyzabov-Lander-+-Launcher-v2 https://kerbalx.com/Raptor9/IV-1B-Meerkat-Titan-3P Geostationary payload insertion: https://kerbalx.com/Rothryn/GeoSat2 Munar transfer stage: https://kerbalx.com/Nessa/Apollo-11 Big interplanetary station type constructs: https://kerbalx.com/Raptor9/EV-5-Drifter-Block-1 Vulcan science vessels: https://kerbalx.com/Lockatello/Vulcan-DKyr-class

I copied it into a file, will test in a moment. For future reference: pasting long texts like this messes up the forum for some people, I think in particular those reading on their 'smart'phones, so it's frowned upon. No doubt a moderator will soon drop by and edit your post. It's better to post craft files on a craft or file sharing service and just share the link to the file (KerbalX is a good place, but you can use Dropbox, or OneDrive or any similar thing). Ok, that was a quick test. I can't load the file, because it has modded parts. Which supports my suspicion that mods are playing a part in this bug.

Same here, I don't see this happening in my game. You have cropped the picture, so it's missing information that may help. For one, the staging sequence is not visible, which might give some clue to the cause: the difference of 10 in the default fuel prio is usually an indication that parts have been placed in separate stages. The other valuable information missing is whether you have a stock game or if there may be mods interfering. It should not happen, and I can't reproduce it with what you're giving us. Do you have a craft file?

A bit more upper range in the separation force would be nice, I agree. Especially with heavier constructs and bigger boosters, I'd prefer to keep part count down and not have to use sepratrons all the time. This runs into a technical limitation of the game - the tree structure of craft files doesn't allow parallel attachment paths. For it to work like you suggest, both of the parts would need to radially attach and then the booster to attach to both of the decouplers. Your first suggestion would be sufficient. With a bit more separation force available on individual decouplers, and having sepratrons available for things beyond that, there would be no need to make multiple decouplers work.

It could be as simple (*) as adding several initially empty resources to the part definition, and making the code lock all other resources from use once any of them gets filled (and release when emptied). With the locking mechanism preventing 'double-filling', all resources could be configured to use the full volume of the tank.

Started with Pong and similar cartridges on a faux-Atari console, collected thousands of games on my trusty old C-64 on cassette tapes and floppies, to a collection of somewhere around 2000 PC games started from back when they came boxed with printed manuals and keyboard templates to the current digital distribution methods. Steam lists 17 games listed with more than 100 hours, Skyrim tops that list at 1735 hours (old and new combined), but non-Steam-tracked games have taken more time than that, KSP one of them. I used to be in EVE Online a few hours every day for years; maybe more than a few. Homeworld and Cataclysm (boxed versions), Anno, Command & Conquer, Settlers, Civilization, SimCity, X-Wing vs Tie-Fighter, Flight Simulator... easily hundreds of hours in many entries of those series. I may have sunk a few hundred hours on FIFA and F1 games. Sims 2/3/4... I always disliked the actual game aspect of those, and I never bought into the DLC, but I must've spent hundreds of hours in the build modes and world editor. Need for Speed series. My gaming seems to follow the same non-pattern as my music taste: whatever happens to fit the mood of the moment. I own enough games that I never need to look around much to find something to fit the mood. I don't much have the luxury to play lately as I used to, but when I do find time, it's certainly not just KSP.

I honestly don't know. This forum keeps playing tricks on me - inserting replies before others that were already there when I replied, completely 'forgetting' I posted a message forcing me to repost to make it show up... nothing really surprises me anymore. So why not time warping too.

Pretty sure it's horizontal instead of vertical, as per rule 7:

Steam has recorded 441.5 hours for my least-used install of KSP - the one in the Steam library. I don't play that install, I have it only to download the different updates/versions, and every now and then fire it up just to see what's in the latest update that just landed. I have no way to really tell, but I suspect I passed the 10k hours a long time ago. Perhaps it's best I don't know.

