NeoAcario

You know I was just giving you a hard time... you don't have to cater just to me! And built-in hubs are just fine. I don't mind more parts to pick and choose from! Well, as long as you don't mind me deleting the ones I don't use! ~Steve EDIT: If it's faster and easier.. just stick to what you know! Can always experiment when you don't have fans like me harassing you for more content, faster!

It "Should" Just get it to the very edge of the atmo. The problem is... I don't think it could maintain orbital velocity. Hrmm... maybe if you used something like KAS to drop a wench down into the atmo? Would that work? The only problem I see with it is maintaining orbital velocity. How about.. instead of an Airship... you just put a base about 25m above the atmo and try dropping a wench down. Might work! Just be VERY careful when docking. ~Steve P.S. Am I the only one unable to reprocess nuke fuel right now?

ignore this, I was being indecisive.

Aerobraking... well... or maybe an airship. Woo... a max altitude airship refueling base! ~Steve

So what's the ETA on these totally awesome new Toroidal tanks, with 3 spokes, you're making me drool over? ~Steve

Please just make the center stack piece as short as possible. I'm sick of mile long, skinny ships! Woo... and you could add an additional center attachment point to your sphere tanks. This would give people the option to forgo even using the center hub if they want. They could use a small center sphere and a huge outer toroidal all in the same vertical spot. ~Steve EDIT: Wouldn't this also allow us to place these toroidal tanks the spot between two adjoined vertical stacked items? I do this all the time on accident in the VAB with vertical stacked parts.

Fractal_UK Upon further consideration... I really, REALLY love the idea about not being able to transfer UF6 or DUF6 between reactors. This is gives us a couple more mandatory missions: Either dock with a ship that has a science lab to reprocess it for you, or (and eventually no matter what) build your craft in such a way that you can swap out your reactor+gen combinations.... or even entire drive sections. This further pushes the use of AM. Because if you use an AM drive section... you'll never need to swap it out. You WILL however still need to swap out the ship-wide power reactor. Going to be fun designing bases with reactors located so that they can be swapped out... and the ships to carry out the missions! I love it. I honestly hope you feel similarly. ~Steve

Talisar My goal with this was to reduce the part count (as well as shortening the center stack). Let's just assume we keep each diameter toroidal a single part with the spokes part of it. Closer look at the 7.5m. 3 inner spokes. These spokes end just past* where they could connect with a 1.25m diameter part/center stack. A radial connection point placed at the 1.25m mark along the spoke... and then the 2.5.. and the 3.75m. This would allow you to keep your part count down as well as giving them more possible uses. Or are you saying this wouldn't be possible? You also did say you could make the spokes not register for clipping.. so that's a non-issue. This method would allow you to make a 3.75m that could attach to 0.625, 1.5, and 2.5. A 7.5m that connects to a 1.25, 2.5, and 3.75. And finally perhaps a 11.25m that connects to a 2.5 and 3.75. *Obviously you'd want it slightly longer so it would clip through and you wouldn't see a gap. Low part count, higher versatility... this wouldn't work? Unfortunately I see no way around it being fickle with placement in the VAB... especially with the smaller radius center stacks. ~Steve EDIT: I think the only 11.25m sphere tank I'm going to make is Kethane... good gosh they're huge and heavy when full (and 30.375t empty!).

Talisar Question/Idea for you and your toroidals. You mentioned the idea of making some toroidal tanks with only the inner spokes and without the hubs. Is it possible to give these spokes multiple attachment points? If so, you could make one-size-fits-all toroidal tanks. Just make attachment points down the line for each size cylinder you'd allow it to attach to. So, say for a 7.5m toroidal. You could add attachment points along the spokes appropriate for 3.75m, 2.5m, and 1.25m all on a single part. This would do wonders to reduce part count. But I don't know if that's even possible. Then again... the user would have to turn on part clipping to get it to fit... ugh. EDIT: Or would they? Possible to mark areas on parts to not indicate clipping? Also.. what do you think about cutting the inner spoke count to 3? Or am I a weirdo for doing 3s in most of my constructions? ~Steve

On second thought... I'm not sure if we need 15m sphere tanks. Sure, it would make for a great center for a station... but is there any other reason we'd need 8x the volume/mass/fuel of the 7.5m spheres? They're pretty damn big already. I guess if I need bigger I can edit a standard large sphere from 7.5m into an 11.25m sphere with a 3.75m hub just by editing a new .cfg file. That's still 3.375x capacity. ~Steve

All water is technically rocket fuel... just, already reacted. ~Steve

TOROIDALS!! GIMME!! I can't wait to try 2.5m hub and 15m radius Toroidals... /drool Honestly, I think the best / simplest fix for the spherical mk2 tanks would be just to make them ovoid. You'd lose what, like 5%-7.5% capacity but it would look the best aesthetically. I think. ~Steve EDIT: Honestly, I think the toroidals are a key thing missing from the core game. Allows us to shorten our center stack. Lower part count.. and add large capacity fuel tanks. Besides, it's awesome to be able to fly through them on EVA! I must admit that one design of a kethane miner looks pretty silly with using a toroidal as a base and lining the inside with 12 drills. EDIT2: I wouldn't worry about part count. Just do what I do - delete all half sphere tanks (or whatever tanks you don't use). To be honest though, I think I would use half sphere tanks if you made some 15m size. How about tossing out some 15m size tanks? Or do I have to make them myself with editing the config files? I'm ok with that. I can do volume math and change scale and other numbers in .cfg ^.^ V=(4/3)Àr³

