XLjedi

If you have the sci-fi tech to jump into the atmosphere; I would think your spiffy anti-gravity drive would work wonderfully to gently set you down on the surface? Seems like a pretty big technology disconnect between the two drive systems you are describing.

Sadly...

Why do you ask? If in a sprint for science points to unlock tech tree nodes, your quickest path is thru multiple orbital science labs.

@Servo No, I avoid em because there will always be someone to point out a flaw or better version... Then arguments ensue over who's replica is the bestest-est-est. I've actually seen some people say stuff like, "That's the best replica I've ever seen!" Trying to complement the builder and then 2 or 3 other twits chime in with stuff like "Really? Then you haven't seen my version: [link], [link], [link]" (to be clear, no one has done anything like that on this thread) ...but it can get stupid quick.

It's too late for me... I've already bought into the feasibility of Mystery Goo. Pretty sure that's why Toys-R-Us went outta business; they were just sellin the stuff to anyone straight off the shelf! NASA had to step in to shut it all down... and then Space Force was formed to make sure it doesn't get outta control like that again.

How much higher/faster are you looking to go? The whiplash cruises in the 20-25km range at 900-1100m/s now? As for loading individual cfg's… I'd be interested as well.

Out of curiosity, are you allowed to apply the strategy in that challenge that converts science to income? I've never actually used that strategy so curious if it's just a one-time use thing? I may have to test that. I'm thinkin spamming a dozen or so science outposts in orbit around kerbin could generate decent funds.

Pffft… might as well get out and push. I'll just meet you at the next star in multiplayer after the game ships.

Argh... thems a lot of text and numbers; and we are but simple pirates. So how fast does it go?

@Dragon01 Ah... but you have neglected the application of Kilgore Equations! This is all very well rooted in actual science (fiction) Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torchship Kilgore Kerman... our new father of interstellar space travel!

Cheer up; that's just the slower Cat 3 engine! LOL I'll swing by in my Cat 4 powered white death engine star destroyer and give you a tow to the next star system with my tractor beams.

That's kinda the purpose of the challenge I have in mind... to negate that part of play, or make the optimization of it into a game.

I'm at choice 4. What I'm really hoping for is that we get to create our own defined mission scripts. We then have to demonstrate that mission can be completed. Whatever craft, cost, time, and launch window is required to complete the supply missions (that we create!) to deliver the goods is then available for us to repeat at will and the repeat mission launch date can then be scheduled anytime you like for future valid launch window X. So I'm thinking the tradeoff in managing the missions would be, the more surplus DV you have when you complete the mission, the larger your launch window. Therefore, the more valuable that mission might be in terms of how often a valid window for the mission is open. The cost, craft, and surplus DV is actually determined by how you literally flew the craft. So the better you get at a mission, the bigger your automated launch window. ...and you can refly the mission at any time to see if you can best your surplus DV score (without penalizing your lowest DV automated mission). That's the sort of higher-level supply chain management I would enjoy playing. What I unfortunately suspect they might do... is institute some lame shortcut based on some sort of "Supply Radius" on the big map that just magically allows various consumable resources to "grow" over time as the radii of various bases and stations happen to overlap. Yuck! ...and by upgrading your base with various items, the "Supply Radius" just gets larger. Yuck, again! It wouldn't really be much different than a comms network that magically beams consumables around the solar system. If we go that route, might as well throw in FTL drives too.