You might want to try this fast and easy to handle Mk3 transport: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/Transport-3a. It can circumnavigate Kerbin in under an hour, so getting to the iceshelf should take less than 15 mins flying at normal time. It's an evolution of one of @Hotel26 designs, helping to make it leaner and balance it out. Turned out quite useful... I've been using it regularly since then. There's plenty of notes in the plane description to reuse the ideas in other planes of your own design if you wish. Check out the forum thread as well - there's more planes and advice offered by others.

I didn't really believe Elon played KSP until I saw this picture...

Not easy to answer accurately, this poll. I marked the first, third and fourth options. I have used the one stock part that plays this role, but I can build better and more reliable LES out of other parts, so I usually do that instead. I also put that one particular part on craft sometimes, but certainly not always, and mostly not for its intended functionality.

This is specifically mentioned as being fixed with the upcoming 1.6 patch:

Look for lakes or rivers enclosed by land with the tundra biome. You'll find the 'splashed down in tundra' in the water, close to the shore. It doesn't exist everywhere, but that's the only places you'll find it.

Yay for consistency and/or logical progression. The same can be said about the 'mits' of data each science instrument uses. One would expect reports that comprise just a single biome name/sensor value to need only tiny amounts of data that vary very little from each other in size (mits) - thermometer, barometer, accelerometer, gravioli detector. Then would follow the composite experiments that return values of multiple sensors - materials bay and atmospheric. More sensors in one but basically still the same concise biome/sensor value pairs, so still pretty compact in data size. Then there's the experiments that require verbose reports, like the crew report and goo containers, which would basically be descriptive texts of undetermined length, probably including photo or video material. Tiny remark: it's not immediately obvious that the first column combines the results of three separate antennae. Interesting observation: the Communications table in the Parts wiki page lists the 16, 16-S, DTS-M1 and RA-100 as needing 6 EC/Mit. This corresponds -disregarding decimal differences- with the values we can calculate from the in-game part information (EC/sec divided by Mit/sec, which is the same thing). However, your results deviate considerably from that. The wiki table also suggests the HG-5 and HG-55 to be the next less EC-hungry antennae, in that order, while your results show the opposite order. If you stand by your results, this would mean the part information is incorrect. The odd part is that those values in the part information are derived directly from the actual part configuration details... so they should be correct. Thanks for doing this. I would say as a separate page linked from the Parts table column headers?

Short answer to that: no, there isn't.

It's up to you, really. Do whatever feels right to you. There's as much (or as little) to say about sharing craft with DLC parts as with any player mod, and look at how many modded craft are published every day. Obviously people are ok in large numbers with modded craft being shared. Personally, I don't see me sharing a DLC craft (yet?) for the following reasons: I try to share craft that can be loaded by anyone, with as few prerequisites as possible. The only prerequisite most of my craft have is the version of KSP they can be expected to work in, and even that annoys me, but I can't do anything about that. I can and do avoid mods. And DLC is really just a stock mod... one that needs to be paid for on top of that, so even less people are certain to have it. That will likely keep me avoiding DLC parts regardless. I dislike many of the choices Squad made for this DLC. I accept that Squad deserves to make a living, and that current artists/devs adhere to different views than previous ones, but the end result is that I feel little draw to use or promote MH. What I don't build, I can't share. It doesn't help that none of the game versions after 1.3.1 have yet managed to convince me to upgrade definitively. Since I keep playing 1.3.1, that automatically rules out DLC entirely. We'll see what 1.6 does.

Agreed. I do the same thing - load the 'plane' section separately in the SPH, and do any finetuning of fuel/payload balance and CoM/CoL positions in there. Once that is done, I assemble the launch vehicle in the VAB. The CoL 'lift arrow' in particular often does very random things in the VAB.

I'll guarantee you that someone somewhere has reason. Tis. Stock solution: multiple docking ports that will dock at the same time and force the alignment you seek. Hidden stock solution: the stock KSP code actually already contains the means to make docking ports snap to certain angles... it's just not enabled in the default part configs. Check out the community patches thread.