Whirligig Girl

The old SAS modules still exist in the code, you can download the old versions of KSPX to see how they work. If not, might I suggest you make the FFM Module a Probe Core? A big, massive, bulky thing sure, but at least you're not endangering Kerbal life. It reminds me of the oldest versions of NovaPunch, there was a Remote Guidance Unit that was a big cylinder, and the IVA Kerbals were presumably in the control room, but with a bomb linked to the ship's wellbeing.

I already knew that.

The tank is great, and the textures look rather stockalike indeed! But I think the engines need more work to bring up to the quality they should be at. The engine bells look just too cartoony. Otherwise it looks great!

I just want to note that the aesthetic of SpaceEngine planets don't really work with the stock planets. It's the same as with Realistic vs Stockalike parts packs. Planets have their own stockalike aesthetic as well, and Space Engine doesn't really fit that. That said, if someone were to create much more realistic versions of the stock planets, that would be awesome. What I mean is that craters on the Mun look rather different than those of the Moon. The KSP planets, like everything in the Kerbal universe, are stylized for a cartoonier aesthetic. THis doesn't mean they don't look good, but it does mean that this: Doesn't work in the context of KSP planets. But it would be so cool to see someone try to make Kerbal Planets look realistic, especially the biggest offenders: Bop, Gilly and Pol* *Pol has to be unrealistic because it's pollen.

It would be much better for introducing the 1.875m range.

*Laughs continuously*

This god sad quick. Intrigued to see how this goes. I've never really seen a story about one of the Kerbals in the R&D Facility.

So instead of building a spaceplane (presumably out of the parts that you had) each time, you save a spaceplane in the hangar in whatever state it was when you left it, and then you can edit it as a ship, but removing parts costs money too, unlike when you build a new ship. Placing parts would still be important if you wanted to overhaul a plane, and especially if you wanted to add cargo. Meanwhile, building new ships would not only assign a cost to parts, but to the joints between them, and then another price for the cost of running the VAB's machinery such as cranes and lifts and trucks. So a ship that costs 10000 funds might add a 70 to 90 fund increase due to the part assembly, and a times 0.123 or so to that from the VAB. The assembly modifier might improve with the tier of the VAB, but of course, that would further putting the difficulty curve in the wrong direction. So while you could salvage all of the parts from a crashed rocket that broke into pieces, even at the KSC, the parts recovery value of 99% wouldn't mean you could put it all back together for the same price. Recovering a big rocket that's still put together would keep the funds for the part joints, but it wouldn't be able to be reassembled in the VAB as easily, since you're still assembling them out of parts. Or you could just take the fully assembled bit and save it in the hangar, where you can relaunch it with little to no extra servicing costs, except that you can not just take in broken parts. I figure there would have to be a saving mechanic so that if you break off some parts of your ship, you could rebuild them exactly in the hangar. Saving would also be useful for designs where you fine tune the fuel tanks and you need just the right amount in them at launch. Fueling cost would of course be added on to servicing cost. Building payloads would probably be done in the VAB. Once you've built a payload, you can instantly transfer it to the Hangar, but for the same cost as building and launching it. Then you can place it however you want. Perhaps placing a part directly onto a ship in the hangar might cost more than in the VAB, unless you are using a docking port. The difference being that taking OFF parts would also have a cost compared to the saved ship. I think that if you use a docking port though, no placement cost at all should be added to the craft, because you're just putting together pieces. It doesn't cost anything to dock two existing ships in space, so it shouldn't cost much to put them together in the Hangar. Similarly there might be a need to take a recovered spacecraft and put it on a non-reusable launch vehicle (Space Shuttles!). So you could then take a ship out of the hangar and put it in the VAB with no extra building or assembly costs, and then build out a launcher for it. The thing would be that you couldn't change anything in the shuttle at all, it would be it's own part for all intents and purposes in the VAB. TL;DR: Build once, launch as many times as you want. And there's another thing: Gus gets way more strategies. For instance, maybe you could have a strategy that takes away from VAB costs but in exchange makes hangars more expensive to use, would be great if you're running a big-dumb-booster powered space program.

