TranquilTempest

Also, Is there a way to visualize gravitational field lines? I'm trying to set up a horseshoe orbit.

If I want to change the mass of the star, is there somewhere in addition to the kopernicus config file I need to change it? Or is there a cache file I need to delete so the initialization works properly? When I create a game after making the change, all the planets have extremely eccentric orbits, even if I set their eccentricity to zero in the config file. Edit: I found the principia config files. Do I need to manually re-generate the initial state cfg? Edit2: Editing the gravitational model, deleting the initial state cfg, and force stop then restarting principia worked.

I'm using the contracts that come with SCANSat with contract configurator. Is there a working way to increase the number of simultaneously offered contracts? I tried increasing the maxSimultaneous value in ContractPackScanSatOfficial.cfg, and it will constantly delete offered contracts to make room for new ones. It won't wait for the acceptance deadline before deleting the offered contract.

That's the front a shock diamond in that saturn V photo. There's a lot of awesome video of the falcon 9 plume expanding as atmospheric pressure drops:

The Kestrel and the Albatross: Both were designed for stock, but also work with NEAR.

I just saw an aerial survey waypoint inside a mountain, I was still able to complete it by flying next to the mountain, but it may be necessary to account for max terrain altitude when generating contracts, or possibly switch to terrain altitude at some point.

Custom: 10% rewards, 1000% penalties, 0 starting resources, Quickloading will be allowed for bugs only I'll also be installing DRE, FAR, TAC life support, Remotetech, etc.

Rendezvous without transfer windows: Step 1, set the thing you want to rendezvous with as a target. Step 2, get into an orbit that crosses your target's orbit going in roughly the same direction. This means your periapsis needs to be below your target's orbit, your apoapsis needs to be above your target's orbit. Step 3, your orbits cross in 2 dimensions, make them cross in 3 dimensions by matching planes, or by pushing the AN or DN to one of the two points where your orbit crosses your target's orbit. Step 4, your orbits cross in 3 dimensions at one point, wait until that point and burn prograde or retrograde until you get back around to this point of your orbit at the same time your target does. Burning prograde will mean the target has more time to catch up with you on the subsequent orbit. use a zero ∆v maneuver node to see further into the future, if necessary. For a FAST rendezvous without a transfer window, you plan step 4 into step 2. Sometimes this is expensive, as if you're going from Kerbin to Moho, it may require kicking your apoapsis way above Kerbin's orbit.

