swjr-swis

And GearBox screwed it up in 2015...

KSP 1.1 actually keeps a changeable default of 5 backup copies of your (persistent) savefile now. That goes a long way to resolve possible corruptions.

This has been added with KSP 1.1, just like similar controls for RCS nozzles.

Guys, I like his mod as much as any of y'all, but let's stop the repeat requests? He'll post here when there's an update, I'm sure. (not to mention there's a forum rule about this now)

Fuel cells. Ion engines draw a LOT of EC, so fuel cells tend to be the most efficient way of keeping up with that.

Readying the pitch fork if this doesn't come out before <insert a random time frame here>.

Yes: the stock SAS kinda sucks for very tiny/light craft, and even the smallest reaction wheel is too overpowered for it to handle on such a small mass. It's an ongoing issue, hopefully they'll find a solution at some point.

I like the premise of it, but they would need to first do a good bit of optimization on the code that runs/animates the Kerbals, to avoid flight scenes having the same kind of CPU usage hike that VAB/SPH scenes have when the space center crew is showing.

Nice, tidy and speedy, and the resizing works like a charm in all browser configurations I tried. I draw the line at testing on a phone though (phones are for calling!). The mods page: I momentarily had a flashback to a virus from the good 'ole DOS days, that would snip up the screen into puzzle pieces and start shuffling them around, ha. I'm with you though, feature it is! Just a tiny thing I found that did not work as expected: when I used the cog to manually set image number and width, if I have it manual on 'wide', and then without changing that I click on 'Auto', the images stay in wide/half-height view, even if it decides to use a different number of images than what I had it set to. I think that is not as intended. I would expect Auto to also change to non-wide as default. Just don't forget to play some KSP in the meantime. I hear 1.1 was released a few days ago. All work and no play makes Jeb threaten us with clipping some wheels together...

Something easily forgotten and often confusing: in EVA, the navball orientates itself to where your camera is looking, unlike with ships, where it is fixed to the ships' orientation. So when you're trying to use navball rather than visual navigation, hold rightclick and keep the navball on the navball target with the mouse. for some people that may be more intuitive, for example by making a maneuver node to track just how much (or more often, how little) impulse you need to match speeds with the target vessel.

Kerbal Foundries has not been dropped; they're working on updating it to 1.1, but with the way the whole wheels model/physics has changed and is still a bit of a problem in 1.1, and KF being very intertwined with that, it's going to take a bit more than other mods. We need to be patient (or help coding).

I am a bit disappointed to see comments like this. At best it's rather out of place to now start pointing out flaws, when we've all benefited from the almost two years of hard work that 'coder/guy' put into creating and maintaining a community host for all those mods we all need nao. The 'guy' burned out doing this for us, and here we are being all catty about it. Can we not do that, please? Improving or debugging code is hard work and needs effort and time. The work of the current admins deserves compliments. But neither of those warrant us resorting to comparisons or denigrating exposure - let's be honest here, at the time we were all too happy to (ab)use his hard work to our advantage.

We could tell you, but then we would have to <REDACTED> you...

Eso espero. Por ahora, lo están investigando: http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/8049 Tendremos que tener un poco más de paciencia. Mientras tanto, me entretengo lanzando cohetes gigantes hacia el espacio.

Can still be done in 1.1.0:

Hmm, interesting. I tested with the LT-10 next (LT-2 were too heavy for this), and observed two things: Not all legs are created equal. For whatever reason, the feet of the LT-10 sink quite a distance into the ground, where the LT-05 do not. They still show the same collision behaviour though, in that they seem unaffected by the angle at which they touch the ground. While trying different angles, I notice that the feet of the legs reorient themselves: when they are not 'touching ground', they go back to a default angle, but when they are touching (which for some reason is a good bit under the ground), they reorient themselves parallel to the terrain. I wonder if when they had to rescale them, they forgot to check the collider scale, and it's still at the previous smaller size? But more importantly: it would seem that there is already code in place that checks the angle of the surface and adapts to it. I wonder if it's Squad's code, and whether it's reusable for the wheels...

I decided to test this. Apparently, legs work at all angles; or at least, I couldn't get them angled enough to sink into the ground. I built something really simple: a HECS core and the smallest LT-05 legs, placed in symmetry but rotated at 45 degree angle. It seems to rest on the legs like that without problem. Since the core's reaction wheels are strong enough to lift the whole thing on a single leg and keep it balanced like that, I tipped it over pretty much all the way where the top of the core was just inches over the ground... and it was still not falling over or sinking. So, legs and wheels are obviously not handled entirely the same. Obligatory screenshots:

While they're at it: please also make an IVA for the command seats. Kerbals are now 'vessels' anyway, and IVAs in pods are treated as if the camera is sitting inside the Kerbal heads (to the point of seeing their own eyeballs ), so let's give the same camera perspective option to command seats please.

The whole universe would include the galaxy-sized computer itself, trying to simulate the whole universe including a galaxy-sized computer that is trying to simulate.... <stack overflow>

CKAN is a nice starting point, and most bigger mods end up listed, so you'll probably not need to search further. But not all mod authors actively use it, some even avoid it. So you may still want to scour the Add-on section of this forum, where most mod authors post about their mods, to find direct download links from other places like SockPaced, Hitgub and SurgeForce (names changed to protect the innocent), and even some self-hosted pages.

We would run KSP with ALL the mods, of course. It would be capable of total realism and full physics even at maximum time warp. But since there would still be argument about realism vs play levels, and the exact combination of mods at any one time, it'd be multi-instance and customizable on the fly. And then we'd mind-transfer into it. Because we all secretly want to be Jeb (or Val).

If we're at the point of wishing for the impossible : worth considering whether the angle could change dynamically, and angle into the direction of movement, and back when at decelerating. That way when wheels are moving, they would automatically 'prepare' to deal with upcoming bumps/slopes, depending on speed.

FLO (fruit in low orbit). Some of the things mentioned can be done with config files and I'm very comfortable doing that, so I'm fine with it. Just for the sake of consistency alone though, some of these really should be stock. I mean, why are some actions 'action-group-worthy', but many others not? If it can be triggered by a probe core or remotely (I mean, that's what supposedly happens when you click a widget anyway), it should be pre-programmable too, per default. Someone needs to explain to me one day why that one is still somehow optional or chosen-by-committee, per part.

In mathematical terms: average time to update tends towards infinity with the increase of times asked.