Killerblonde

I experience the same problem with terrain in general, particularly Kerbin, the Mun, and Duna (the three places with the fancy terrain additions/craters I believe.) Terrain lag is something that needs to be worked on.

I think a bit of psychology has to be examined here. Human psychology is about survival, domination, and utilitarian relationships. Platonic relationships exist on small scales, but larger groups and nations tend not to do this with each other. Think of it as a meta-creature. The average American might have "okay" intelligence, but but ten in a room and ask all of them to make a decision as a group, and you can except the intellect to fall. HOWEVER, this is HUMAN psychology. Asides from some kind of survival instinct which you really can't get around for any kind of life, and some kind of curiosity or goal which would justify extensive interstellar travel, the aliens could be completely different. Us humans are fairly animalistic when you get right down to it - I'd except any advanced space faring race to have engineered themselves to operate more consistently and logically. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to make logical decisions as a species, would fight amongst themselves, and could never accomplish space travel. Wouldn't that be a shame if the entire human race was slowly cooked to death by the sun, because nobody tried to do a mass colonization effort as if would be "too expensive" and for a problem "too far away"? I really don't see a way we will live past a few thousand more years without extensive modification on how we think, (both individually, and as a group.)

It somewhat works for me in 21. It seems that the only missing part is showing ablative shielding on pods. Otherwise, the temperatures showed up and seemed to work. I didn't try reentry though - some other mods were causing problems, and I removed most of them to be safe.

Oh yes. The fire sound also sounds more like rubble falling than fire. I literally thought my computer had a virus, and it gave me quite the scare for awhile when I had no idea what it was or where it was coming from....

I've got a bit of a bug to report. I was coming in for reentry about Jool, coming in at about 9km/s with periapsis at 120k. My 6.25 inflated heatshield blazed white hot, but the temperature barely made it to -30.

I don't know if this is my problem alone, but for me, using PartCatalog makes returning to the VAB extremely slow. Also, when I delete a category or remove a part from a category, it lags for 5-10 minutes before completing the operation. I know it's not my machine. Does anyone else have a bad lag problem?

Oh jeez... I'm watching the Race to Mars video that was originally posted.... the science is fine, but dear god, the acting and writing is horrid. C'mon Discovery, this is why people prefer soft sci-fi!

There's a few mods that do this by applying phantom forces to your ship of increasing magnitude, but honestly, if you lose control all you need to do is stage a few times and your rocket will fantastically fly apart.

While I understand your argument, the purpose of including acceleration to the "deadliness" is because reentry must consider heat and acceleration. Otherwise, you can survive nearly any reentry just by nose diving straight down. This mod is meant to provide realistic, challenging reentry, which makes the inclusion of deadly G forces a must, lest an inaccurate heat model be introduced.

As someone who flies planes and wants realistic reentry, I'd pick number 2. With a few adjustments, perhaps you could give wings a little "boost" in G-force tolerance, although to be honest with you, a 10g turn in a plane is starting to get ridiculous. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force#Short_Duration_Shock_and_Jerk Forgive me for citing wikipedia, but it makes sense that most aircraft never exceed 10 G's, with fighter jets only taking 10+ G's briefly and under extreme conditions. If you're doing a turn that would require 10+ G's, then your aircraft should be flying apart. I'd say keep the pod G tolerance as is, and give wings a little boost in crashTolerance or add some subroutine to increase the G-force tolerance.

Does that mean its released for testing yet, or you are testing it? (It still says release candidate 4.) Great mod by the way!

Kol. Kinda sounds like coal, so it's not as bad as just shoving a K onto everything.

The deep pits at the poles? That's all I know of. EDIT: I see what you did there. (highlight) Look I can do it too!

Do you own a mac? If you don't, try leaving the MACOSX file out of the mix. That's just my guess.

Oh. I'm thinking back to the old DR heat shield then.

