Tyko

I use a part failure mod specifically because there is a reward. The reward is that there's an in-game reason for me to spend the mass and planning for launch escape systems. Without a chance of failure I'm just wasting mass otherwise and doing it "just for fun" or "for RP" wasn't compelling to me. While a random failure isn't ideal, it's a very simple way to give me a reason to plan for failures without getting bogged down in complex part R&D solutions.

I'm with you on Paradox. Very interested in the upcoming HOI4 and Stellaris updates. I'm also happy/scared of Imperator Rome and what it will do to my limited free time.

There's a Wiki page on z-pinch that explains how the drive works. From the wiki it looks like Lithium is used, so not sure how this one is different

My first interplanetary probes usually have a direct antenna that will reach Kerbin and a shorter range relay antenna. After the probe completes its primary mission it gets boosted to a higher orbit and re-purposed as a local relay. It's worthless until I get a long ranged relay established but once I do the old probe offers a cheap way to improve my radio coverage.

I'm having de ja vu..I thought I already responded..guess there's multiple threads on the same topic right now. @Cassel check out Near Future Technologies. NF Propulsion has larger ion engines based on tech currently in development. NF Electric has generators that pump out enough power to drive the new engines.

Anyone asking for KSP to be ported to another platform should really read back through all the threads related to the console ports. The console ports have had a checkered past. They have their own unique bugs, their own UI issues and they're several releases behind desktop (and probably always will be). Even if the technical considerations could be overcome you'd still want to ask if you're willing to accept that you'll likely always be third in line in the fight for Squad resources - I'm not saying this is right or wrong or fair or unfair, I'm just looking back at several years of history with current platforms.

Cool...I'll check that out

Thank..I'd considered it, but I really didn't want to stack on a bunch of additional parts and another interface for just this one simple (from the users' PoV) task. Thought it would make more sense for it to be built into the Action Group interface. You'd just need a drop down where you could select...say .2, .5, 1 and 2 second delays. Anything longer than that would be out of scope for a single action.

@Snark Just had an epiphany (yes, lightning struck my brain) It may be out of scope for this mod, but I thought how cool it would be to be able to add delays to actions in an action group so you could set a sequence that various actions fire within one group maybe the cargo bay doors open 2/10 of a second before stored antennas extend, for example. Or on the Abort action set the shroud around the capsule to blow off a split second before the LES fires. Anyway, I realize this is more work, but you crank out some great quality of life apps and I thought this might catch your interest.

I play with Kerbal Launch Failure and LES are required for any crewed missions. Also the LES is always tested without a crew first - this isn't just roleplay, sometimes the Abort sequence requires some fine tuning, especially if there's a shroud involved. I wish the Abort feature included the ability to program in slight delays. Be safer if I could blow the shroud a 1/10 of a second before the LES fires. For that matter, being able to assign delays within any Action Group would be really cool actually

Unless I'm intentionally doing a recreation I use SSTO landers and lunar rendezvous for landings. Even at 3.2x scaling I haven't found the need to stage off lander parts. I typically send my lander and an extra fuel supply unmanned to lunar orbit then send a second crewed mission to dock with the lander/fuel depot. Once the landing is complete the lander stays attached to the depot ready for the next landings. When I have done 2 stage landers I followed @magnemoe's approach of using only one center engine and jettisoning radial drop tanks, landing legs, depleted experiments, etc. This offers a safety benefit because I can use my ascent fuel in an emergency if descent goes horribly wrong.

Near Future Propulsion has a broad selection of "near future" engines - just like the name says They include a variety of ion engines with different balances of thrust vs efficiency/power consumption Near Future Electrical gives you ways to power those engines Near Future Launch Vehicles offers some more powerful conventional engines based on some of the designs out there now.

That's a good demonstration of the concepts. A few tips you may already know, but weren't illustrated in your video to your friend: Using maneuver nodes makes the whole rendezvous a lot easier because you can plan your maneuvers instead of just guessing where to burn and where you'll end up. You can do your rendezvous in 4 burns Plane Change to match target - This is similar to the maneuver you performed, I just used a maneuver node to get as close as a could to burning at the AN Circularize your orbit above (or below) your target - you didn't perform this step. If the two orbits are both circular planning your burn to bring your PE down to match the target becomes a LOT easier. As you can see in the video below, you can drop a maneuver node, lower the PE then grab the center ring of the maneuver node and drag it along your orbit until you get your close encounter Drop your PE Fine tune your rendezvous - this should be a quarter orbit before your encounter so you can affect changes in all 3 axis. Quarter turn ahead is the most efficient place if you have to burn normal or anti-normal. As a side note, you can hover your mouse over one of the node handles and scroll your mouse wheel to change it to. If you roll your mouse wheel slowly you can affect very small changes. Really sorry there's no voice over. This is the first time I've made a demo and don't have a mic set up. I hope it's clear what's going on. I started with a pretty close approximation of your same starting conditions.

