Tyko

I stand corrected...Thanks for taking the time to post the links

It most certainly is. Well, I haven't set eyes on that version myself, however almost every other version of KSP and other Steam games can be found on their database so far. It takes some time to search through it, but there is even a step-by-step guide for doing this. Google it (or Bing if you're a masochist) and it will be in the top 10 results. I'd put a link or explain it here, but I don't want to break any rules if there are any against it and I have a thing against doing legwork for other people. Also, run the game in offline mode in addition to disabling KSP to autoupdate in the future if you depend so much on this mod. It's just easier than acting expectant of someone else to change their behavior; especially people you want something from. You should really fact check before stating something "most certainly is". 1.6 isn't up on the Steam Betas list. You can't turn off autoupdate on Steam. You can only control when it updates with the bare minimum being "only update when I launch it" - so, you launch KSP and it updates. So you might want to google your answers (or bing them if you're a masochist) next time

@Kerbas_ad_astra I was playing around with your 1.5 build of VSR. Looks like you've been cleaning things up a lot - congrats! About half the parts that are actually original VSR parts won't work if I remove the Squad and PathPatches folder. For example, the alternate Oscar tanks and all the new structural parts disappear. Not sure if this is working as intended because i thought that all the VSR originals should reside entirely in the Part Bin. If this is something you're trying to update and need further detective work I can poke around for the pieces that are in the wrong folder.

Ouch...like...OUCH hehehe

Yep...well there are so many little things I'd like to see fixed. Haha. I'm really glad they're cleaning up the parts personally. Relatively speaking only a few of us care about refueling, but everyone had to look at the old engines

Agreed...you couldn't even refuel a lawn mower if it didn't have a refueling port. That's why I think it's odd to be able to refuel a rocket that doesn't have a refueling port

Wow @Snark you get double bonus points! 1 for a great mod and a 2nd for using "germane" in a sentence!

That's interesting. I think I'd personally avoid a one connector solution because rigging tanks to support refueling is a non-trivial problem - I'm not sure we've even done it in the real world yet. Even with KAS I have a house rule against Kerbals attaching that mod's refueling port to a craft after it's launched - re-plumbing a fuel tank is just a bit of a stretch for something they could do in the field. I also don't use Klaws for resource transfer either, for the same reason. "yessir, we refueled your craft...we had to use a giant can opener to do it. Hopefully the duct tape will hold everything together for ya"

While they're making it multiplayer I want it to be an RTS/RPG and FPS all in one - heck why not a 4X game too??

Thanks..I scrolled through the first half dozen posts...just didn't scroll far enough and wasn't looking for a link that said "speaking of which"...LOL

Is this definitely a change? From checking in the past, I thought the runway was at 0 and the launchpad slightly to the South of the equator, but I could be remembering incorrectly. It's gone back and forth. In some versions the launch pad was exactly at zero, other times it wasn't. The runway is at 0.04857, so while it is different, it's not zero'd out either. I'm pretty sure the KSC model is centered on the launch pad because when I moved the KSC once and did the calculation myself it was the launch pad, not the runway that was at exactly zero. If the KSC were centered on the runway then my calculations would have been off as well.

Hey Snark, just FYI, 7-Zip will open .rar files and it's a well established third party app

@Snark Been really loving the mods you're creating. Thanks! Question about this one...I noticed you converted several of the structural adapters into fuel tanks. You left their weight alone so if there was no fuel they were back to their adapter weights, so in a way I can still use them as adapters. The problem is they are still empty fuel tanks which means that if I want just a structural adapter I get a fuel tank whether I want one or not. This isn't ideal though. If I'm refueling the vehicle I can pump fuel into it magically turning my structural piece into a fuel tank after launch which breaks immersion a bit - this is much the same issue you prevented in SimpleFuelSwitch by not letting users reconfigure a part after launch. Just a suggestion, but if you used +Part and created a new part based on the same model you could accomplish your goal of adding fueled adapters without removing the standard structural adapters. You could also then up the dry mass a bit to reflect the extra components/plumbing needed for a fuel tank. Thanks again for all the work

Is this still on Gitbhub somewhere? I didn't see a link in the OP or anywhere else in the thread. Thanks!

