little square dot

frizzank, you outdo yourself every time man. Mods come and go quickly with me, but this one's definitely in it for the long-haul. I was tickled pink to see the Big G, and even pinkerer to see this rescue variant. An uber-nifty and unexpected boon to my arsenal, mwuaha... Much appreciated mate.

My thoughts exactly. It's the difference between a must-have mod and a might-have-someday mod. Although it could be that this release is more of a showcase than anything, because it sounds as though the "Official Tools " might be the primary focus.

Same. It seems like a massive amount of overkill to me. Adding one or two really well thought-out and executed bodies seems like a much better idea to me. I think that a mod adding one planet would have been embraced by everybody, whereas there is a lot of hesitation with this one.

Alrighty then. ...although in that case the surface wouldn't be so pockmarked... (I'm just being difficult) Switching topics, can some of these bodies be disabled if we're only interested in one or two of them?

The more pressing question is how a planet with no atmosphere has molten pools of lava all over its surface. It looks cool, but doesn't make much sense.

All of that information is available in the download. The changelog is in the "media" folder, and the .cfg's are not integrated into the tech tree, but adding them yourself is as simple as adding: TechRequired = heavierRocketry to the cfg's.

I'm at work and haven't tested this, but paste this into a different part .cfg, or at the end of one of the existing ones, and you should have a 3.75m version... unless I've missed something. PART { // --- general parameters --- name = SerCom3 module = Part author = Nothke // --- asset parameters --- scale = 1.0 MODEL { model = NothkeSerCom/Parts/SerCom2mt3 scale = 1.2, 1.2, 1.2 } // --- node definitions --- node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.2805, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2 node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.2805, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2 //node_attach = 0.0, 0.0, -.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 1 // --- editor parameters --- TechRequired = generalConstruction entryCost = 2500 cost = 100 category = Structural subcategory = 0 title = 6S 3m Service Compartment Tube manufacturer = Found lying by the side of the road description = Hide the stuff you would normally attach to the hull inside here for a nice smooth aerodynamic look. Beware of stowaways! // attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision attachRules = 1,0,1,1,1 // --- standard part parameters --- mass = 0.15 dragModelType = default maximum_drag = 0.2 minimum_drag = 0.3 angularDrag = 2 crashTolerance = 20 breakingForce = 75 breakingTorque = 75 maxTemp = 1500 fuelCrossFeed = True MODULE { name = FSanimateGeneric animationName = DoorAnim startEventGUIName = Open service hatch endEventGUIName = Close service hatch //toggleActionName = Toggle service hatch availableInEVA = True availableInVessel = False EVArange = 2 } }

hahahahaha... well, yes... I prefer a much more long-winded, bumbling approach to speaking though.

All other things being equal, yes, we agree. I think this has been the sticking point. The variables needn't be the same. If I have both wheeled and tracked variants of a vehicle, and with the same power applied to both the tracked version moves 15% slower, I can simply place a more powerful motor in it and suddenly it's faster, albeit more powerful and heavier. With no alterations to the wheeled version, the tracked version is now inherently faster if we look at the vehicle design in its entirety. So my take on it is that tracked vehicles are not inherently slower, because we can simply design them to be faster if need be. Wheeled variants will have inherent potential to be faster, but they are not inherently faster because that depends entirely on the rest of the design. We need more than just the specs of the propulsive systems in order to determine the top speed of a vehicle. ...argh, I have a feeling that we've been caught-up in semantics.(<-my arch nemesis=)

This has potential, however I can't help but think that it would be impossible to cram two people side by side into a pod that is 1.25m wide. In fact, it would be difficult to cram one person into something so narrow, and even with their smaller frames kerbals would be way too big for that methinks. I agree, but there are some absolute gems in there as well. The Gemini and Mercury Capsules, the Big G... great IVA's aussi.

A tip o' my hat as well. Great work.

For unmanned missions I would avoid tracks as well because of the relative complexity compared to wheels, and if a track were to slip or become damaged it's mission over, whereas wheels a 3-wheeled rover should still be usable. I didn't respond to the point out of exasperation, because the context of the discussion kept changing. The conversation began over the relative speed of tracks vs. wheels, however it seemed to shift each time a valid point was made until finally becoming a different discussion altogether. ...speaking of which... That doesn't even make sense. Nothing about this statement makes sense. So when designing vehicles for missions, space agencies and their contractors would just shrug their shoulders and resign themselves to bulldozer-specifications simply because the majority of the tracks worldwide are on bulldozers?!? Gah!

