swjr-swis

Might want to change the license, and credit the source. Pretty sure you cannot reserve all rights to at least part of this mod: the TR-2P wheel is an almost 1:1 copy of Squad's files (and the diff files are obviously edits of the original). Tip: you could achieve the cfg changes simpler with a single module manager patch instead; it would save memory since it would reuse the existing model/textures, and it's the customary and politer way of reusing/cloning someone else's parts.

I love Custom Asteroids, so if making the spawner optional means this mod and Custom Asteroids can work together, I'm all for it.

The issue is not that people are not reading. The issue is that your poll gives two options, when you only meant there to be one.

I think this is possibly a very recent CKAN issue. Opening CKAN today for my 1.1.1 install and filtering for installed mods, I see a good number on them claiming to be for 'Max KSP version' lower than 1.1.0, which would've made it impossible to install (I did this install entirely through the CKAN GUI). So somehow the CKAN master file is misreporting things at the moment. IFS is listed in mine, btw, but with latest version 1.25 and Max KSP version 1.0.2. Which has to be wrong, CKAN wouldn't even have allowed install through the GUI if that was the case.

I'm interested to see you guys confirm if this only happens when reverting and retrying a launch - but not when launching directly out of the VAB/SPH. In my install, it seems to only happen when reverting.

'Ideal' would be the actual landing gear. Since we don't currently have that, we'll take whatever explodes less...

In 1.0.5, I've used the Linear RCS Ports as very minimalistic but highly impact-resistant (50m/s) landing gear for planes or craft where regular gear was either too big or too unsightly. There is a bit of an issue with ground clearance at landing, but it can be done. Another alternative I've used a few times is the small hardpoint - only 20m/s tolerance, but due to their aerodynamic form sometimes a pleasingly aesthetic solution, for example rotated vertically at the wing tips and one at the tail. Elevons can be used that way too, allowing surprising take-off/landing speeds, but their tolerance is even lower (15m/s).

I always build stations with modular expansions in mind, so in stock careers, that means liberal use of docking ports. One of the tricks for rigidity would be to design/build with multi-port connections, but in 1.1.x this is not working anymore (bug reported and is being looked into). For things like station-wide EC power, I design girder-like modules with solar panels, RTG, batteries radially attached around the girder, with docking ports at the end, to be lifted up and connected like other modules. Same goes for fuel/tank modules, most tanks can be radially attached to a center girder, which will also allow fuel flow, and put the docking ports at the ends of the girder instead of on the tanks themselves. This allows for a very dense packing of tanks that can be placed and strutted reasonably easy in the stock fairings for lifting. It pays to spend some time in the VAB or SPH designing the station modules as subassemblies, so you can place them side by side to compare, ensure the docking ports align properly, module lengths follow a certain system, etc, which will help to make things couple together well, and simplifies the design of your lifting vehicle.

Support for mods on console platforms sounds to me like a nightmare scenario for mod authors. They're already badgered with the three current platforms as it is, and two of those can potentially be run/tested on the same hardware they currently use. Do we expect mod authors to buy themselves ALL consoles out there to be able to support their free mods for us? "I don't think so, Tim." The game is completely playable without mods. I have had very modded installs, but also pure stock versions right alongside them, and still have ongoing career saves that I regularly return to. Heck, 1.0.5 I never even modded at all, other than some tests while waiting for 1.1 to hit. Console players will never know what they're 'missing' if they just play the stock game.

http://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/40287-cpu-priority-shortcut-program-create-windows.html

Then there's a good number of times, and the chance of it happening seems to be linearly correlated to the awesomeness of the explosions (that is actually the correct expression for it, the potential for explosions is calculated in units of 'awesome' in the KSP code) and the length/complexity of the ensuing chain reaction, when I just burst out laughing at the hilarity of the disaster and need to wipe tears before taking a deep breath, regaining my composure, and starting over. I know I shouldn't be admitting to this, but that happens quite a lot. Sorry Jeb. Actually no, Jeb totally has it coming, but I'll apologize to Val. Some of the time.

Confirmed on Win 8.1 x64, but I don't think it is new for this patch. There's generally been an issue with 1.1.x and occlusion, it's not just engine exhausts, and it's all probably the same basic cause. Just do things in the VAB/SPH like fairings with parts inside, or temporarily disconnected parts/assemblies and set them aside, and watch the fun when you highlight things or move the camera around. There's also some weird interactions sometimes out in space with atmosphere edges (terminators?). It just seems to be confused regularly about which parts or effects should be showing when on top of what, highlighted or not. Probably something to do with the change to Unity 5 and how that handles things differently. Nothing game-breaking, but very distracting.

.. except for when you discover too late your 'chutes are staging at the same time your main engines fire and the clamps release .. or you find out you forgot a docking port after a 2yr transfer .. or arrive at Eve to fulfill that contract and find out the tourists never boarded to begin with .. or your suicide burn runs just 41m/s short of a safe landing .. or Jeb took off with your favourite jet. And dented it. Again. Other than that, totally mellow and devoid of rage.

"There is a cave, boy... a cave of wonders..." 20 years or so since I last saw this movie (on VHS! vee-age-who?) and I can still recite most of it word for word... I dunno what to think of that.

