Crimeo

Does it really take any significantly greater R&D or scaling costs though to simply make the exact same tube but shorter to take advantage of a lighter payload (as the alternative to taking advantage of the lighter payload with reusability)? Regardless of the answer, it seems like something you could indeed do some math on. Even if it's a continuum graph not a single answer.

You can drag parts from the container directly to the outside world bypassing your kerbal's inventory, so long as they weigh under 1 ton. Even if they're very large volume. Incidentally, I strongly suggest raising the mass limitation to 5 tons and increasing the reach distance a bit if using this mod a lot, to not pull your hair out or spend hours tediously arranging teams of kerbals on command chairs in a silly fashion.

You can (and should / will need to if you're a user of many mods in general) simply tell steam to run an older version of KSP for a couple months. Not a big deal. You are not locked out of your current setup when an update occurs.

If you're willing to put in a couple hours up front in exchange for seconds-long actions later on, you could write a KOS script to intelligently control a certain layout of infernal robotics parts that you use routinely. Such as to translate from WASD / IJKL type of input into individual joints, so you as the operator can effectively just say "move this way in 3d space" and it does it via program.

? Control surfaces CAN'T use air itself to move normally, because they fight AGAINST the air as a general rule. I.e. in real life, they use wires, hydraulic tubes, motors, etc. Gimbals may possibly use exhaust sometimes, but definitely at least sometimes also use motors and such (though probably fed by the propellant's energy itself). I.e. it would be perfectly possible in real life to operate flaps in a vacuum. The point is just that there's no reason to do so, so it looks silly, that's all. not that it's impossible. Gimbals are less likely to work at zero throttle, but sometimes might be able to depending on the design of the engine, especially smaller engines.

Hi, I've always been suspicious of the SpaceX reusability strategy, because you get the most efficiency out of the last drops of fuel in a tank, so leaving that unused for landing is setting aside a lot of delta v, isn't it? Thus, they have to build a much larger rocket than they could have built otherwise, introducing a question of cost vs. benefit. Is there anywhere that I can go to see where people have done the actual math to prove that making a larger rocket in the first place (in order to have enough fuel to land the first stage) does not end up costing more money overall than ditching the first stage would cost?

Yes. (Though I also actually prefer Valentina). Naming something does not equal "idolizing" that thing. I'm quite confident that the fellows at NASA who chose names like Apollo and Atlas and Mercury were not, in fact, pagan worshipers of ancient Greek gods. They just thought it SOUNDED COOL. Pretty much the same exact motivation here (also why I prefer Valentina mostly. More favorite character, but also just SOUNDS cooler and more epic by a long shot versus jebediah). A lot of these gods weren't even that nice of guys, I don't see much of any objective "greater than" argument -- Apollo for example was a god of learning and some cool stuff, but also a god of a lot of excrementsty stuff like plagues and colonialism. He was important, sure, but far from a roundly good character. Nor is there anything particularly inherently "good" about Greek culture in particular, it's just another culture. And this is part of North American culture...(Squad is Mexican, most players are probably American) *shrug*

Through the RPM camera only. Whatever part my mouse would be mousing over if I was actually looking from that perspective inside the probe core, turns green if it is visible in the exterior CCTV. (I am using HullCameraVDS). Just install an external camera that would include the probe core in its shot, switch to it in RPM, move mouse all around.

Bug found: when a KOS window or mechjeb or whatever else has focus, keyboard commands are not supposed to affect the game (do not in stock). But when I hit "c" even when one of these windows has focus, the camera still switches to probe control room. Should only do so when nothing local has focus. Same for arrow keys, etc. Also, as you mouse around the control room, stuff in the camera feeds gets highlighted green, because it thinks my mouse is right over that part, due to us lying to it about my "kerbal" being in the probe core.

Your operating system etc. also take up RAM, so this may add up to the actual limit anyway.

Note that as mentioned at the end of the previous thread, the mod deepfreeze for me was not compatible with this -- sorry I don't have error logs but by process of elimination of mod, double checked, that was the one for me causing the control room to lose camera focus every staging event and to sometimes show a camera view from inside the probe instead of mission control. Maybe you fixed that (both problems mentioned in OP), but just letting you know in case you didnt check that specific mod (vs only for scansat o something). Also, could we please fix the lighting? It gets dark in the control room whenever the probe is not lit in space. Even if that can't be fixed directly, just adding some nice strong ceiling lights (the model even already has some) would probably drown out the effect at least. Thanks for updating! If I find time, I plan on modeling the IVA of this with much fancier ASET props layout, not just the MFD, but it might be awhile. Definitely more motivated now with fixes made!