Incredible! I actually died when trying to take 60 G's straight down! Huzzah! I'll so some more testing, but you hammered out that bug I mentioned earlier. EDIT: One bug I found is that the 2.5m heat shield doesn't decouple properly (stays attached).

Okay, something is still broken. With FAR, I still survived a ridiculous vertical reentry with 45 G's. Here is the album of my test flight, with a bonus pic of a sexy decoupling: http://imgur.com/a/4vLAP The sepratrons that died because of G forcing was just the escape tower when I jettisoned it. (I hope I'm not breaking forum rules by linking to imgur... seemed like the easiest way to do this.) EDIT: I tried again with a mark1-2 pod in a different ship, still with FAR. Came down and took 61 G's. No damage at all. I died when I splashed down because I didn't have enough time to even open my chutes.

Excellent point. I think I'll re install FAR again, although to be fair, you might want to say that it's strongly recommended to use your mod alongside FAR. The only thing I have against FAR is the fact that it seems to make rockets too easy after having become experienced with standard KSP aerodynamics. I'll load up FAR, do a few tests, and return with the results in a few minutes.

Strange. Just a simple 1 man ship that uses a few mod parts (stock expansion pack) to get into orbit, but the reentering part is a 1 man pod with a jr. docking port on top and 2 radial parachutes on the sides, (which need a smaller counterpart IMO.) I'm also not using FAR. Could this explain our discrepancy? And on a similar note, should I be for this mod to function properly?

I think so. It was the damage marker just before the last one before it dies, (serious I think.) At this point, I think it's just down to adjusting a few numbers to make high G forces via ridiculous reentry angles "deadly". The pod test I was referencing had the apoapsis out at 70 Mm, and a completely vertical descent (periapsis at the center of Kerbin) - that shouldn't be survivable.

Even so, the G-Tolerance should have been far exceeded on my pod. Perhaps the way the program averages over 1 second is off then? With glitchy G force readings, I can see how this would be problematic. EDIT: Just had a thought - once a part exceeds its maximum G force, how quickly is it damaged? This could explain why my pods are surviving very sharp reentry angles, as even though they take absurdly high G's, they don't take them for very long.

In testing, a long solid fuel booster with only a probe core on top exploded due to exceeding G force tolerance just before running completely out of fuel. However, I was testing a mark1-2 pod with a 2.5m heat shield on the base plummeting straight down at nearly a 90 degree angle to horizon. I took 34.5 G's, but nothing exploded or even damaged due to G tolerance. I lost 500 units (out of 1000) of ablation coating. EDIT: Just tried the same thing with a 1 man pod. Came down at 3.2km/s straight down, took 41 G's, lost a radial parachute due to heating, but otherwise wasn't destroyed, although my command pod sustained "severe" damage. My heat shield lost about 70 units of ablation. EDIT 2: After looking at some part values, my guess is that the impact tolerances of the Mark1 and Mark1-2 command pods are way too high. (This probably applies to other parts as well.) Either that, or the way the mod calculates G force tolerance via impact tolerance is off.

I second (third?) this. I too have seen the G force spike for no good reason, usually associated with warping or changing SOI's while in 1x warp. I think I have a way to fix this, (bearing in mind that I know little about coding.) First, you know that coming in and out of warp happens outside atmospheres, so make the G force detector method only register when inside an atmosphere. Also, going along with Awaras' suggestion, make whatever G force damage be a function of both the integral and severity of G force, and not just maximum G's. This way, the ship would be able to sustain mysterious spikes in G force, but extended, moderate to high G's would cause damage. However you want to handle this "damage" is completely up to you. (So is everything else I suppose, but that's just my two cents.)

I can verify what taniwha said - no luck with finding the file on github.

That honestly doesn't sound like a bad idea. The mod could be quite simple - for unmanned craft, acceleration might not due much until it gets structurally damaging, but for manned craft, the screen could slowly go black for high G's (black out), and then the crew might be unable to control the ship or die if they take too many G's for too long.