Tyko

wow, don't know how I missed this great piece of @Beale goodness!!! Have resources been defined? The OP still says that's a "to do". I think i'll work out a fun way to add these to GPP when they're ready. I'm totally picturing Niven as a possible parent.

Has anyone started on this? I'd be willing to help.

Would you consider adding support for the smaller SRBs in Vens Stock Revamp? There are a couple of 0.625m SRBs that are really useful early game and a small surface attach separation motor (may not be worth doing that one since it only burns for a couple of seconds) Thanks!

Check out these two mods. They both help you to simplify craft sorting or visibility. Maybe one of them would help.

The first RL rover attempted was 1969 - same year of the first Apollo landing. First rover that required an external command seat was the lunar rover in 1971. Doing Apollo style moon landings requires a similar tech tier. May not be ideal for people who want to cruise around the KSC on a go cart, but it's consistent with other real tech progression.

Right now I'm following @Triop, who just finished a stock Pole2Pole mission. He's now working on driving from KSC to the Temple with the help of a ferry across the ocean gap. Triop plays sandbox. But it and other mission reports and challenges show players are interested in a lot of the things possible in KSP. That some of those aren't even possible in any way until halfway to later in career is wrong. Yes, the game is a very flexible open sandbox and some ingenious players have come up with great ways to do things the were probably never considered when the game was designed. This is really cool and I support it. What I don't support is making the game unnecessarily more complex for new players or those who spend most of their time launching kerbals into space. What if my hobby is re-purposing my Volkswagen GTI into an offroad vehicle that can pull a 3 ton boat? I buy aftermarket parts to raise and strengthen the suspension, I rebuilt the frame to handle the tow load, etc. People might think that's really cool and I could become a popular youtuber showing off how I did it and giving tips to others. That doesn't mean it's Volkswagen's job to modify the base standard GTI with tougher suspension and frame. It's perfectly correct for Volkswagen to say "most GTI customers buy our car as a quick runabout and we're not going to add complexity/weight/cost that doesn't benefit a majority of our customers". And other customers who are driving it around town would rightly complain that adding all that stuff is going to make their car slower and less fuel efficient. I love the idea of a more branched tech tree with research paths specifically for probes, manned rockets, planes, spaceplanes, rovers, landers, etc....let people pick their own path. This is a lot different than just overwhelming the low tiers with a bunch of stuff just to accommodate players who aren't launching rockets

Finally starting a 1.4.5 game for realz. Science mode using GPP, a 2.5x scaled system and only 20% science return. Lastly I'm trying not to leave any garbage in planetary or lunar orbits (solar is okay). This should be very interesting. Tonight i did some initial science collection and launched my first orbital satellite to collect telemetry and Geiger Counter readings over all the biomes from low orbit. Really having fun building as simple as possible. This satellite used a pair of tiny solid rocket boosters to complete its orbit and another pair to de-orbit. Worked really well! Satellite design in the VAB: Launch images in Spoiler if you want to see a few more pix: Second Stage separation. 2 retro-rockets fire to drop the stage back into the atmosphere Circularization with mini SRBs. Only two are firing. The other pair will be used for the de-orbit burn In orbit collecting sweet sweet science:

That's a really good clarification. I updated my posting above to reflect that. Thanks!

welcome to the forums...piece of advice...Modders aren't supposed to be asked about when an update will occur updates...it's against forum rules because they are players too and working for free. You can always start by reading back in the thread because it's really likely others have commented on its status before. Many 1.3.x mods work just fine without an update and someone has probably already tried it and talked about it.

Are others seeing all these whacky text artifacts? Here's a screen shot in case you can't see it.

wow, dare I ask why you're stuck in 1.0.2? maybe people can help you...maybe on a new thread though, don't want to clog up this one.

I've been seeing some weird stuttering/surging behavior in 1.4.5 that I didn't see in 1.4.3 running the same suite of mods. It sounds very similar. I mainly notice the pauses when I'm in space and building a maneuver node - I notice it then because slight pauses are really obvious when you're trying to tweak a maneuver in really small increments without overshooting. I hadn't reported it yet because I haven't taken the time to start from Stock and test with each mod, but since there's a thread I'll throw my experience out there. NOTE: I am running Memgraph with the same heap config I was using with 1.4.3

with respect, you are drawing conclusions about the game dev's motivations...that's a lot like "putting words in their mouths". @SQUAD has continued to invest a lot of effort into improving the game. I don't always agree with what they choose to tackle and ignore, but I can tell they care and they're working. The last several weekly updates gave a lot of info on things they are working on. I believe @Gargamel's point (not to put words in your mouth ) was that some things are really hard to fix after a game launches and how a game manages memory isn't something that can just be swapped out easily