I have to say, I'm with ya there... the long time warps feel like too much of a disconnect to me and take me out of the game. If I have missions open, I need to close them all while warping for fear of time expiration. If I close out all the open missions the timeline feels utterly disconnected (for some reason my space program goes dormant for 15 years). If I don't go dormant, then I can fire off those distant explorers, but I'm playing your game in the mean time and have the entire tech tree unlocked well before the first probe ever arrives at distant planet. Distant planet missions become entirely pointless in terms of the "unlock tech tree career game". It's something I hope they can address somehow in the KSP 2 gameplay. On the one hand, no FTL drives, on the other you end up with long periods of dormant activity due to timewarp skips. So I dunno, maybe no FTL drives, but we find a wormhole or something? The time jumps just break the underlying game for me. The only other alternative I could think of would be that each craft you launch is allowed to exist on a separate timeline? So you launch a rocket to Eve to explore the planet, it takes n years to get there, you do your thing... and score the science on future date X. Then you revert back to your earliest mission timeline and you maybe see a projection of spendable science plotted for the future dates? So basically your earliest launched active mission would always be dictating what science you are allowed to spend in the here-and-now. If you accelerate that earliest mission, the here-and-now advances accordingly and you can accel your way (in smaller more managed chunks) toward those future completed missions? Seems a tad abstract, but it's the only viable alternative I can think of to address large skips in time without employing FTL drives or wormhole jumps. Given your preferences... and the fact that you are contemplating a new career, I may also have a challenge that would interest you!

Which all reaffirms my decision to not build replicas... but that is a fine looking craft. Well done!

I always thought that was a curiously complex tail rotor for an otherwise conventional attack helo. I remember way back in my high-school model building days, puzzling over why the tail rotor blades that shipped with my 1/48 scale Apache kit were obviously wrong.

It came to light for me while creating craft and stations with robotics that allow me to manually load/unload various equipment in my craft. I had to enable the settings so the parts would not clip through cargo bays as I was loading and unloading... and to prevent explosive results if detaching such parts while they might accidentally be clipped through something. Works pretty well in most instances; beware ever turning it on for the Claw though. It converts that part into a tool of pure destructive evil! LOL

I don't typically create things like that but... Possibly, the "Same Vessel Interaction" setting needs to be set to ON for all the parts to help with collision detection? Maybe as a test, just try turning it on for a few parts in the wheel and see if it makes any difference.

Well that's encouraging... If at least one person finds it interesting, I'll finish up the achievement patch(es) and post the Pro-Stock Challenge this weekend. I was thinking maybe a single patch, but I am curious to see if people have more pro-stock craft in the: SPH/VAB/Subassemblies ...and then have like specializations for: "Aerospace Engineer" / "Rocket Scientist" / "Modular Master" depending on which Pro-Stock class you favor. A standard award designation might be: "Design Engineer" I'm hesitant on limiting the number of "Pro-Stock" craft to just 25 though; I will probably remove that limitation and just see what people do in terms of the "minimize" goal.

I'd take it as a bad sign if they have no additional clarity on the release date. (and by "bad sign" I just mean we will have a considerably longer wait than hoped for)

I tend to favor reusable since I like to preserve credits. This also seems to fall inline with a Challenge idea that I've been tinkering with... I've been a little hesitant to post it though as I'm not sure how many would really want to bother with it. I also have certain tools that I use regarding the optimization of craft parts in relationship to the tech tree. For example, there are certain parts that make no sense to add to a craft design because it doesn't change the overall performance of the craft in any way other than to constrain its availability until tech tree node X is unlocked. So I can see where others who don't use tools that plot which tech tree parts a craft is comprised of would be as interested. This is my draft idea for a "Pro-Stock" Challenge:

I'm pleased to report that a viable workaround was mentioned on my above bug report! So at least my craft that rely on this can be re-certified for 1.9.0 missions. They still need to fix the bug. ...either that or just get rid of the motorized/unmotorized option since the workaround of setting motor power/size to zero results in a free-swinging hinge. Solution: Set the hinge to: Motorized = ON Motor size/power = zero Motorized = OFF Setting motorized back to OFF and then making sure the Locked is set to Free is not required, however if they do fix the bug in the future, this should insure that your hinges will continue to work as expected under either scenario.

Mostly been trying to patch holes in my hangar of career craft... I seem to be low on decent *safe* Mun Landers, so might have a 2-man science rig to test this evening that fits in a 2-place Mk3 bay. Fingers crossed!

If they have nothing more to say or share at PAX East, then my bet would be late 2020 at best.

Which video game convention(s) would seem most logical to attend and tease more stuff pre-release?