Just pointing out that as far as I can tell, unlicense is NOT "share alike", so just because shotgunninja chose that one doesn't mean you would necessarily have to. Just pointing out since you may or may not actually want other people to be able to do the same with your contributions (suddenly switch to a more restrictive license on modification and redistribution, etc. -- such as Disney marketing existing public domain fairy tales). Public domain WITH sharealike is generally more what people intuitively want, in my experience, when looking for public domain licenses. (The original public domain content would still exist either way, but often, people will find only one version of something and not know to look for others or how) Anyway, many people disagree with me, but since your comment suggested certain assumptions, was just laying it out explicitly.

Hi, just to add to the choir, I also get the bugs that hitting "C" takes you to a camera position inside the probe, not to the probe control room. It will flash the control room briefly before going to that improper probe camera view. Also, every time a staging event occurs, it resets the camera to normal non-IVA for some reason. All of the above bugs went away when I removed only DEEPFREEZE , though, not scansat (scansat 16.11, even, was fine, once deepfreeze removed). I'm guessing it has something to do with fake kerbals used for IVA interfering with fake kerbals used as placeholders for frozen ones, etc. But *shrug* @JPLRepo <--why is ping not working?

0.625 reactor is already significantly powerful, definitely OP if anything, not the other way around, it does not make all that much sense to me to have an upgraded version. It's currently described as a stirling engine, and yet is a way high 10x more efficient than the RTG after adjusting for weight, which is itself 2x more efficient than the other RTG, We are spoiled rotten at 60 already, IMO and more than that still would really be getting into the realm of straight up Star Trek levels of not-so-near future tech. (edit: I think real life comparisons previously here were wrong, but just purely in comparison-to-other-game-techs, it's already very powerful. PRETTY sure it's also way more powerful than realistic as well, but the ECs are too confusing for me without enough coffee in my system at the moment) edit 2: Okay it seems the consensus is about 1kW = 1 EC/s. So in real world, a RTG weighing 80kg (stock pb nuk) should produce about 0.3 EC/s PB AS NUK mayybe 1 EC/s, Stirling engine 0.625 thing ~10 EC/s at best (already taking into account increasing weight which multiplies onto efficiency). So you're already getting a 500% fantasy bonus.

@dobrasao The engines that use hypergolic fuels, such as the SSTU hydrazine50 and NTO engines, should not have any limited number of ignitions, as the primary point of using hypergolic fuels is specifically to have as many ignitions as you want, by simply opening the valves whenever and getting spontaneous ignition. They MAY still require ullage realistically, though. Small tanks of hypergols can use flexible bladders to exert pressure without ullage, so small engines usually used with small tanks (like 10 kN stuff) should make sense with no ullage or ignitors, but for the larger engines that imply the use of large tanks, for monoprop or hypergols, it would make sense to have infinite ignitions still but yet to require ullage (bladders are hard to make in large versions effectively).

I mean I don't really know anything about the underlying KSP code flow, so not sure I'd be great at seeking out edge cases, but sure, happy to test stuff.

It's not THAT much work. The pattern an orbit projects onto a spherical body is well known, and equations are readily available. (it's called a "ground track"). I realize it's not trivial, but it is definitely doable. It also has various uses outside of RT, such as allowing for lead time to land at a biome of interest. Of course I wouldn't expect it to work even with maneuvers included, that would be literally impossible, unless already planned maneuvers (in that case actually pretty easy, just stitch two ground tracks together with an offset) And yes RT could also do stuff on their end, alternatively, but this isn't the RT thread

If you're not redistributing any part of a person's mod, only making patch configs, that require the target mod be obtained separately as a dependency from the original author, there's nothing wrong with that. I was mentioning permission mainly for asking about the possibility of a collaborative blended thing of some sort, which you can't/shouldn't do alone, of course. Doesn't hurt to be overly polite though if you like

Have been thinking about this, two possible ideas of fixes not involving patching any individual parts by the hundreds: 1) You said that there should be no visible drain if the reactor is added AFTER the draining parts (and I confirmed this too works for me). What about a mod feature that automatically crawls and re-organizes the internal structure of a ship just before launch (and just after any docking events, etc.) to put all resource converters in order AS IF they were added last in the VAB, to exploit this? 2) What about adding a part or module or whatever makes sense that normally does nothing, but when a vessel is unloaded or begins to warp above some high amount, the part applies logic to check whether the "true" drain of the system is positive or negative/zero for each given resource. If drain is negative/zero (i.e. the resource would not drain in reality), then the tiny part temporarily generates some vast quantity of filled storage for each such resource, to serve as the always-big-enough buffer needed. Then when reloading the vessel or warping back down to low warp speeds again, the vast temporary resource quantities disappear again. If the "true" drain is positive, then it does not take effect, so that if your ships would fairly have run out realistically, they still will.