Everything @Kerbol Explorer said for planets... I'd add a few things to make space look better. use Skybox and Scatterer (linked) for sure...Also look at Distant Object Enhancement and Planet Shine (not linked to keep the post from getting too long)

Some great suggestions...I'd add this - You could attach all 8 boosters to your core rocket and just have 4 decouple at a time - assuming they clear the core engine pods. For example, the up/down/right/left boosters would be a group and the ones set at a 45 degree angle would be your other group. You'd still have the functionality of having 2 sets of 4 boosters, but by pulling those outer boosters tighter to the core, rather than hanging way out there on struts, you'll reduce wobble. Question? What's the mission you're trying to perform. With that core alone, minus the 8 SRBs, you should already have more than enough DeltaV to orbit Kerbin. If you're not going further than Kerbin orbit you may want to try it without any SRBs

The MSP3000 is reusing models from Ven's StockRevamp (with his permission). It uses the VSR cubic strut, material bay and 1.25m nosecones. All models are included with the MSP3000 mod, so it's not dependant on VSR NOTE: Not actually sure what this has to do with inline ballutes TBH, but thought I'd answer anyway. @JoE Smash if you have any more questions about it post on that forum instead

It's pretty straightforward to copy the electric generator code from the RTG and add it to the Engines. From there you can mod it to the power level you desire. This would be a static amount of power, but would get you started.

Use KSC Switcher instead. Don't install KK. You do need to pull the old GPP_LaunchSites.cfg from an earlier version of GPP. I think it was the 1.3.1 compatible version. You lose the KK fancy launch sites, but they all work rescaled again.

I think the overlapping areas are fine. I think if them as tidal or marshy areas which offer very different biospheres than either the nearby water or land. Plus Jeb loves clam bakes

"listening to users' requests and developing new code to fix those things asked for most frequently" what a novel concept!!!! I think that's just how Making History Mission Creator got started

I tried the demo and was not impressed. I spent a couple of hours figuring out how to build a rocket and learned about TWR and DV. I realized that in order to play at a higher level than blind trial and error I'd have to do a lot of math. So, I deleted the demo with no plans to go back to it. It was only a few weeks later that a friend told me about KER. I installed KER, gave it another go and fell in love with KSP.

Yep. by @DMagic It's great.

This brings back memories...this is the first rocket I ever launched on a computer: 10 CLS 20 PRINT " /\" 30 PRINT " / \" 40 PRINT " / \" 50 PRINT " | |" 60 PRINT " | |" 70 PRINT " | |" 80 PRINT " / \" 90 PRINT " ||||" 100 PRINT " ||||" 110 PRINT " " 120 PRINT " " 130 (whatever the command was to loop a bunch of blank lines so the rocket would rise off the screen)

"Realistic" is such a loaded statement...If I consider all computer games/simulations I've ever played, KSP is definitely in the top 1% for providing a realistic simulation of physics. The parts are cartoony, which originally turned me off, but the mechanics under the hood are some of the best I've ever seen for any type of game/simulation. I can honestly say I have a working knowledge of orbital mechanics because of this cartoony game with little green men. I'd say the tradeoff between Orbiter and KSP is more tied to what type of game play you're looking for. Orbiter is a space flight simulator. If you want to feel like a RL astronaut play Orbiter - it has better navigation tools and RL astronauts don't have to design rockets or missions (yes, I know that astronauts provide valuable feedback to the design teams, but they don't actually design it). You get to climb into the rocket and fly it. KSP is about setting goals, then specifying the mission parameters and designing the ships to achieve your goals. The navigation tools are sufficient to let you fly your missions, but they're not trying to simulate the controls of a RL astronaut. Since the controls are not as precise, the game gives a bit of latitude in things like docking accuracy. I think this is a fair tradeoff considering KSP covers so many more aspects of spaceflight - planetary landings, atmospheric flight, underwater, technical progression (however wonky) and Science missions (also wonky) TL-DR: KSP is a jack of all trades, but a master of none. Orbiter is a one-trick pony - it's a fantastic space flight simulator, but sacrifices other game play elements.

Are you using any other mods? Maybe try just US2 and Module Manager. Maybe another mod is messing with batteries using a config that's enabled by module manager?