It's actually working in my favor with the inability to initiate nuke fuel reprocess! Not complaining! Just that it also seems to be breaking the issue with the AM forge. I always come back to it being out of UF6... but it makes the correct amount of AM when it's presumably out of UF6 to power making AM? Doesn't make sense. ~Steve

Talisar I have a request: Would you consider shortening the collars on the mk2 versions to be the same as the standard? Example: The standard large tank is 7.5m max connecting to a 2.5m. This has a very short collar and looks right. The mk2 is 7.5m max connecting to 3.75m The collar on this thing is MUCH long and I think detracts from the aesthetics. Wouldn't you agree, or is this just my opinion? ~Steve

BUG: Reprocessing Nuke Fuel in backround doesn't work... but AM production in backround (with science labs) works perfectly. When testing it on my AM Forge. 10 upgraded 3.75m reactors+gens running at about 80% capacity. 4 labs making AM and 1 reprocessing Nuke Fuel. I had it switched on before reinstalling with 6.2. This set up makes BARELY more UF6 than DUF6. I should come back to a station full of UF6 but I always return to it empty. ~Steve

BUG: I'm having problems I didn't have before with Transmitting and Receiving Science. I am now having the problem of not being able to transmit packets of less than 100 Science (I have 54 stuck) and I cann't receive on another station the almost 8k I just transmitted. ~Steve EDIT: Confirmed... for some reason backround AM collecter generation is right around 19%. No idea why. EDIT2: Any chance for a hotfix when you find the problem with initiating nuke fuel reprocessing? Don't want my AM forge to die in a year... or my primary vessel + science labs to die in 3 >.<

BUG: Is there a problem with backround AM Collector generation? I only received about 20% of what I should on my AM collector station during my 203 day test at 100,000x speed from another vessel. Is this some how tied to phys warp? I have so much docked to this station that it only runs at about 20%. ~Steve P.S. Unable to duplicate CPU lab button for receiving data disappearing. EDIT: My AM forge (which already had DUF6 reprocessing active) is still making more UF6 per second than it is using DUF6 per second. Currently at 0.32 UF6 and 29.78 DUF6

Major Bug: Cannot activate nuke fuel reprocessing on science lab. I just did a fresh install... so it's not that. My science/cpu lab is at 0.35 UF6 and 0.07 DUF6 and can't click on Reprocess Nuke Fuel. All it does is cause the science lab to deploy fully/instantly and then close back up. Also - Clicking between Transmit and Receive Science causes the Receive option to vanish. The Research+AM functions still seem to work fine. Anyone else see this problem? Confirmation? ~Steve

Fractal_UK One thing I didn't see addressed was refilling Nuke Reactors. Are there any plans to allow us to refuel them? I think I might actually like not being able to. This would make it ideal to position them so they can be changed out after a few decades. Could be fun actually having a mission to change them out. docking port-reactor-generator-docking port ~Steve

To be honest I'd rather you find them. 6.1 had about 3 major bugs that screwed over my entire plan for a KSP Interstellar. Now it all works! With a few extra features! YAY! If you're hoping for some big wrenches thrown in your works.... good luck? ~Steve

I love you so much right now... no homo Ugh... but now I have to find new bugs to complain about! ~Steve

1> Use this map... http://www.skyrender.net/lp/ksp/system_map.png 2> Add up relevant dV numbers 3> Multiply dV by 0.02775 That's the minimum AM required. What do I win?! ~Steve EDIT Obviously that's a 1.25m AM reactor + Gen + Plasma + Xenon... with a large enough Xenon tank to go to and from any planet from Kerbin. 23341 total dV.

I do recall something about being able to recover some cost from returned / landed ships on Kerbin. Will this include the remaining fuel? If so, it would make selling AM quite a nice idea for fund raising! I like the idea ~Steve

That's an awesome start, Talisar! I have 2 notes for you. 1> People like mods that look stock. So if you can match the same base colors it would improve aesthetics and the parts would blend better 2> On the same note, please take a second pass on the colors. For some reason a couple of the bands don't appear to be the same color. ie the Kethane green stripe looks bright for some reason. This may be because it's on a darker backround? 3> Got those wider variety of toroidals coming along? ^.^ You're moving in the right direction! Keep it up ~Steve

I'm confused by your intention... your entire space program produces (and uses) insane amounts of power. You want us to limit it? Well, to track it anyways. I guess I'm not confused - this is why I started using LFO in my Thermal Nozzles. It has the highest 'isp' with regards to AM. Thus, saving power. Interesting idea. Only thing that comes to mind is setting up a website to process our uploaded save file for our power usage on active ships. Unless you want to code into your mod a tracker file. Have it upload upon click in game. Just like the Kerbal Alarm Clock has an in game check for updates button. ~Steve EDIT Obviously the most energy efficiency in the game is running Plasma Thrusters with Xenon.... that's a lot of thrust per second of reaction! EDIT Perhaps an the upload in game option... but only for currently active craft? Is there a way to have it include a screen shot? Could be interesting to see a page of user submitted ship creations and their efficiency. Could even sort by category. Mining bases, science labs, AM forges, etc... Could possibly have the site store the .craft for others to DL and test themselves?