Corona688

Not today. Okay? Substantially crappier than stock is just as unbalanced as too good. Like the nova pack I made fun of, they're consistent among themselves and not consistent with the stock game.

Have fun.

There's probably more fun ways to spend your time.

No thanks, I'm not bored with the game yet. No.

Mod parts bug me. I remember the first mod pack someone suggested to me - a really old iteration of novapunch, maybe - had such ridiculously high impact tolerances they could survive nosediving in the ocean with all engines firing. Another one, a tiny Apollo LEM, contained enough fuel to SSTO. And the "ork rockets" pack was a bigger download than the entire game at that point, for around five parts. So if you use parts mods, I'll just assume they're crazy, overpowered vanity parts my video card can't handle until proven otherwise. Other game mods, things which extend the game instead of defeating it, don't bug me at all.

"Idle antennas take no power" was a useful abstraction when an arbitrary "50 somethings" had to last an entire moon mission without recharge. But KSP is now a strange world where a space capsule can only power a 20 watt audio transmitter for a handful of seconds -- or a 100 kilowatt ion drive for roughly the same time. And a few square meters of solar panels handily supplies both. Electricity in KSP is due for a terrible reckoning. Little fine-tuning adjustments aren't going to cut it.

The quarter/half/full texture settings should be ignored for the cockpit navball and other instruments. It makes no sense to reduce them, ever.

A tycoon game has customers which roll up and use your rollercoaster, for instance, so you design your rollercoaster to entertain them and extract their money. (Or to kill them, if you're certain kinds of players.) KSP doesn't really have these kind of outside entities, except for faceless contracts and strategies.

Once again, it'd be nice to see the craft. Right now I can't guess if this is a SAS related difficulty, a center of thrust problem, or something none of us are expecting.

Ah, I see now. There's a big problem with moving the setpoint -- it'd be extremely easy to instruct SAS to put your craft on a trajectory it can't reach. Perhaps if the setpoint just moved with the craft whenever QWEASD were released, instead of having to kill the saturation by tapping F? It could even 'lead' it slightly.

But not through the part configs?

SAS responds to error input. If it's not off-angle, it won't push. So it can't do perfect correction.

Ah, overshoot. A 'hold this course at all costs' SAS would probably be even harder on the craft. It would continue to oscillate well after the control channel saturated. More specifics needed.

Let me see your outtakes of that XD

You have coolant flowing into non-nuclear liquid fueled rockets, too, but they still ride the edge of thermal breakdown. The hotter you make it run, the more efficient it is, so they will always ride the edge. Properly cooling them was -- and is -- one of the biggest challenges in actual space rocketry. These days, you don't get NERVA's overheating unless you use them in clusters, though, which some big enough liquid engines do too, like mainsails.

I completely misunderstood you when you said 'undockable' - I thought you meant they didn't act as docking ports! Excuse me. I'll have to look into that then

I can't KSP without my main computer. You'd probably have to offset it some distance out of the hull and attach to the flange.

Stability assist does not slowly lose bearing -- what actually moves is you, relative to the planet. it can be pushed off course to the point it stops at a new point, but it takes a large angular error to do so. And yes, it would be very nice if stability assist took rotation properly into account but only in surface mode. There's situations like docking where doing that would be very bad. This may be harder than it sounds, if you don't want your craft going bananas when it overflies the pole.

I suppose with struts, docking ports are "almost" good enough - what's truly missing is keying, for fixed angles. If the shape of your structure is at all important, ordinary docking ports won't do.

The SAS is intentional I think - the control PoV of the SAS moving causes its control PoV to move, simple as that. Put it in the center of mass and it'll have less trouble, which I think is the real reason for all the uselessly huge probe cores -- you can put them in a 1.25 or 2.5m stack without having to put a fairing around them. Phantom forces are caused by internal colliders, which I think are banished in 1.2. So this request: ...is kind of a catch-22, you don't really get both.

Not the ENTIRE ship, just stuff it's attached to. Hence the landing-gear-on-docking-ports trick.

This is true for any part which doesn't radially attach, no?

I like "expanding space stations" this way, as well. Docking a nuclear tourist craft boosted Station C from 5 to 12 kerbal capacity - for a few minutes before it leaves for Minmus.

They don't actually have to do anything, just be there. I think Squad's logic was thus: "Let's make the central parts of aircraft fuselage less floppy by default. How can we tell it's an aircraft? It'll have landing gear on it." Some landing gear was much buggier than others in 1.1. I stuck to the medium wheels and medium legs, which worked the most reliably for me.

Read again. You missed the following sentence, where I suggested making it optionally enabled in the alt-F12 menu, instead of permanently enabled at all times.