Ok, let's break that suspicious silence (and then ragequit ): The models load well in 1.1.0 VAB, and all pieces attach as intended, no problems there. The doors on the command pod open and close. I didn't yet get to the point of launching to test flight, but they look beautiful. I do miss the option to attach certain parts radially, for example the 1.25m tanks, hab, and science modules would allow more creative assembly if they could also attach radially. A little annoyance, more my own problem than yours: there's five 'caps' (the 1.25m top modules - the two gas intakes, sensors, science, and develocitizer), but only four possible nodes to place them on in the default way of assembling. So make a choice, you would say, and you're right, but still, it leaves the impression that there should be an extra node somewhere to place that fifth cap on. Similar to that, there are two different 2.5m thruster modules, yet there is only one 2.5m node, and not really a whole lot of ways to vary the design. Not entirely sure why one would ever choose to use the much lower thrust module over the other. Another tiny annoyance: none of the beautifully modeled windows have emissive lighting, something that the very porkalike texturing strongly implies there should be. The 'lights on' toggle only toggles the lights inside of the command pod. All the parts with windows really need a lights toggle to turn on lights behind those windows. When I used two warp modules placed on the same ship, using the 'show bubble guide' to toggle either one in the VAB always showed the bubble centered on the lower of the two modules. Roverdude's standalone Alcubierre Warp Drive module showed this issue as well, btw. emission

Sure, on a single SRB even, if you accept just the Kerbal making it to orbit: Theoretically, there's about barely enough dV in a single Kickback to make it to 75-80km orbit with a perfect gravity turn, but in practice, avoiding exploding parts and the lack of throttle control other than the initial limiter results in a very subobtimal trajectory. I tried a couple of times and fell about 200-300m/s short, so the only way to achieve orbit was to EVA and circularize just the Kerbal. Which of course means that it could still be done 'just with solid boosters' if I added a small SRB up top (or even sepratrons, on just the decoupled command chair) for the final circularization stage.

That moment when I embarrassingly realize that in more than a few occasions, I spent more time reading and editing cfg text files than clicking the game UI, because the stock (or mod!) capabilities or part configurations did not allow what I wanted... Ironically, a lot of people claim they wouldn't play at all without text file editing (nowadays usually done through Module Manager). People that publish said edited text files become known as 'modders'. And I get the impression most modders never really get to play the game anymore, so perhaps there is truth in your words in more ways than one. Anyway, to answer OP: editing text files, definitely way up there on my list of things I couldn't do without in KSP.

Proving Val is more badS than Jeb...

Used to be Moho that got the shaft, and Dres had 'roids.

I will second this toggle request. And a little bit out of scope for EVE, but I would be then interested in a second toggle/option: one to make the no-clouds view a 'radar'-like terrain image, which is a common way of penetrating cloud layers that visible light cannot.

Por encima, me gusta 1.1, pero la partida que tengo en 1.0.5 no la voy a trasladar, la seguiré jugando en su propia versión. Los cambios que Unity 5 introduce a las ruedas, que también afectan los trenes de aterrizaje y las patas, resultan en invalidar muchas de mis naves en esa partida. Han hecho bastante buen trabajo de la code importadora, no me entiendas mal, pero son dos sistemas muy diferentes y no traduce bién de una versión a la otra. Hay también un problema con los nodos de maniobra, que a veces desaparecen completamente, y requiere salir al KSC y de vuelta para poder verlos otra vez. Hay otras cositas, pero por lo general no rompen el juego. El juego anda notablemente mejor en 1.1, con bastante más fluidez en caso de naves grandes con muchas piezas, o en encuentros en órbita con estaciones. Y me gustan la mayoría de los cambios que han hecho al interfaz, en especial la cantidad de opciones que han añadido que podemos cambiar a gusto. Tengo 1.1 instalado, y seguiré experimentando, pero ya me había hecho a los problemillas de 1.0.5 y sabía cómo evitarlos, mientras que el asunto de las ruedas en 1.1 es casi imposible de evitar. Lo tengo comparado con lo que pasó con los cambios de atmósfera entre 1.0 y 1.0.5, y prefiero esperar a 1.1.5 antes de empezar otra carrera en serio.

El mod BetterTimeWarp permite jugar a cámara lenta, de manera estable hasta 0.1x y puede hasta parar completamente. Claro que te costará más tiempo y más espacio el grabar, pero resultará en más fluidez en el resultado final. Intenta eso primero ántes de cambiar el programa para capturar. Yo estoy experimentando con ShadowPlay, una función incluida con mi tarjeta NVidia. Usa la capacidad de la tarjeta para grabar, con bastante buen resultado.

No, unless someone decides to actually add 'props' to the IVA view, the game does not render anything by itself. It should be almost the easiest IVA ever to make: just transparent all around (easiest being the placeholder black hole one). A command seat is completely devoid of instruments, as far as I can tell from the model. So one has the choice of truly flying by the seat of their pants in IVA, no instrumentation at all... or the regular flight view from 'outside' with navball, altimeter, and SAS indicators. I'd be perfectly fine with that.

Fully agreed.

75kg, but don't you dare tell her I said that...