1) "Tracked vehicles are never as fast as wheeled vehicles can be"??? What an absurdly skewed statement. It's akin to saying, "cars are never as fast as motorcycles can be". While technically true, this doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of cars that are faster than plenty of motorcycles. 2) "Tracked vehicles are generally quite slow" Because most tracked vehicles that you've seen are not in any way built for speed. We've been over this already. 3) "Not used on extraplanetary missions" I can't even bring myself to respond to this. Traction (engineering) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Traction, or tractive force, is the force used to generate motion between a body and a tangential surface, most generally through the use of dry friction, though the use of shear force of the surface is also commonly used.[1][2][3] Traction can also refer to the maximum tractive force between a body and a surface, as limited by available friction; when this is the case, traction is often expressed as the ratio of the maximum tractive force to the normal force and is termed the coefficient of traction (similar to coefficient of friction). In the context of this discussion it absolutely is. Yes, we've been over this already and I agreed with you. Argh... are you intentionally ignoring the context of the discussion, or just oblivious to it? Tracks are inherently slower, tracked vehicles are not.

Any chance of seeing a more foldy launchpad in future? The HL pad was one of those parts that I kept in my arsenal for quite some time despite never having found a use for it. Sheer awkwardness prevented me from using it, and eventually I discarded the part.

Yeah, I know. It's about the underlying principles for me though... the comment regarding the physical side of things was just intended as a garnish. =) Aside from an involuntary pang of nostalgia, what is actually sad about that? It really needn't be emotional at all, because nothing exists over which to become emotional. The lander no longer exists, the screenshots no longer exist, the save no longer exists, and even the memory no longer exists, so what is left to be sad about? We only find such circumstances to be sad because the ego is itself-centric and can only think in terms of loss. As we perceive someone else to be enjoying their trip down memory lane, the knowledge that we do not meet the prerequisites for that particular enjoyment bothers the ego, so it nags at us with thoughts of "I ought to be able to remember", "I ought to have kept that file", "I ought to have taken screenshots", etc., etc., but the simple fact of the matter is that there is absolutely nothing to be sad about, and any such feelings stem strictly from the ego always wanting what it can't have in any particular moment.

Sure, all other things being equal, a tracked vehicle will not be as fast for a number of reasons, but we're not talking minuscule fractions, and it certainly is not beyond our current capabilities to design and build a tracked vehicle for exploration that is both light-weight and fast, particularly in a low-G environment. They're much heavier too, but again, this doesn't mean that they have to move at a crawl. The chassis needn't be bulldozer-like, and in a low-G and/or dusty environments that additional friction would actually be a huge benefit, both for traction and speed. It is only true from a narrow perspective. Again, your argument is dependent on all other things being equal. This is not an argument that I would dispute, but why are we restricting ourselves to all things being equal? If I was designing a tracked vehicle for exploration it would be light-weight to begin with, and depending on the operational requirements of the vehicle I could simply add power to compensate for the weight and friction if need be. It might be slightly heavier and slower than a wheeled variant of the same design, but assuming that we're talking about reasonable operational demands and not drag-racing, I don't see why it couldn't be just as fast.

Ah, thanks. I suspected that this was the case, but thought I'd check anyway. Cheers.

Hold up a second... I think you've overlooked the fact that tanks are insanely heavy, armoured machines of war. Their speed is not limited by their tracks; they simply aren't designed for speed. Even on wheels they wouldn't do much better. Just look at the LAV series... light armoured vehicles, on wheels, designed to be relatively fast, and they still can't do any better than around 60 mph. Take a look at how insanely fast some snowmobiles can go if you think tracked vehicles inherently lack speediness. ...or how about this tracked amphibious vehicle. The production model can go 55MPH on land, 39MPH on water, and custom models with a 300HP engine can go 80MPH on land! This is the kind of vehicle a space agency would create, and it's a far-cry from a battle tank. http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/28/fast-track-amphibious-vehicle-moving-beyond-proof-of-concept/ The point that was made about the tracks being electric is the right one to support the keep-em-slow argument. The 'tracked vehicles are inherently slower' argument simply isn't true. It's pretty silly to be comparing F-1 race cars to bulldozers.

