Viper_607

I've run into an issue with a modded install whilst using Realplume and smokescreen etc. The various Rcs thrusters Call module FNModuleRcs, but this seems to default in game to ModuleRcs, which doesn't work properly with realplume or might actually be depreciated completely. Would it be possible to update this to use ModuleRCSFX? Edit: They work, but the Fx is messed up in that the rcs thruster effect fires in the opposite direction of the indicated movement. Edit2: Doing just that breaks the rcs effects completely, so it seems something more might be needed but I'm not someone who knows all that much about this at all. go ahead and ignore my comments!

Doesn't graphite burn at high enough temperatures when within a oxygen enviroment though?

I don't know if it's intentional, but once you've gotten all science from observing a body you end up with 0 data to be transmitted back and thus, if you get a later contract mission to make an observation you can't complete it as it doesn't really transfer any data.

I believe all you have to do is use the stockalike configs and not make any changes to the true fuel value = false, and it should have the performance and weight of real engines and thus, is suited to working on the actual real world earth.

I've run into an odd glitch where by using the MMH + NTO fuel mix in a procedural parts fuel tank, the tank will cause the ship to experience the kraken or become a floating object that experiences lift for no reason. I've set the use realistic fuels to false in my game, perhpas there's something odd with the mass when that flag is set to false? Edit: Apparently I did something to the probe body itself further up causing it to, very often glitch out under odd circumstances. Possibly I did some odd shenanigans when building the probe.

Something seems to be off with a few of the upgrades, for parts, particularly weight and antenna power upgrades seem not to appear in the CTT, and some of the dishes seem to have incomplete info in terms of what the new antenna rating should be. *

@Lack they said it was set to -1 or something to show that it wasn't supposed to be used by the mod maker.

When playing on Rp-0/RO the Airbags in the lander node exists, but doesn't have a category, I believe this might be a bug of some sort..?

I'm curious as to how the R&D (Use R&D teams to improve a part) part of the mod works as currently, that screen seems to be blank.

To me it seems to work just fine, sure, it doesn't lock onto that direction and hold onto it with nails, claws and wrenches, but it does it a lot more gently, and with a lot less wobble.

No more planets will be added until they at the very least get a campaign mode working.

Patch the game?

A de-orbit from that altitude would require approximately 90 m/s of delta-v and depending on the size of your station, and any attached engines, that might be very difficult to achieve. if you're worried, just check your altitude after each docking and adjust with a small tug or built in engine. Unless you decide to "Dock" at 90 m/s, at which point there won't be much of a station to dock with afterwards, then you should be safe.

When is it that you eject the lower central stage on the flight? In orbit around kerbal? if not, at what altitude and what Apoapsis/Periapsis. From what I can see, there might not be enough fuel in the central stack to take it far enough into orbit to avoid wasting the fuel of the lander. Also are you doing any of the following: Gravity turns during atmospheric ascent. Doing a 90 Degree heading. Doing excessive orbital correction burns. "Brute forcing" your orbital transfer.

There's a debugger tool that exists somewhere for that. Check the kethane thread.

That( referring to halsfury's Craft), Is amazing

I try to go for well.. more.. traditional designs.. and I had no idea you could get that much out of so little... I thought the LV had too bad a thrust to weight to be used to get stuff up into that altitude.. guess I was wrong. However, what you're doing there is pretty much maximization, the perfect answer. Then again, it shouldn't cost your arm shirt and foot to get something up to 70k without having to min max.

I Updated (thought I had the newest since I downloaded today) Price went down by 10k for the engine, which is rather decent, though I discovered something that appears buggy: The craft without the engine costs 7528k. The craft with the engine costs 21448k. The Engine is specified to cost 8670k. Other resource cost went from 4637k to 9887k. That's 5250k cost that is coming from no where. If 21448 is an acceptable cost for the first vessel, then the reward needs to be adjusted upwards.

Using stock parts and liquid fuel engines, the first craft for the first mission costs 32249 K, whilst the mission reward is 25000K. Perhaps it's just the formula is off for stock parts vs mod parts. Only way I managed to make a profit was landing it safely on the ground with the engine still attached.

When it comes to balancing, I have the following proposals: Engine costs are reduced, fuel costs increased. Command pod cost increased. When It comes to pricing, to discourage simply rewinding all the time, or having to complete the repeatable missions a billion times after a single failure, the price of a rocket shouldn't be more than a Third or so of the reward given ( Depending on difficulty level), to compensate for failures, and to encourage getting it right the first time. Experimenting through failures is one of the core concepts of Kerbal space program, and hopefully will continue to be so. If you reduce the cost of the rockets or increase the rewards, then the rewind button should be removed, as unless you're horrible at it, you're succeeding the missions after few enough attempts so that you're still making a profit large enough to continue with the next mission, the amount of failures one should estimate for is up for discussion, but allowing failures as a part of the reward system is a definite must. Otherwise, it does require a rewind button as is currently implemented, which is a bad mechanic in games. It goes from being a space centers adventures success and failure to being a You have to get this perfect the first time or you have to reload sort of thing.

I'm curious as to if it would be possible for you to mess with the code that deletes the crafts when they go outside a certain range and are within kerbins atmosphere. If you attach parachutes to them (run a quick calculation to see that if parachute has enough drag to safely land whatever it's attatched to) then it salvages that for 75% cost. That said, That part of the game might be hard coded and difficult to toy about with. EDIT: Also.. is a stock Liquid engine supposed to cost 23120...? Seems... rather excessive given the relative price of other parts. Not to mention that such high Costs for Rockets means that if you screw up once, and only once for the first few missions, then you lose. Even on medium it requires you to do ultra light designs and you can't fail a mission. Take the first mission for instance, If you build it with the largest small fuel tank and the engine with vectoring, then you cant decouple that engine, or you'll practically lose your entire reward.

Nope, and with the new mod folder system, I think no mods are capable of interfering with one another either. Though I guess if you have enough, the game won't be able to load them all, but i'm not sure if that many mods exist yet.

Would it be possible for such a ship to create a curtain of gas along it's hull that keeps the Hull from directly being heated by the atmosphere?

Hai? Is it Pumpkin Pie?

The Unity engine IS multi-platform and so porting it given the engine is possible, yet it also depends on how feasible it is. As for whether or not the console as a gaming device is suitable for this kind of thing... you Could make it work, but it'd be interesting to see how they handle selecting items for right clicking... perhaps cycle through 200 or so parts, or have a pointer appear and move that with one stick. I'm not quite sure how modding would work either, though I'm not sure what support they'll have for that on the x-box one. HOWEVER, from what i've heard when it comes to the xbox 360, windows demands about 10.000$ for rolling out any size of patch. And so features expanded upon such a platform might have to be sold as DLC to make sure that Squad doesn't suffer a loss from it. At the very least, it won't happen before the game is finished, and even then, depending on how intensive the game is, it may not reach any other console. Though one should never say never.