Exposure

They're not really meant to replace parachutes. They're more meant to be aids for landing (trying to land at 150m/s would...probably end badly) or for parachute deployment (with FAR, losing as much speed as you can before having to deploy parachutes that could rip off if you screw up is vitally important, so airbrakes can be a major help in that case)

Recently, it has become a top priority. Before I was content with "eh, as long as I can quickly press space enough for them to escape it's fine", but ever since I installed Deadly Reentry and Mission Controller I always tried to do my best to make sure those Kerbals come home safe. Besides, losing 50000 kredits or more due to life insurance payments is expensive, launch escape systems are like, below 100 kredits. I can certainly afford to bother making sure those are installed and working at the least.

From an outsider perspective that is kinda what your's and Sojourner's posts sounded like. I mean, I would say that 2012 XCOM and Sonic 2006 could have around the same level of difficulty in a very broad sense, except XCOM does it by providing the challenge of keeping pace with the aliens as they start relatively strong and just grow from there while you start off with basic weapons that pale in comparisons to what they got, but the game will do its best to provide the knowledge you need in order to fight effectively along with providing a generally cooperative UI and camera, while Sonic 2006 provides "challenge" in the sense that you will be struggling against the terrible controls (have fun doing 3D platforming when everything feels like someone just typed down settings that seemed right and called it a day), the terrible camera (3D platforming, with an inability to see where you're actually going!), the terrible gameplay decisions (instadeath vacuuming balls that appear in locations you will barely be able to see before they form, placed in a set of levels that will result in you doing them over and over and over for hours ), etc etc. In other words, one of these games provide challenge in the sense that it's fun to try your best in the game, even if you'll lose here and there along the way, you don't feel like you've just been asked to do something unreasonable. The other one provides challenge in the sense that it feels like someone just asked you to sit on an angry honey badger for six hours. They may result in the same level of difficulty being delivered, but one of these does it in the far more optimal and least customer losing way. And so far it seems like all the changes in KSP have been to ensure the challenge being delivered is the former rather than the latter. (Granted it wasn't much of the latter in the first place but there's always room for improvement somewhere.)

I think he's asking for something that would make attaching the flat end habitation/logistics/science/utilities module to the 1.25m sized holes of the node modules a more aesthetically pleasing proposition...like let me draw up a hastily made mouse only paint diagram of what I think he wants:

Surprisingly enough, a simple commenting error. Part of the cfg by default looks like this: //MODULE { name = ModuleSAS } And causes the loading lag. Whereas if I change it to this: MODULE { name = ModuleSAS } Loading is normal. It's a bit fascinating how such a small error can cause such a big bug. In the genuine sense, not the mockery sense in case anybody takes that the wrong way. I didn't think it would actually be the cause of the problem until I tried it out on a whim.

Actually, that's why I thought it was a mod incompatibility issue. When I removed everything except FASA and the stock parts, it loaded just fine, so I tried narrowing down the list of mods it seem to be having problems with. And inspired a bit by what you said concerning which file it is, I just went and tried narrowing it down to which part was causing the problem. It seems the culprit was the Gemini Lander Pod, I take that out and suddenly everything starts loading fine again. Put it back in and the loading issues reappear. I'm still a bit baffled as to why this is the one part my mod list seems to be having trouble with but I'm willing to forgo using it in exchange for other kinds of landers for Mun and Minimus missions in exchange for being able to keep up with the latest versions of your mod. Crisis averted.

Can't wait for stage 2 of your mod to start coming out...but I seem to be having a problem that cropped up with the latest version of your mod. (Though I will say that I'm still not entirely sure whether it's actually FASA's fault or something else that removing FASA or the other competing mod fixes by coincidence) Basically, with the latest version of FASA, it seems to slow down loading time massively to the point it would probably take an hour to finish loading everything before launch unless either A: I remove B9, H.O.M.E, and Extraplanetary Launchpads to reduce the slowdown to something tolerable (or, at the extremes, remove a great deal of my installed mods to get the original loading speed), or B: Remove FASA to reduce the loading time to its normal, fast (relatively speaking anyway) state. The odd thing is that this only occurs with the latest version, the previous version will cooperate just fine with those mods without interfering with loading...even though it seems like all you did was add new parts for the latest version, and I've updated other mods that changed more in their updates without them going haywire like this. It's a bit mind boggling.