softweir

Click on the FAR button to hide its GUIs. Check the buttonbar thread for how to hide that.

So long as there was a docking port parallel to the prograde of the station then it doesn't matter - you could put docking ports on a non-rotating hub and keep them pointing for the convenience of ships. You wouldn't want to rotate them unless you could ensure their CoM was aligned with the axis of the station, as that would cause stresses on the dockin mechanism. It depends on how big the station is. The image linked below shows (yellow line) how fast the station has to rotate to achieve 1g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Calculated_rotation_speed_of_a_centrifuge.png For a 10m centrifuge you need to spin at nauseating 9.5 rpm, for a 1000m centrifuge a comfortable 1 rpm will do.

That's putting it too strongly. There is a great deal that can be done with Unity There are some things Unity prevents, but it is progressing and the limitations are being pushed back with every year. No way Squad will do that! The moment they announce suspension of KSP 1, sales will fall through the basement. With significantly reduced cash flow they would be very hard-pressed to create a new game, with new code, from an engine they haven't worked with before. No, what will happen is that Squad will complete KSP 1, release it, debug it, and maybe start adding extra content. Then, and only then, they might consider KSP 2 with a new engine. Or maybe not - that is entirely up to them. I know this thread started in the General Discussion forum so you won't have read the Suggestions forum stickies, but it's worth pointing out that Resources, mining and colonisation are all areas that are listed as "Do not suggest". This isn't because they Won't Happen (they may) but because they are suggested so often that there is very little point in discussing them yet again. For what it is worth, Squad implemented Resources - and found that the implementation was "not fun to play", and decided to get on with other things and think about it again.

No, don't use the old Fustek! Just use the new one downloaded from CurseForge or Dropbox. (The spaceport one is no longer up-to-date.) You mentioned you are using the Firespitter that came with B9. B9 is a bit out of date, the firespitter that came with it is certainly out of date - no wonder you are getting crashes! Try going to the Firespitter thread and downloading the latest version from there - make sure you delete the version of Firespitter that came with B9.

Very nice modelling!

@ctbram: Just so you know, e-dog has deprecated the Keramzit folder and moved the Procedural Fairings folder up into the Game data folder. Nathan's solution will work just as well in the Procedural Fairings folder.

Use the Fuselage Fairings from the Structural tab - those are intended for exactly your application, and don't eject!

Just to correct some misremembered facts: HarvesteR and Moach were teenagers when they sent up kit-rockets, not "little". They used kitchen-foil "astronauts", not matchstick figures. And finally, they called the race "Kerbo", with an adjectival form "Kerbal", and gave them a titular suffix "Kerman". ("Kerman" isn't part of their name, it's a title, along the same lines as "Mister", "Sir", "Commander" and so on.)

Possibly in an earlier version, yes. I only just started using it.

Both the the SDHI docking units are configured so the RealChutes dialog won't open in the Action groups screen. This is because sumghai has envisioned them as single-purpose, highly automated, foolproof devices - they get a command capsule back home to Kerbin safely, and that is it! It makes them much easier to use for that purpose, at the expense of making them useless for planetary landings.

In particular, make sure that your folder tree goes: GameData... <other folders> ProceduralFairings... KSPAPIExtensions.dll ... ProceduralFairings.dll ... If you have changed any folder name, or put the new ProceduralFairings folder in the old folder that used to contain ProceduralFairings (e-dog has eliminated that redundant folder level) then that will cause the .dlls to fail to operate.

Right-click on the base and use the tweakables dialog to increase the number of nodes.

... or create another KSP folder for experimenting. I now have dozens! (You can do it with the Steam install, just copy the folder out of Steam.)

Fixed that for you.

Fair enough! Anyway, I realise could create a mod-manager .cfg to allow it. Just adds RCS capacity to the nose gear.

It's probably too late to suggest, but... Can I suggest you make the forward part of the "cabin" area (just behind the nosecone) into a separate RCS fuel tank? That way players can perform a trick the real shuttle used, which is pumping RCS fuel between the rear and forward tanks to affect trim during the re-entry. It's possible to do this (with some cfg-tweaking) for the previous version, it would be nice to do this with the new model!

Not trolling, but displaying a keen sense of dry irony. It's funny to those who have black-belt abilities in ironic humour. In truth, he appreciates and approves of all those advances.

OK. What, however, are "good" or "bad" value for these plots? Is "big" good? Is "negative" bad? THAT'S the info we need for each and every plot, individually. I am sure a person can work some of it out, but not with any certainty and not without an excess of trial and error that a well-thought-out tutorial could avoid.

An empty wiki.

I believe the CBS will only work with others of the CBS rings. Last I used it, it *did* work! I have had issues where I managed to put the ring on the bottom of a module the wrong way up because it looks so much the same either way up. Remember to flip it before placing it at the bottom! A neat trick when planning to put a CBS unit on the bottom or sides of a module is to dump on the top of a craft, attach any small item to the top of the CBS, then pull the CBS off and rotate it to place it on the sides or bottom of the craft. Then I don't get it wrong nearly so often. If you are getting it on right side up then I don't know what is going wrong.

Same here. I spent ages trying to research the functions on the FAR analysis tabs by googling and ended up with a headache, as everything I found was either far too technical, or else far too terse. So I don't use those analyses; I experiment, throw bad ships away, and mainly use FAR to force me to build stack rockets and not go asparagus mad. I've got a long way by using the various rules-of-thumb that Ferram has given out, but I would love to be able to use those analyses and make the work Ferram put into them do something for me. We really, REALLY, need a step-by-step introduction on all this. At the very least, we need links to digestible, pre-existing tutorials that use the same jargon that FAR uses.

What's stopping the hatches from swinging sideways to a position behind the operator - apart from consistency with other hatches? Would that give more space? How much work would it be to rotate all the other hatches to correspond?

The problem is that other games (particularly consoles) use the opposite convention to aircraft joysticks, and even cursor keys effectively use the opposite convention. However this is a "flight" simulator and uses the flight-simulator/aircraft-joystick convention. BUT - as I said a few posts up, it is easy to switch any annoying W and S assignments in the Settings page.

One of my favourite mods, I use it for all sorts of things! I wonder... would it be possible to scale the fairing bases in the X and Z dimensions but not in the Y dimension? In my eyes they look ridiculously thick when scaled up to large sizes! Alternatively, perhaps you could redesign the base to appear as a number of "brackets". As the base is rescaled they would appear to slide along the part the base is attached to, and won't look so odd. If you moved the upper node so it is at the same point as the lower node then it would appear that parts added to it (such as decouplers and docking ports) are attached to the parent part which would look neat. It's not a biggy, I will carry on using this mod however it appears.

I suspect fuel feed on radial decouplers was put in at an early stage to allow for drop-tanks, before fuel lines were implemented.