It is cool...no doubt. The Near Future packs will get you pretty close. There's also a couple of USI mods - Modular Koloniziation System and Freight Transportation Technologies both have parts for larger ships

There's a mod called Kronometer too that let's you mess with time

See above. No, I won't be adding it to the default configs that the mod installs, because I like that monoprop has its own dedicated fuel tanks. However, it would be easy for anyone to add it to their own games with a bit of config. Challenge accepted...please point me in the right direction though. Most of your config is pretty straightforward and I'm familiar with it. I'm guessing that the issue is the resourcesId. Is that defined in your DLL? Would you have to create a new ID called monopropellant in order for me to add it? The rest should be pretty simple: MODULE { name = ModuleSwitchableResources resourcesId = monopropellant displayName = #SimpleFuelSwitch_Monopropellant selectorFieldName = #SimpleFuelSwitch_fuelTypeLabel RESOURCE { name = Monopropellant amount = #$/RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]/amount$ // Have to do the math here to figure out the right conversion rates for monoprop density @amount += #$/RESOURCE[Oxidizer]/amount$ maxAmount = #$/RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]/maxAmount$ @maxAmount += #$/RESOURCE[Oxidizer]/maxAmount$ } }

Don't you have the structural cone that's .625 at the top and 1.25 at the bottom? I agree that many parts are oddly organized in the stock tech tree, but I think this time there's an easy fix without modding.

Hey all, thanks for your feedback and support for this mod. I just don't think it's really necessary any more for reasons I stated in the previous post. I'll leave it up in support of players on 1.5.x and earlier. If people feel there's still a need for this mod I'm willing to re-open development in the future. - Tyko -

What happens with every other launch site - both stock and in other planet packs/mods? Many other mods move the KSC and you'd be shifting an issue from one launch site which is actually wrong to all the other sites that are (probably) correct.

There are many ways to alter your game to make that happen - alternate launch sites, mods, et -, but for the base game 0 degrees makes the most sense. I think about how many discussions there are about rendezvous and docking. At least with KSC on the equator you can tell people to launch due East. If you had to explain plane changes you're just complicating one of the hardest concepts in the game even further. Same reason the Mun is at 0 degrees.

Interesting...I always thought the Mk1 and Mk2 Lander cans were too big and that the LEM was about the right size. The RL LEM was supposed to be as small and light as possible and only had to squeeze 2 crew for 2 days. The Apollo capsule had to support a crew of 3 for two weeks. One could argue that the MH LEM and the Mk1-3 capsule are not supposed to be exact replicas of the Apollo program, but if the MH LEM is modeled after the real-life LEM I think it's about right. In my game I downsize the Mk1 lander can to 80% stock size (keeping all stats the same).

@Snark & @bewing - thanks to both of you for the advice. I'm still figuring out optimal staging, but I did a ton of testing last night and have a few results you might be interested in. tip-over earlier is definitely better - The earliest you can tip for your TWR and still keep your time to AP going up is definitely more efficient. In my test rocket with a middlin' TWR of 1.35 the difference between tip-over at 65 m/s versus 100 m/s was over 100 DV Tipping a small amount at 10-20m/s didn't really improve over doing a fast 10 degree tip-over a bit higher up. I settled on doing a 10 degree tip as a standard and then just adjusting the speed at which I tipped. This was a little less fiddly than trying to do a tiny tip-over right at launch and didn't noticebly affect my DV results This is most interesting - there wasn't much of a DV difference between throttling to a steady 50 m/s time to AP and going full-bore all the way up. There was a fairly linear trade-off between DV spent on ascent vs DV spent circularizing at AP. Going full-bore made for a faster ascent which, as a player, is kinda nice. Throttling took longer to get to altitude, but resulted in less atmospheric heating - several times with full-bore ascents the front of my craft overheated. As far as staging it seemed like the best option was to run the first stage for as long as possible - either full-bore or throttling. Even if I was throttling, any inefficiency of carrying the heavy, throttled engine when past 45 degrees was lower than the DV cost of lifting the dead weight of your second stage engine in the first place.

Adding to the other great advice above. Why not start with a simple probe so you can practice technique. Even if you're going for "realistic" it's worth remembering that NASA wouldn't throw people at another planet until they'd done a few "practice runs" with unmanned probes.

It's so sad how quickly the MH parts aged out. When they came out they were a big improvement over Stock, but it's pretty clear they threw out the design sheet (if they even had one) after MH and came up with new (much improved) art guidelines since then. The absolute worst nightmare IMHO is the 2 person LEM lander from MH. Not even counting the texturing, the layout of the RCS thrusters aren't correctly aligned. It's not even possible to create a craft using that part that has balanced RCS without turning off the part's RCS entirely and pretending all those nozzles don't exist.