CaptRobau

I have the same problem, yet I installed it. Does the Firespitter plugin need to be in a certain folder or something? It does seem to load it as it says it's not compatible with 0.25 (which is weird since I got the latest version).

I've been looking at your profile every day, seeing if you had release it already. Can't wait to try it out.

A solution to this might be to make the animation orb a separate model, so that it can be added to this mod's warp drive using MODEL{}, but also other warpesque mods. It would look great with the IXS Interstellar for example.

Interesting. Never would've though to add fuel to the bi/tri/quad couplers.

Would it be possible for you to also create version of your new engines with end butts. I like the designs of these new engines, but I just hate having to look at those ugly open ends of the tanks.

Custom agencies are possible through cfg editing. Custom contracts require making a plugin script. Not sure if agencies can be full locked into only giving out that new custom contract, but I do that I can be given a preference towards certain contracts.

I have no problem with the idea behind the models, but the textures have to be improved. They look nothing like the art style established over the course of development. The textures don't need to be photorealistic àla FASA or something, but a bit more refined and less cartooney would make this go over a lot better with everyone.

You must be crazy. I'm not even sure what you mean with the Kerbal XP system and upgrade of buildings remarks, but both systems seem fine additions from where I'm standing. Adding modders work makes sense. No point in redoing all of the work themselves just to end up with a product that looks identical (Porkjet just nailed the stock look while making MK2). This is faster, allowing Squad to expand the game more quickly, and is great for the modders as well, as they get something to put on their resume or even some money (understandably the details on that are kept private). And maybe some modders have left lately, but that happens all the time. On the other hand we've gotten some new modders and mods in the recent months (BahamutoDs work, that weather mod, etc.). Don't worry about Squad running out of money either. They're virtually always among the 50 top selling games on Steam and when they do a sale it always makes the game get into the Top 10. A game with those numbers is enough to support Squad.

What would be some interesting areas for future lunar astronauts/cosmonauts/taikonauts to visit?

That would be weird. Ocean would be flatlands, icecaps would be desert, etc. Unless you randomize the terrain too, that would just confuse the heck out of people.

Asteroids can have moons (see Ida and Dactyl), but there have been no confirmed moons of moons. The closest we've come is a potential ring system around Rhea but that has not been confirmed.

How does one change the boost type in the cfg?

Flags are something you can already filter in the map view.

At the moment the tech tree has the player unlock the smaller fuel tanks of a certain size (1.25m, 2.5m, etc.) before the larger ones. This order doesn't work at all. The smaller ones allow the player to form taller tanks from multiple smaller ones, at no downside. As such unlocking the taller ones in the next node does not add extra gameplay decisions. It just makes your rockets less ugly and requires you to rebuild your launch vehicles to replace the multiple short tanks with the taller ones. Flipping the unlock order would create more interesting gameplay, would make career rockets look less ugly and would mean less launch vehicle rebuilding for aesthetic reasons. How does shorter before taller make career more interesting? It forces you to build crude and big, before you can go smaller and refined. Let's take the 1.25m tech as an example of what the change could result in: you start with the first tech node and you get the FL-T800. Combined with a T-30 most will be able to get into space or at least in the upper atmosphere. But combined with the (lack of) other parts in that node, you'll have a difficult time to make a multi-stage orbital rocket. In the next node you get the FL-T400, the T-45 and the stack decoupler. This will allow you build a launch vehicle that can get you to orbit. Example: a couple of engines and T800s in the first stage, a single T800 and engine in a second upper atmosphere stage and a final stage with a T400 tank to push you through the vacuum of space into orbit. But the lack of smaller tanks will make more advanced designs difficult to make, as the large tanks are cumbersome to rotate. Service modules for maneuvering in space will benefit a lot from the smaller T-200 and T-100 tanks. So you'll be inclined to unlock the node that has them. What does everyone think? Would this be better or not?

The long and short Mk2 tanks (both LFO and Liquid Fuel variants) both cost the same in the VAB/SPH: 750. Even though the short one is half the long one's length. Every other fuel tank has the shorter one be cheaper as well. As such I suggest halving the Mk2 short fuel tanks' cost, so from 750 to 375.

I think module manager works for internal cfgs

Not a big fan of the buttless engines combined with the buttless engines. Makes the rockets look unfinished. Other than that though!

A 0 at the end isn't necessary I think, but it will mean there will be electrical production light years from the Sun. My mod (and Stock Rebalance which lends this curve) starts dropping it to 0 beyond 6 KAU because that's the point where the electricity production is essentially becoming negligible (only the Gigantor will still be producing usable levels power, 1/3 of an OX-STAT at Kerbin). There's probably also no problem with not starting with a 0.

A raised version of the Pointy Nose would be great for tail sections.

The Stock Rebalance mod adds a MM patch made by me that makes the power curve follow the inverse square law as closely as is possible. It comes out to about the same efficiencies as your personal mod.

This might be an interesting design for you to tackle: the Zarya aka Super Soyuz. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/zarya.htm It'd basically be a larger, 2.5m Soyuz-like descent capsule with a larger crew capacity.

I read your responses saying that you wanted them but I totally forgot that I still needed to send them. Expect a PM.

Awesome. This update will do wonders for my mod.

I think they also talked about there being more place where asteroids spawn, such as an asteroid belt between Duna and Jool and with some even being used to represent the tiny moons (that are still being found to this day, as they're so small). The latter would make refueling around Jool perhaps even easier than around Kerbin.

While suggesting resource mining itself is off the table, this suggestion pertains to an engine type that can be a result of resource mining. With the recent announcement of resources being a future feature of KSP, I think it's a relevant suggestion to make. Mods, if you consider this a violation of the suggestions rules, by all means lock it down. One interesting engine type that (asteroid) mining could provide would be the space-based mass driver. The ground-based linear mass driver (where more people will be familiar with) uses a linear motor to accelerate and launch spacecraft from the surface of (low-gravity) bodies. This would however be a massive colony-like building, which goes beyond the current scope of KSP. A space-based mass driver however would fit KSP quite well. In the simplest form it works sort of like an ion engine: accelerating matter away from the spacecraft creates thrust. While it can technically use any type of matter as propellant, the most cited is rock dust. One because it would not leave dangerous matter in its wake (imagine a rocket that leaves space debris in its wake) and two because rock could be easily mined from asteroids and almost every celestial body. As such I think it'd be an interesting addition to the future resources system, which has been hinted at revolves a lot around asteroids. The drill would create rock as a natural byproduct and that could either be dumped automatically or converted into dust to power a mass driver. This could then be used as fuel to move the asteroid. The space-based mass driver is also quite balanced right out of the box. It has high Isp, but low thrust. In reality it has a TWR under 1, meaning you can't lift off with it. If the TWR was made relative to KSP's ion drive it'd be 4.2, but like the ion engine it requires a lot of electricity so it's not an engine that would replace all other engines with the current state of stock electrical power production.