So instead of building a spaceplane (presumably out of the parts that you had) each time, you save a spaceplane in the hangar in whatever state it was when you left it, and then you can edit it as a ship, but removing parts costs money too, unlike when you build a new ship. Placing parts would still be important if you wanted to overhaul a plane, and especially if you wanted to add cargo. Meanwhile, building new ships would not only assign a cost to parts, but to the joints between them, and then another price for the cost of running the VAB's machinery such as cranes and lifts and trucks. So a ship that costs 10000 funds might add a 70 to 90 fund increase due to the part assembly, and a times 0.123 or so to that from the VAB. The assembly modifier might improve with the tier of the VAB, but of course, that would further putting the difficulty curve in the wrong direction. So while you could salvage all of the parts from a crashed rocket that broke into pieces, even at the KSC, the parts recovery value of 99% wouldn't mean you could put it all back together for the same price. Recovering a big rocket that's still put together would keep the funds for the part joints, but it wouldn't be able to be reassembled in the VAB as easily, since you're still assembling them out of parts. Or you could just take the fully assembled bit and save it in the hangar, where you can relaunch it with little to no extra servicing costs, except that you can not just take in broken parts. I figure there would have to be a saving mechanic so that if you break off some parts of your ship, you could rebuild them exactly in the hangar. Saving would also be useful for designs where you fine tune the fuel tanks and you need just the right amount in them at launch. Fueling cost would of course be added on to servicing cost. Building payloads would probably be done in the VAB. Once you've built a payload, you can instantly transfer it to the Hangar, but for the same cost as building and launching it. Then you can place it however you want. Perhaps placing a part directly onto a ship in the hangar might cost more than in the VAB, unless you are using a docking port. The difference being that taking OFF parts would also have a cost compared to the saved ship. I think that if you use a docking port though, no placement cost at all should be added to the craft, because you're just putting together pieces. It doesn't cost anything to dock two existing ships in space, so it shouldn't cost much to put them together in the Hangar. Similarly there might be a need to take a recovered spacecraft and put it on a non-reusable launch vehicle (Space Shuttles!). So you could then take a ship out of the hangar and put it in the VAB with no extra building or assembly costs, and then build out a launcher for it. The thing would be that you couldn't change anything in the shuttle at all, it would be it's own part for all intents and purposes in the VAB. TL;DR: Build once, launch as many times as you want. And there's another thing: Gus gets way more strategies. For instance, maybe you could have a strategy that takes away from VAB costs but in exchange makes hangars more expensive to use, would be great if you're running a big-dumb-booster powered space program.

It doesn't really clip into things, so you can use gizmos to make it fit perfectly. Even if you have a battery and a docking port. - - - Updated - - - Some parts are replacements for RLA parts, specifically the high-performance Rockomax probe engine and the new 0.625 fuel tanks, and the Shiba Nuke. NASAmission is planned for 1.8, and I REALLY want a Venalike AtomicAge pack.

Thank you! The tilted Urlum looks great, I'm testing Pluron now. One thing I've already noticed is that the barycenter, like any black hole, has a glitchy navball.

Since 0.24 buffed the Isp of the Mainsail, and lowered the mass of the Poodle, this is a super-easy challenge. It's literally too easy to go to the Mun with it! I want my Mun rockets to be big and bulky. EDIT: And this is an old challenge from before the buff.

I wouldn't be surprised, since this is a voxel-based system in the long-run and there will be planet mining. But, and I'm not sure, this might be heightmap based. But on such a small scale, heightmaps and caves might be able to coexist. And of course, I don't know if they use heightmaps. Nova?

OuterPlanets stuff download! Please!

I just realized that without the A, Jeb's Junkyard becomes Jeb's Junky R&D.

Unfortunately the rocket picks up some of the reflected colours so I'm not exactly how close to true this is to the final product, but it looks like it's pretty close to the colours actually used on the game parts... which is a bit of a relief since most of the photos make it look like it would be more sand coloured. It's not my rocket. It's just a picture from Reddit.

This is Ovok. And another few issues, the map view seems to all be spheres on the new planets.

Just get a mod to move the thread to Add-On development.

There you go.

Just worth noting that you can't invent an SOI. It has to be based upon the gravity of the parent and child bodies. It looks like you just drew them.

Haha at 5&6! It almost looks like antiminmus! Rocky instead of pudding, and things pushed in instead of out. - - - Updated - - - != being ≠seems new to me. I always saw it as =/= or at least /=. - - - Updated - - - Sometimes I wish games were magical and you could just take two flash drives that each have a game in them and but them in a blender and pour out a new game that combines the two, becuase the mechanics of Species ALRE in this universe where creatures could even hop around to different planets is a really cool idea. Or combining Spore and Orbiter, that would be cool, maybe even a tad bit of Race into Space? Nah, that'd be stupid.

The best part is that it actually kind of resembles a mix of the old Mk1 pod and the new one from KSP.

Without moons, Neidon and Urlum just aren't as interesting as Sarnus. And I know there's the OuterPlanetsPlus, but to be honest, they don't fit in with the aesthetic of stock planets or OuterPlanets.

Would it be possible to create random or manually placed volcanoes on a celestial body that would be able to push ships around? For volcanoes it would cause a ship's parts to overheat, but for cryovolcanic geysers it would just push the ship around. Is it possible? For Vall, it would obviously be random, but for Laythe, if you look at maps, there are clear places where volcanoes would erupt.

Download?