@linuxgurugamer would there be a way for Janitor's closet to show where the part's actual model is coming from? Right now if I have a Squad part but I'm using VSR to change the part's appearance Janitor's Closet tells me it's a Squad part when I hover over it in the VAB. It would be helpful if it would also tell me the model is coming from VSR. If the display allowed for more than one model reference that would be really useful when the user is having a model conflict where two mods are trying to overwrite the same model.

@RoverDude would be a good resource too.

SnapDock does exactly what you're asking for. it works fine in 1.5.x https://spacedock.info/mod/870/SnapDock

I was looking for a way to reduce the range and strength of the docking port "magnetism" Does this look right? Any suggestions? I thought I'd seen it on the forums before, but couldn't find it using search. @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]] { @MODULE[ModuleDockingNode] { %acquireForce = 0.1 %acquireRange = 0.1 %captureRange = 0.1 } }

I'm just glad work on this and other mods continues...it's a great community. Thanks for considering and responding, regardless of which way you go

I wish that were the case...now I just get in the habit of keeping a backup copy of my setting folders for key mods. My KER settings are a great example where I've spent a ton of time getting my layout right and would hate to have to redo it. Until Squad changes it though it's still better to have a consistent, if imperfect, "standard" than having mods on a variety of standards. The annoyance you know is way better than an annoyance you haven't figured out yet.

@Lisias Despite moving things out of GameData being "good coding practice" I think it'll cause a ton of confusion and issues for players and for supporting the mod. I'd humbly suggest you use GameData if at all possible so you don't face wave after wave of "this mod is broken (because I install all other mods one way and this mod installs a different way and I didn't bother to read the readme)" Consider the KJR doesn't have any visible sign that it's working. People may not even know it's not working right versus just not strengthening the joints as much as they expected.

I have ~90 mods installed plus a whole folder full of custom configs I've written - in many cases to make the other mods play better together. I've been using the same set of mods for a while now and I've been able to fix most of the annoyances. I'm pretty happy with the game I'm playing now. I've even thought about trying to share my setup because I feel like it's a really playable, stable game. It's taken a lot of work to get everything working and I'm very reticent to add any new mods now because I'm finally at a place where i can play.

Use Rescale 3.2x and the rockets start performing a lot more like real life designs. At 3.2x you'll require 1.8x the DV for any maneuver - or about 5900 DV for Kerbin Orbit. The game would be so boring for me without this. @Galileo hasn't updated it for a while, but despite the big "this won't work in 1.4" warning, it works just fine for me in both 1.4.x and 1.5.x. I've used it for many many hours without probs One note - I'd skip using Kronometer which is recommended by ReScale. Many mods like Kerbal Alarm Clock and Transfer Window Planner won't play well with it. Instead use the Stock 24 hour clock. The only thing that will be off if you use 24 hour clock without Kronometer is that a Kerbin "day" is actually two full rotations of the planet, but everything else in the game behaves just fine.

I'm pretty sure that you can place one, make the parameter changes, then alt-click to copy the part and place another one. I think that it keeps the settings. Not near my gaming computer, so I can't check to be sure. Try it. If you want to do it with a ship in flight check out the mod "all y'all"

My intrepid explorers at Iota orbital station (GPP) went for a landing in Iota's Droops. This required a plane change of over 30 degrees South to hit the lower latitudes. The lander had lots of DV, so they thought they'd make it. Unfortunately the chosen landing spot was quite hilly necessitating a last minute redirect to a flatter landing spot. This sucked up DV leaving the lander enough to make orbit, but unable to make the plane change back to the equatorial station orbit. They were stranded in an inclined orbit with only 4 days of life support. Fortunately their Gael to Iota transfer ship was built with enough DV to enter Iota orbit and return to Gael = ~800 DV and the ship was set up for unmanned operation. The orbital craft was refueled from station tanks, made the plane change, docked with the stranded lander and transfered crew plus science experiments. The lander was left in its inclined orbit while the crew returned to the station. Next step will be to recover the lander.