Problem: With the current contract payouts, expert players need to increase part costs more than 20x before they need to resort to multiple flag planting or science data contracts from the same place on the same mission, while beginners can still run into money trouble. This speaks to some necessity for rubber band difficulty, but also that just changing the amount of money isn't going to be accurate enough to make difficulty match skill level. While I don't think it's beneficial for that type of cheese to be possible, it does show what sort of difficulty range the game needs to cover. Payouts: First you need to estimate minimum cost to fly a mission. This can be done with a ∆v map/table (I'd suggest this one: http://i.imgur.com/NKZhU57.png) and the minimum payload required to complete the contract(the cheapest or lightest usable probecore or capsule, plus a part to be tested, if applicable). Start with 1k funds per ton of payload at 3km/s, and multiply by 1.7 every time you add another 1km/s. Exploration missions would have tight budgets. The advance would be equal to the minimum price estimate based on a one way probe, and the completion payout would be a lot of rep, and a little science(no funds). There should be an optional bonus for manned exploration missions, where planting any flag gets you the price estimate for a 1 way manned trip, instead of just a probe. Commercial missions would have much more forgiving budgets, the advance would be 3x the estimated cost, and the payout would be 10x the cost of the mission, plus reputation(no science reward). An example of a commercial mission would be to launch a communications satellite into a specific geostationary orbit, maybe use the asteroid system to generate a virtual target ship in the desired orbit, so you can see where you want the satellite to go via the map screen and navball. Government missions(like a "weather" satellite into a polar orbit) would have bigger advances than commercial missions, but give less reputation. Flag planting missions should require a specific mission flag to be carried from Kerbin. They'd be commercial missions in payout, and should probably have a bonus objective for returning the Kerbal home. Part testing missions would be commercial missions with science rewarded instead of reputation. Rescue missions would give a little money(cost of minimalist ship), no science, and a lot of reputation. (Crew hiring should be expensive enough to justify rescue missions.) Science data missions should require science from a biome/instrument combination that hasn't been exhausted yet. I also think additional biomes on the same planet or moon should give diminishing returns in general, so that the first surface biome you visit with an instrument gives 100%, the second gives 70%, etc. It shouldn't be possible to max out the tech tree with just the mun and minmus. Reputation: This is an obvious place to go for setting the rubber band difficulty, but it may need tweaking to make it useful for that purpose, such as a reputation penalty for being low on money, or a reputation boost for having over 2m saved up. How do you actually go about adjusting the difficulty? I think the best way would be to make the actual contracts harder to complete, like a flag planting mission requiring a specific biome, a science mission requiring a specific instrument in a specific biome, or a comsat mission requiring a precise 6 hour period at a specific longitude and zero inclination. This way a complete newbie can complete a contract asking for ANY orbit, while better players get tighter and tighter constraints until they start failing some missions. I think failure is a necessary place to dump excess funds, at ALL skill levels. Yes, you need to do some payout scaling as well. It should be tight enough that everybody runs into cost constraints, and needs to do some commercial missions to raise funds for their exploration missions. Contract availability: I think the availability of exploration missions needs to reflect reputation instead of just being offered X place next, and should expire like the procedural missions. They should have a minimum reputation threshold, and be offered periodically until they've been accepted or completed. This way you can skip places you don't want to go yet, without those exploration missions permanently blocking contracts for the places you do want to go. Commercial missions should require the exploration mission for that place be completed, but flag planting missions probably shouldn't require it.

I'm running 10x part cost 10x fuel, and I'm still accumulating money. I'm at 2.4m after mun minmus, Duna and Ike. I'm using FAR, DRE, and RT as well. I think flag missions(beyond the first one for each planet) need to require the mission flag be set to the company that gives you the mission. So you have to fly a new mission to complete multiple flag planting contracts on a single moon or planet. As right now it's possible to just farm infinite funds without flying new missions. That's a limitation I place on myself voluntarily. The part testing missions usually aren't worth it, unless you're already going to be in a position to test the part during an exploration mission.

How difficult would it be to sync to players in the past, in order to spectate someone that's behind you?

Career mode: First mostly stock(just information and visual mods), then with a bunch of difficulty enhancing mods(FAR, Deadly Reentry, RemoteTech, etc.) Sandbox mode: DMP. I won't be playing the science only mode.

There appears to be a craft exploding bug if you grab a planted flag with a claw equipped rover, then drive away. (excessive g-force) Probably not worth fixing, but definitely worth replicating. Is DRE able to tell the difference between a net force(acceleration) and a balanced force(parts in compression or tension)?

I think it could have a bit better thrust to make it more useful on Eve.

I do understand not wanting to put a lot of work into something that will be obsolete in the next patch. Maybe someone writing new missions will pay attention to this thread, maybe it's a moot point. I think it's better to figure out the problem and try to explain it than just hope it isn't repeated. I installed MCE because I thought it would be fun to deal with cost constraints, in addition to stuff like FAR, Deadly Reentry, Remotetech, etc. It was pretty challenging at the start, while I was figuring it out, but now I have enough cash that it isn't really a constraint. Obviously there needs to be some range of difficulty levels in the final game. Maybe dynamic difficulty, based on how much you spent on previous missions, maybe just make the payout for science heavy missions very small, near the limit of the minimum possible budget, while having some lucrative commercial missions to places/orbits that you've already obtained science from. This way the more skilled players don't have to do easy missions if they don't want to. I think it would take a lot of playtesting to figure out the best way to balance the wide range of player skill.