CaptRobau

I real life your probe is custom made, while the fairing is often the same. If you have a science instrument that would stick out of the fairing, you make it tall instead of wide. In KSP the probe is always made out of premade parts, so you don't have that flexibility.

Very cool!

Very cool!

I think they just went with redneck names. Billy-Bob is probably the most redneck name you can find. That's probably how they came up with Bill and Bob.

Agree with you on the craft interiors. That's definitely not done yet. Even if there's no RPM like stuff, each pod or hab module needs an interior. If you read the Beyond Beta post you would've read we're getting more landing gear.

No thanks to Remotech. Far too complicated for stock IMO. Something like AntennaRange is a much more stock friendly expansion on antennas, relays, etc.

GregoxMun posted this somewhere else and I remember Maxmaps saying something along those lines too: So the science system will receive some improvements with 1.0. It's probably not a complete overhaul as some of the suggestions above, but it's better than nothing.

Clouds have never been in KSP so it'd be a new feature. The two beta updates have and are about expanding/fixing already existing systems (like aerodynamics). New features are something they intend to add in post 1.0 updates. If they'd do clouds I'd rather they couple it to a weather system of some sort instead of repeating everything that EVE already does now and later make it have an actual gameplay impact.

Can't agree with you there. Those game are the worst of the worst: bad design down to the core, so buggy that they're unplayable, not fun, etc. KSP is none of that, even four updates ago. The game is not all it can be, but 1.0 was never to be that point. The last update would be. For a new player KSP is a good and fun package.

This info is going to be in the I button thingy in the right hand corner, so the list is something you'd actively need to open up. I think the check list is more for regular players than for people completely new to the game, building ship after ship and sometimes losing track of what they're doing. The newbies will be too busy with the big impressive rockets to worry about building the perfect thing right off the bat. And if they are the list is a nice optional tool if they want to use it.

The render reminds me of TF2 art style

Your red dwarf would be smaller than Jool, which would make it impossible for it to be a red dwarf (or otherwise Jool would be come a star). It'd have to be bigger than Jool if one wants consistency, but even then it would still be dwarfed by Kerbol which would be 20-25 times larger. So the concept works, but you'd have to make it a bit bigger for it to make scientific sense.

It was mentioned to be the letter and not the numeral.

The biome maps aren't changing if the debug map view is anything to go by. Where did you place the config?

I tried your MM, but it didn't work.

Tellion mentioned that bug in another thread, but without an answer. I myself have none either. Could be a Kopernicus bug, but it might just be a Unity by product. - - - Updated - - - Your problem were the "{}" after biomeMap Thanks. I'll copy that and put you in the contributors section, if you don't mind.

Not a big fan of standard mini-games. That gets old really quickly. The impactor experiment from Interstellar is in my opinion a good example of fun/interesting science collection. You set up a seismometer on the surface of a planet or moon. Then you crash something into that planet/moon and the seismometer records it. You can then get a blurb and science out of the seismometer. I think important aspects which make it engaging are: 1. Multiple steps The current system is go there and click a button, which is boring. The impactor experiment has you set down one probe and then crash another probe or piece of debris into the same body. Each step is different. One has you soft land something and another has you make sure you crash into the planet (which can be a challenge if the lander and the impactor were the first craft before). One of the reasons that launching something into orbit is fun is because it has multiple steps and each step feels different: the liftoff, the gravity turn, the orbital insertion, detaching fairings, etc. 2. You can fail A normal experiment can't fail. You can time it wrong, do the experiment in the wrong place or have already done the experiment, but you can't really fail. The impactor experiment can fail. If your soft landed seismometer didn't land in one piece then the impactor is worthless and the experiment is a bust. If you don't pack enough fuel in the impactor to crash into the body the seismometer is on, the experiment has also failed. Being able to fail gives you an incentive to not fail and as such adds challenge. Here are some ideas for the current experiments that could make them more interesting: Surface Sample Make it have zero science payout unless you process it in a lab and transmit it back or bring it back to Kerbin. You'd either need to bring it back (could be challenging) or you need to send a manned science lab to the surface to get transmittable science points. Making a part so that unmanned probes could also do it would be realistic (sample return is the holy grail of robotic missions) and make returning samples from Eve or Tylo a bit less impossible. Seismometer Scan The aforementioned impactor experiment fits this well. Gravimetric Scan SCANsat has shown that orbital science over time is fun and interesting. Turn on the experiment and 'map' the planet's gravitational field. The more you cover of the planet, the higher the science points you get. The challenge here is that you have to put the probe in an inclined orbit if you want to cover all of the planet. The most important part of science collection should be uniqueness. If you have to do everything a hundred times, it'll get old even with the suggestions above. Each experiment should only have a few situation where it's usable. This makes experiments stand out from each other more and reduces the amount of times you need to do an action.