Do you have any plans to also add capacitors back in? Explicitly named as such and acting like capacitors (very low density and infinite dis/charge rate)? You might be able to collaborate with Nertea to get permission to share his capacitor parts, or just make an addon/extension thing in config and dll form only to patch into near future electrical (weirdly, his capacitors are almost anti-capacitors in their behavior, but whatever, all the more reason for an optional patch). Nertea also definitely knows how to solve the unloaded vehicle resource issue, since he has multiple mods that do so (cryo tanks, NFE, etc.) Edit: also regarding flywheels, keep in mind for modeling purposes of any parts (or choice of existing models), that it would absolutely have to be inside of a gimbal system. If it were just mounted right to the ship, it would utterly screw you over if you tried to turn in 2 of your 3 axes. Inside a gimbal, it's fine, because it just maintains its orientation, ignoring whatever the ship does, but this necessitates different part models that imply gimbals or room for gimbals.

Better image of what I imagine is probably possible with regular old kopernicus? IF issues of "contract for ore from the barycenter" and solar panels are tolerated among the target community. Green X = barycenter, black and red stars have colliding (but still mutually exclusive) SOIs, which would make moving between them sooooomewhat sort of not-so-very-but-sort-of reasonable. And as long as the purple planet's orbit does not overlap the black SOI (is not meant to do so here, isometric 3D view angle taken into account), getting to purple is reasonably straightforward. Same for green and yellow planets far out, if not intersecting with star SOIs Just guessing that this is how colliding SOIs work though...

Hm, if the barycenter is just a magical "star" in the configs with zero or near-zero mass/gravity but a huge SOI, I'm not sure why it'd be expected to break all that much. You could just name it "The System's Center" or something, make clear in the description what it represents, then even if it shows up as a celestial body in the map, so what? The map is just indicating a point of navigational interest. Contracts and science would exist for being "In space high above the system's center" etc., which is also fine -- you could and probably would (for sake of fun/novelty) want to have some planets orbiting each star near-in, and also some planets orbiting further out around the barycenter, so it would actually realistically be an orbit of both navigational and scientific interest I think. I would have expected solar panels to be screwed up, but that was already potentially an issue with a mod like GPP in the first place and seems to work as one would hope yes? Mods that allude to things like "solar science" and assume universe center would be screwed, but also why would anybody ever even reasonably expect such a thing to work in a binary star system mod? That feels overly accommodating... Edit of edit: I'm thinking something like these classic blob models of molecules. The stars are like red and one gray blob, so large they collide into each other, and you move directly from one star's SOI to the other's in the inner system, but if you go far enough out, you fall into only the "system center's" larger SOI -- I think this would work with existing KSP SOI mechanics? I'm not sure you can have them "collide" like this. I know you can't have multiple bodies influence your trajectory at once, but that's not what I mean. I mean colliding as in the sphere would overlap like below, even though you are always officially in only one SOI.

Ahhhh that makes sense yes. Has anybody done this in available packs??? That's awesome. Maybe not because of "career-first mods"? What are those? If the star version is too difficult due to needing a center of the universe object, at least I would hope somebody has tried in a public mod with a binary planet pair? Or IS "making a fake central object" what you mean in the first place by "setting it up manually"?

I am pretty sure that barycenters are indeed not possible in game, i.e. that KSP approximates it as being always a barycenter at the center of the parent body. So the Gratian / Tellumo thing would be pretty inaccurate (the moon is barely a moon of earth, even at 1/100th the mass, and Gratian is 1/10th of Tellumo's mass). Although Grannus is already unrealistic in this way, so maybe nobody really cares. Especially if there's no way to do it in the engine.

Has anyone ever gone about swapping the homeworld to Tellumo instead of Gael? Thinking of giving it a try, but since I have no idea what I'm doing, thought I'd ask first.