swjr-swis

I just switched the language to Russian, and it downloaded 61.2MB of Russian localization files, with this as result: Are you changing the language of Steam itself, or of the 'Kerbal Space Program' entry in your Steam Library? You need to do the second, not the first. If in doubt, follow the link in the OP to the video tutorial, it shows step by step how to select the language. And just in case: check that you're starting the correct copy of KSP on your disk(s), if you have multiple copies installed.

Check the video tutorial for the instructions. In very short: on the 'Language' tab of the Steam Properties of KSP. Btw, if anyone wishes to quickly test a different language, by changing the language in the Steam Properties it'll just replace the localization files, which is a very quick download.

So... you post a challenge with pretty restrictive rules, then don't respond to or judge any of the challenge entries made in over a week... and when you do return to your thread, all you add to your thread is this? @linuxgurugamer asked a legitimate question, since you did not specify what mods are or are not allowed, just "State ALL mods in submission" and you include modded categories in your leaderboards. I guess the challenge died before it even started. Nothing to see here folks, move along...

That delay was actually added later in the game development, to prevent stages from rapid-firing by accident if someone kept their finger on Space for a micro-second too long. Apparently it happened often enough that the community outcry (or laughter?) drove the devs to add a small delay between stages.

Kerbol I mean, "The Sun" (yes those are air quotes) already has spots... we just can't see them most of the time because of the glare. Perhaps at one point, as part of the telescope technology we have been told is coming with this next version, we can take closeup pictures that use filters, allowing us to filter the glare and see the spots in all their glory. I strongly support this, if anything because that would mean some sort of procedural rendering of a CB surface, which may also be used to render prettier space views of the planets and moons (cloud layers? dust storms? seasonal polar ice caps? oh the potential...). Which indirectly means I agree with @Gaarst too.

When multi-player hits, we'll need to be able to tell each other to go up waaaay up there on the gantry to take 'selfies' of us with the ground crew at the base of our new rocket.

Agreed. In fact, a thorough rebalancing/recalculating of all fuel-holding parts according to their actual volumes has been in order for a long time now; the NCS adapter is just a particularly glaring case. I seem to remember that the different fuel-switching mods out there include stock tank volume recalculations as part of their functionality, iterated quite a bit by modders and community to get the numbers right. I think the different calculations even go as far as recalibrating the dry mass of the parts so the ratio is kept as stock as possible. So the prep work has already been done for the most part, Squad could just plug those numbers into the existing cfgs whenever they decide to do this. And then we all get to redesign all our existing craft... (small price to pay, in my opinion)

That's what it says in the requirements list: It says 'must' and uses specific numbers for the engines and decouplers. In the case of the SRBs it even specifically mentions sepratrons will be counted towards the limit. I take that to mean the numbers given are hard requirements. To contrast: it adds 'at least' about the five second fuel requirement. I interpret that to mean you are allowed to pack more fuel than the mentioned minimum (which makes sense, orbit would've been very unlikely otherwise).

The hold heading is a tricky one though: unless one's heading at time of lock is exactly 90 degrees or exactly 270 degrees at zero inclination from the equatorial plane, a meaningful course will need the heading to gradually change to actually 'hold course', the extreme case being an exactly polar orbit which would stay due north or south for half the orbit then require a full and instantaneous 180 degree swing when passing over the poles and head exactly the opposite heading the other half of the orbit (great circle navigation, it's a doozy).

I see the behaviour mentioned here regularly, mostly in low orbits, and if you pay attention you'll also see the dV of the maneuver node change slightly. I imagine it's for a reason similar to what causes Ap/Pe and AN/DN to keep drifting even when you're supposed to be in a stable orbit under zero acceleration. From the devnotes of previous versions it's clear that there's been several iterations of tinkering with the orbit stability already, but so far it's yet to squash this bug.

Instead of just this one special case, I would support a generic 'Hold Current Navball Pitch and Roll Angles' setting. This would provide what you request for the one special case of the horizon (zero pitch angle), plus any other pitch up or down angles one would wish for a controlled ascent/descent/reentry situation.