Remove this section from Slate, Ovok and Hale: biomeMap = Kopernicus/Textures/Ovok_biome Biomes { Biome { name = Craters value = 1.0 color = 0,0.07451,1,1 } Biome { name = Flats value = 1.0 color = 1,0.81569,0.47451,1 } Biome { name = Rises value = 1.0 color = 0,1,0.97647,1 } }

I've talked with some people who are developing Kopernicus and tracked down the problem. It's a side effect of a bug that's also impacting other stuff: some properties applied to new bodies are applied to the template body too. It's even worse when you have multiple bodies use the same template. OPM only reuses Jool for multiple bodies, but for a gas giant that's not that bad as it has less interactivity than solid planets/moons. Anyway, this bug is not easily fixed and will require more than a few changes to the Kopernicus. Hopefully someone will be able to take that on, but in the meantime we're stuck with the biome bug. Maybe there's a workaround without a Kopernicus update, but I'm not counting on it (although trying is never off the table). I think a MM config that disables the biomes will be best, as the templates used are more important for science than the distant moons of Sarnus and beyond. People can remove that config and reactive the biomes if they want to explore Sarnus' moons with more interesting stuff to see. That being said, it's a big blow to see this bug pop up. It kinda makes 1.3 feel like a waste of time, since all its features are somewhat useless now. In the future if Kopernicus gets fixed it'll be nice to have all those biomes already done, but in the meantime it just sucks. I think the best thing moving forward is to just make the mod as complete in all the areas that do work. Third party mod support like Regolith, EVE or Astronomers. Adding more moons, that sort of thing. It might not be 100% suited for a serious career save until Kopernicus improves, but for sandbox or just mucking around in career it should be possible to get the mod the way we want.

I tried that. Didn't work. I talked with Pashidar about it. It is indeed related to Kopernicus sometimes applying stuff from the new body to the template. That's a big and time-consuming thing to fix, although it's one of the major bugs in the mod so it definitely be worthwhile.

Big fan of this effort. I tried setting something like this up with other mods, but it didn't satisfy me. Hope you can make it work. Do you unlearn anything if you feel bad? By making XP loss only temporary you gain the ability to send support missions. Did a tight budget lead to cramped quarters for your orbital spacestation and as a result grumpy Kerbals that can't do any skills? Once you've got money again, you can send an expansion module which will make them more comfortable and over time they will work at peak performance once more. I like removing the extra skills that experience will add to a Kerbal if they are grumpy due to a lack of living space. That's pretty easy to communicate to the player. All this refusal stuff however is too extreme for my taste. It'll be hard to communicate to the player that this a morale issue and not your ship that's not built properly. Some of these refusals can also lead to players being unable to perform critical maneuvers that are needed to get the grumpy Kerbals home. Miss a insertion burn for Earth due to grumpiness and those grumpy Kerbals would fly off into deep space, never to return. The penalties of cramped quarters should be to make it harder to perform your mission and to get home safe, but it should not make it impossible. I like this, although it will require a good communication with the player that the reason for them quitting is the lack of space on the last mission. Grumpy Kerbals okay. Suicidal Kerbals no. This is not Space Madness Simulator 2014.

Nice UI you've got there.

There are a lot of plans about the mod's future we've not shared with you guys yet. We want to be able to surprise our fans with things, so we keep our cards close to our for parts of the interesting stuff. That might make you feel like you're not being heard, but you are. Ideas might not transfer 1-on-1, but I think that once all the moons that we have planned are implemented you'll be happy with what each gas giant has to offer.

The heightmap didn't work out. If we manage to get it working in the future, then we'll change it to that though.

We tried that, but couldn't get it to work. So we settled for just a smooth surface.