Andon

so, something I found here that may be considered a "bug" by the creator (but others may take advantage of) is that, in the Action Groups, you can assign the doors to a group - and it functions as a toggle open/close, even without anyone remotely near it.

So, one thing I noticed (Or that is just quirky with my copy) is that there are ore and metal bins... but no rocket part bins. Only the already-full rocket part containers. Is this a problem my end or are they missing in the download?

Tweakables are, as far as I'm aware, things like this - toggling parts in the VAB, changing part properties in the VAB, etc. Setting the amount of fuel in a fuel tank before launch, wheels being deployed or retracted, etc. That sort of thing.

Tweakables, coming in .23 (Which is Soon), very well may accomplish that.

I have to say kudos on the model and texture work. I went ahead and made some double-tall rings by scaling the height up. I was worried the texture would look bad... but it doesn't even look stretched. Fantastic work.

Needs more intakes.

Such a chute would be near-impossible to make in reality, but there are other ways to do this. The B9 pack has airbrakes - putting these to the rear of the craft and deploying them on re-entry will help with keeping it lined up properly.

it seems like I derped and forgot the link in my prior post. Has now been fixed.

OK, so... it seems that fairings aren't working to shield the parts inside. I've tried "Fairing," "Payload," and "Shroud" in the title and they bring up the "Parts shielded" on right click but it is 0, and any items inside aren't shielded. If I rename it as a "Cargo Bay" it works to shield it. Perhaps nothke could get Ferram to include "Utility Bay" for cargo bay shielding properties? Anyway, these versions shield stuff that's inside them. Only things changed are the titles - I added "(Cargo bay)" to the end - and the descriptions - I added "(Not actually a cargo bay)" to the end. I only included the .cfg files - so just replace the ones from the first page's download. EDIT: Derp, forgot the link: http://www.matchfiregames.net/andon/ksp/SerCom_cb_cfg.zip

Another thought I had was "Endcaps" for the pieces. Yes, the flat adapters work nicely for it, but having dividers (That you can stick things on!) would also be convenient.

So what you're saying is: Wheels can go faster, but just because it has wheels doesn't mean it'll go faster.

A kethane/ore scanning satellite around the Mun, just after getting sunlight because Kerbin decided to block it.

I use B9 and the cargo bays are usually fantastic. Sometimes, though, you just want a closet to shove a kerbal in. These are perfect size for a protected command seat on small rockets, which can be particularly useful for places where every itty bit of mass counts. Storing cargo in them, though... Not really practical, honestly.

Hmm... Would it be possible to make kerbal-sized door versions? I could see that being particularly useful sometimes

the only issue I see with this is having it easy to get unbalanced. But this is cool! I LOVE it! *yoink*

Just thinking recently - What I would like to see is a 1.25 and 2.5 stack parts container. Would be nice for when you just want to bring along a few parts and don't need the movability of teh storage containers.

The issue then becomes the non-part mods, such as Deadly Re-Entry or FAR. I know TAC Life Support has a toggle on a per-game basis so it can be done if the modders care to go to that extent, but I'm not sure if there's a way to do those sorts of plugins on an on-the-fly basis

I'm currently running Farram Aerospace Research (FAR), Deadly Re-Entry, TAC Life Support, and RemoteTech as far as realism goes. Be warned, though. Realism means DIFFICULT. FAR is overall an improvement over a lot of things, but it also means you can't pilot your rockets in the same manner - and your building will be difficult. Trying to turn your rocket may result in failure to turn due to atmospheric forces... or it may result in the thing doing a flip and pointing the wrong direction. Deadly Re-Entry is... harsh. It makes returning things VERY difficult. With the Mk1 pod, I lost a lot of earlier missions because I was trying to return things with it and it would end up pointing the wrong direction (Due to FAR, mostly, although it probably still would in stock), burning off all the parachutes, and then smacking into the ground. Attaching some of the B9 airbrakes to the pod has helped, but before I unlocked them... it was difficult. I ended up doing some wonky builds with Procedural Fairings and protecting radial parachutes on a strut with those... It worked! Don't judge me! TAC can also be harsh, but it's not difficult to plan ahead with. Nor is it very mass-demanding for smaller flights. Flights out to Mun and Minmus with just a 1m inline all-in-one container work fine. It can be hard earlier with power requirements so you don't freeze to death, but if you make sure you have enough batteries and don't stick around on the dark side of things too long you should make it just fine. RemoteTech2 flips science on its head. you want to return things for some time, since it can be hard to get a proper connection without any relay satellites. And getting your relay satellites up can take some effort! Plus, limited range on communications means that you're restricted to Minmus and the Mun for some time. In all, though, I've found it's made thigns a lot more fun for me. A lot more thought involved. There's another plugin in development that's meant to impose build times on rockets, but it's not quite to the functionality I'd like to install it.

The reason that Manuever Nodes sometimes disappear on staging is the way the rocket is built. If your rocket is Command pod, decoupler, tank, engine, decoupler, tank, engine and you start from the command pod you should have no issues with staging. If you start from the bottom tank and build up, you have issues. When you decouple the bottom stage, the "main" part is removed and then you go to the "new" ship. Thus, no more maneuver nodes. The "Main" part I think is then set to the next newest item on the list which is probably the next engine. Then when that gets dumped with a stage, it has to reset again and fix your ship to the next thing.

it IS a pain in the ass. The solution I've found is using Kerbal Alarm Clock and setting an alarm for that node - This actually saves the node and, when the alarm goes off, can restore it.

in addition, if you angle the tracks to where the center is off the ground, they stop moving entirely. You can actually make them go pretty speedy if you combine them with something like, say, Modular Multiwheels or similar and make a half-track.

Honestly, I'm more interested in adding planets, but some people (Lower-end computers perhaps) might be interested in trimming down a few of them.

Poking around with this and I have to say I'm fairly impressed with what it does. The only issue that I have is one that most people won't care about - customization. Configuring a planet isn't terribly difficult - they layout of your config files is fairly straightforward. My only issue is that while it seems moderately trivial to "Add" a planet in the folder, you have the list of planets hard-coded. So I couldn't, say, strip out some of the planets. Also couldn't add any planets of my own, without rebuilding the source. Is there any chance you'll be adding a way, such as maybe a "Planet list" file, that people can add their own planets without having to download and modify a perfectly good and flexible plugin? EDIT: I also seem to have "DEFAULT" written in the skies of Sentar...

So... I just had a thought about construction times. Instead of an artificially imposed time limit - perhaps put some form of time acceleration on the game while you're in the VAB or SPH? So, perhaps you'd have a 4000-5000x acceleration while in the SPH (Giving about 14-18 days of game time for a 5-minute construction), and maybe around 10000-20000x in the VAB (Giving about 34-42 days of game time for a 5-minute construction). A "Minimum time" could be imposed, so just loading up and launching a rocket would still take time. But it would "Naturally" do a few things without extra coding needed: 1 - Modifying a design would take time but not as much time as re-building the rocket 2 - Loading a design that's been used before takes a lot less time 3 - Ship isn't loaded into the world while being "built" so you don't have those shenanigans. Just a thought. Exact times are of course, just rough numbers that sounded nice. I know it's quite a bit different than what you've been doing, but hey... The only issue I see is ships that are currently in-flight. But that can be solved by auto-saving the ship and pulling up the auto-save next time they go to the VAB.

It WOULD be pretty cool to have a placeable fuel line, though. I'd be all for that idea.