Ok, here's my attempt at stock hard mode. Pure stock install, no mods whatsoever. I wasn't happy with the sepratrons being counted towards the single SRB limit; I would've preferred to add a sepratron to deorbit the fairing base instead of leaving it as debris. But I think I managed to keep to all the rules: Staging sequence reset before rolling out to pad A single SRB engine (Thumper) A single LFO engine (Terrier) 3x decouplers (releasing the SRB stage, the LFO stage, and the fairing base) 1x autonomous payload (satellite with probe core, docking ports, solar panels, batteries, RCS, and science instruments, delivered to stable 86x86km orbit) 1x command pod that returns a kerbal safely from 86km orbit to the vicinity of KSC Full Imgur album: http://imgur.com/a/GLlZM Video: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gwp3oyu6abtf57m/KSP122-ResetStager-1.mp4?dl=0 (83.4MB, you can see it in better quality if you download it first) Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/KSP-ResetStager-1 Some key snapshots:

Moho has been running on rails near the sun for ages now...

Is there any defensible reason why ladders are not 'physicsless' and near-zero drag? By design, they are not really meant to have their own 'volume', but be almost fully embedded into whatever part they are attached to.

Well, if you guys decide it was a mistake and want it back...

Looking good, all useful additions and improvements. Did you sneakily add a little animation to the More Filters button that wasn't there before? I notice we're slowly catching up with the KSP version. Hmm 1.1.0 ... does that mean next big update is a major engine upgrade? I have some catching up to do with lots of stuff now that I'm less miserable (flu can be a real pain in the rear). I'll have to find a it of time this weekend to browse the new stuff.

I have no objection to clipping. I tend to go for a specific look first, making it functional later - which regularly involves a fair amount of clipping. In KSP we get no option to weld or custom-design parts to take advantage of all the nooks and crannies that are usually available in a real craft after the outer shell has been decided on, so I see part clipping as the KSP equivalent. I do have some reservations about fuel-in-fuel, but even that I feel justified to use at times. Eg. when using Mk3 cargo bays as fuel+service bays, I have no qualms about heavily clipping two 2.5m tanks into each other in the bay, because the stock tank sizes for Mk3 parts make no sense - just compare with 3.75m tanks to see what I mean, or place a single 2.5m tank in an Mk3 cargo bay and see how there is easily at least as much volume still left empty all around it. Then there is my Hangar 51: the craft collected there have unknown alien origin and seem intent on violating physical laws as we understand them. Some of those craft may well employ pocket singularities to store Neutronium or Strange Matter as sources of energy for their engines... we just don't know.

Not to dispute the good looks,but erhm... Goliath? Been a while since I last used one, but they must've seriously shrunk in the meantime. Seeing as it''s about the same diameter as the Stayputnik, and those wings are actually FAT-455 tail fins.... I would say it's an mk0 LF tank with a Juno (smallest vs. biggest jet). Welcome to KSP, and the forum.

Radially: a small hardpoint or a Jr docking port with crossfeed disabled can be attached radially anywhere you wish at minimal mass penalty; slap a toroidal or an Oscar-B on it, and the fuel cell on the tank. This is the easiest because you don't even need to worry about disrupting other fuel flow on the craft. Bonus: you get to decouple the tank & fuel cell if you ever expend the dedicated fuel. Stacked inline: TR-18A - FL-T100 - TR-18A (or TR-2V - Oscar-B - TR-2V for 0.625m), fuel cells on the tank, disable crossfeed and staging on the decouplers, bypass the section with fuel lines as necessary to enable unhindered fuel flow between the rest of the craft. The TR-18As can be offset into the tank without looking bad, so it only adds a few parts and just the length of the one tank to the craft.

Maybe one (in the Real Universe) does not, but the game (in the Kerbal Universe) does. EC is treated exactly as every other resource (including solid fuel, which I now noticed I also forgot). One does not 'simply jettison' anything in a micro-gravity environment, but there hasn't been much outcry over why mining vessels don't fly off Gilly after instantaneously emptying highly massive excess ore; I wonder if we could run some nrs on the potential TWR of that ore jet. And if we are really worrying about conservation laws, having a few piddly electrons disappear without trace is several orders of magnitude lower on the violation scale than having tonnes of massive ore vanish into thin air, I would say. Anyway, the question I set out to respond was whether the Jettison button could be made to appear and work for, and I quote, "everything". The answer is yes. That's all.