But what will you do with them, because I'm fairly certain that you won't be reverting to any of those past versions, so why keep them? This is an example of our tendency towards developing illogical attachments to useless things that I was previously referring to. It's exactly the same mentality that leads to hoarding in extreme cases. It's the ol', "can't get rid of that! might have a use for it some day" trickery that we pull on ourselves despite knowing full-well that we're never going back to it. This is why I delete them; I am not exempt from the urge to hang on to things strictly for purposes of nostalgia. Exactly. The lessons learned are the things to hang on to, and the only things that will continue to be of use, whereas the old saves are simply clutter, both mentally and physically. Meh, to each their own.

I agree with your second point, but your first one is a touch backwards... in KSP we have entire planets to explore, so the only reason why players aren't going to travel very far on tracks is because of the slow speed.

Hey folks, Is there a way to disable engine auto-fairings in .cfgs? I've been trying to weld stock engines together, however the welded parts always end up shrouded in their respective autofairing dwellings. Obviously the fairings are just welded models and not jettisonable(<-totally a real word), so I would be tickled pink if I were to discover a way of bypassing them altogether. Cheers.

Yeah, hd crashes are the worst, but the fact remains that the only thing making it so awful is our reluctance to stop dwelling on the perceived loss. We all do it to some extent.

I agree with everything but the first bit. I would never dispute that there's merit in working towards goals; ultimately that's what fun is. There may have been a slight misunderstanding, as following my argument to its logical conclusion definitely wouldn't land you in an arcade in the 80's. To clarify, there is absolutely nothing wrong with setting ambitious long-term goals, however there absolutely is something wrong with a player feeling a genuine and profound sense of loss from a broken save, feeling as though they are simply wasting time if they haven't the ability to save, or feeling any sort of negative impact whatsoever to their emotional well-being that stems from playing a game. Such thinking is never compartmentalized, somehow restricted to one facet of life, rather it is indicative of a general pattern of thought that is harmful and illogical(although perfectly natural), leads to excessive levels of attachment, and will lead to significantly more acute depression and anxiety. I short, goals are great, but genuine emotional attachment to said goals is not. I always start fresh with each update, whether it's a save-breaker or not, and admittedly every single time I am extremely hesitant to delete my old save, but I know that's just the dancing monkey in my head talking. So, I force myself to take the plunge, start over, and I haven't once regretted it. We just need to learn to let go of such trivial things.

In the words of the great Alan Watts, "What is time for if not for wasting?" I agree with you whole-heartedly Sokar408... such comments are indicative of a results-driven approach to gaming, which is looking at things upside-down and backwards. This is the result of harmful (ego-centric) patterns of thought, and leads to unhealthy levels of attachment. It's something that has always bothered me about the gaming community in general. I see more and more people compulsively playing games in pursuit of some undefined future accomplishment, and totally forgetting to have fun in the process. "Games" like Farmville are perfect examples to illustrate our susceptibility to this results-driven approach to gaming, as nobody can claim that the gameplay is fun, unique, or interesting, and yet people will schedule their lives around harvesting their virtual crops in pursuit of some meaningless 2D graphic that promises... what exactly? If the thought of a corrupted save file makes continuing to play seem like a "waste" of time, then what is it that makes the persistent game a good use of time? In short, wasting time is not only what gaming is all about, but it's what life is all about. I'm amazed that people can delude themselves into thinking that they will accomplish something meaningful in a game(or in life) if given sufficient time, as though there is actually something meaningful to be accomplished other than simply having fun. Left unchecked, such anxious ways of thinking will manifest as markedly more accute anxiety or depression as time progresses. This issue is much bigger than gaming, however I fear that I've gone a wee bit off-topic here.

Haha... same. Sometimes it would be much easier to just turn off the ol' moral compass... like when dealing with imaginary green astronauts that really couldn't care less about... well, I guess I could just end that sentence at, "that really couldn't care." I'm prone to the same nonsense when playing an RPG, as I simply cannot bring myself to walk around arbitrarily murdering and looting. I always have to play the good guy... or at least a guy at the good end of the grey area of the spectrum.