A few suggestions, not mutually exclusive, for placement: Probably the most obvious/visible to find: behind 'Upload Craft' on the roll-down tab at the top center bar, it could say '(or use the KX Mod)' which links to the mod download page (https://kerbalx.com/mod). Or at least include it somewhere on the tab that rolls down. Somewhere in the page footer. Either in the vertical space between 'Suggestions and Feedback' and 'SpaceDock|CKAN Mod Manager', or added to that last one as 'KX Mod|SpaceDock|CKAN Mod Manager'. A small link somewhere at the top of the Mods page (https://kerbalx.com/mods), since someone that knows of the mod and comes looking specifically might see the huge 'Mods' in that top right corner and immediately consider it relevant and click on it. Definitely somewhere on the About page (https://kerbalx.com/about). It mentions CKAN, it even mentions and links the now rather obsolete Part Mapper... it definitely should mention and link the KX Mod. On craft pages, in the sliding tab that open after clicking 'Download', the second line says 'use the KX mod to fetch it when you're in KSP spacecenter view'. Make the 'KX mod' in that line a link to the download page. Not sure if this line shows for anyone that hasn't yet installed the mod and set themselves for deferred downloads. On that same Download tab, where it says 'turn on|off deferred downloads', you could add a '?' at the end that pops up a little window explaining what deferred downloads are and how they depend on the KX Mod - link). Like you already have to explain 'the slidery thing next to the download link' On the Dev Blog page (https://kerbalx.com/dev_blog), add a block at the top with the others, maybe between 'Want to suggest something?' and 'Found a bug?', that gives the download link and explains how to report bugs with the mod (the other one is just for the website, maybe should be edited to specify that too). The Statistics page (https://kerbalx.com/statistics) should start showing how many mods have been uploaded (and downloaded!) through the KX Mod. Not on the site itself, but really needs it as well: the OP of this very thread. It needs a link at the top, and a mention in the description. (Feel free to read 'preferably' and 'could' where I said 'definitely' and 'should' in my initial enthusiasm... after all, I'm not the one having to do the work. )

This is the part that does it. Should be easy to add for MM users. MODULE { name = ModuleFuelJettison } A quick test with cloned parts shows it works for any tanks containing Ore, Liquid Fuel, Oxidizer, Monopropellant, Xenon Gas, Ablator (heatshields), and even Electric Charge (batteries). All of them, when the above text is added, show the 'Jetisson Tank Contents' button, which when clicked empties the container. (I just realized I forgot to test 'Intake Air' and 'EVA Propellant' as well, but there's no reason to assume they'd be any different, although intake air would need to be set back to 'visible' in the resource.cfg to see it.) Obligatory pics-or-it-didn't-happen:

Beautiful, both the design and the mission execution.

Ok, thanks for the feedback. I worked a bit more on this (was not happy with the relatively tiny antennae either), so I removed the MMUs from the solar panel assemblies, and made separate ones. Working on a shuttle to use, I overkilled it with the main engines: in the test runs with a 41t payload, they took care of all maneuvres and still had fuel left after landing with the payload still aboard. I could add some extra engines for the visuals and call it 'OMS', but it would be rather pointless add-on mass. Would it invalidate a mission if the OMS goes completely unused? Also, does the OMS have to use other fuel than the main engines (iow, would I also need to add some tanks of something other than LFO)? The HLST-1c hits that target almost dead-on (5.513t), if you don't count the separate MMUs (puts it at 7.53t). That's with the LFO tanks completely empty (since it has no use for fuel); up to 12t can be added in fuel alone without needing any other changes, if one wishes to lug a heavier telescope.

I often employ the radial out setting of SAS to keep the reentering spaceplane on maximum drag in the highest layers of the atmosphere. Just keep in mind: if your spaceplane in low fuel circumstances doesn't tend to point prograde by itself, you need to know to pitch down before the drag gets too high. An additional tip, to help with the structural integrity: If you have the advanced settings on, a rightclick on parts will show setting 'Autostrut: Disabled'. Click on it to toggle to other options that will reinforce your craft. It may also help you need much less external struts, which would improve the aesthetic and the aerodynamics of your craft.