Vim Razz

Those docking port settings are pretty aggressive. I may need to tone things back down a bit when it's time to move or re-arrange base components. And HyperEdit makes sense. Trying to move and position all that stuff manually would take a ton of time. As for the disappearing ship issue, I certainly haven't ruled out a mod conflict yet. Sorting out that possibility will take a while, though, so I'll look at it... later... -.-;; (I'm still a bit burned out sifting through mod conflicts after the 0.23.5 update...) Currently I'm using probe cores as the root parts in my verified-as-fully-stable builds. Examples: The distant-object markers for ships containing MKS parts still show up as grey rather than pink, though, (as can be seen in this image from my earlier post) and that's really odd. /boggle

I'm really impressed by how far you've taken this project, and the new aesthetic style is fantastic! I'm looking forward to checking out the new docking hub node. It should make it much easier to build bases for functional compatibility with Connected Living Spaces when it comes time to start thinking about that, too. Your example builds look great, but also it also seems that they'd be pretty hard to assemble on-site, especially on rough terrain. What method did you use, or did you launch them in one piece? Anyway, I've been playing around with it for a few days now, and have encountered two problems so far: 1) The Disappearing Ship Issue: It seems that changing the ship category from debris to base hasn't been enough to fix this. Every ship I build using one of the MKS parts as the root component or primary command component disappears from the game after I switch away from it a few times (it's not always the first time I switch away, which makes it even more confusing.). This happens on two different computers As a work-around, I've found that using another command pod or probe body as the root part for construction prevents the ships from vanishing so I've been able to finally start testing the mod more fully (my first few colony projects disappeared completely), but I haven't been able to isolate the specific cause yet. I'll let you know if I find anything useful. 2) Docking Compatibility: This was much easier to isolate and resolve. The Kerbtrail docking ports are currently configured using the 2.5 meter ModuleDockingNode setting ("nodeType = size2") rather than the 1.25 meter part setting ("nodeType = size1"). That is: they currently dock with Clamp-o-Tron Sr ports but not standard Clamp-o-Trons. I haven't installed the new 0.14.1 update yet, but I found that the "size2" definition is still in there. And so, with those two issues either resolved or worked-around, I've finally been able to get a test facility started on Minmus! Even with the current mock-up textures, these parts look great!

Kerbal Alarm Clock is the one that you absolutely do not want to miss. Others mentioned here are all good too, depending on taste or preference. Welcome to the dark side.

I'm surprised KIDS hasn't been mentioned yet. FAR+KIDS are like two halves of the same mod, imho. Regarding MCE: It works well with nearly everything, as long as part prices are reasonably configures in the part mod.The only thing it goes really badly with is RSS, since RSS rockets nearly always cost more than the contract payouts provide.

The stand-alone greenhouse is a nice little part. While Biomass+ and MKS are great projects, they're also pretty "greedy" in terms of forcing particular kinds of gameplay and it's good to have a variety of options available to suit different kinds of games. Not every mod configuration needs to be "hardcore". I love Realism Overhaul, for example, but if I had to to run it on every single KSP install that I have then I'd go &^%& crazy. Sure, input/output balances might be tweaked a bit, but the information needed to do that is already in the relevant post. It's a decent low-upkeep gap-filler option between the zero-upkeep stock game (where you just have to ~pretend~ your greenhouses are there for a reason..) and some of the more heavily involved systems in development. The only major limitation is that it can't function of Kerbin or Laythe without subsidizing CO2 (since TAC won't provide it where you have breathable atmosphere).

Well, the first constructive feedback I might offer would be to include a link to the channel -- Very nice video formatting, and some interesting designs. It'd be nice to her some of your thoughts or comments on the designs themselves rather than just essentially reporting on the mission.

Have you tried playing around with the KittopiaTech planet editor yet? Being able to see how PQS changes translate directly into the game helps a lot. In my own efforts to "beautify" my 10x stock .cfg (based on frozenbacon's 10x .cfg file plus the MapDecalTangent fix provided by NathanKell), I'm to the point of almost having a routine worked out: - HyperEdit to planet, open up KittopiaTech - load planet template and save data to create an "as is" data template - copy "as is" planet data from KittopiaTech's CustomData.cfg to a reference file - play around with PQS values until is looks good (or less boringly flat, at least) - hit the rebuild and save buttons to store the new planet data - line-item compare the new CustomData.cfg to the "as is" template made earlier (I use Notepad++'s compare plugin) - copy the modified value definitions (no need to add the others) to the RealSolarSystem.cfg in a separate KSP install for testing - swear and tinker as necessary until it works

You and your dad have great chemistry. It's fun to see.

Short isn't a bad thing, especially for raw gameplay footage. Your 2nd rover video appears to be mislabeled, though.

Grats on defending your thesis! (Assuming it went well, at least. If not, then.. well, anyway...) Just played around a little bit with the current build, and I thought I'd share some feedback. I've tried out earlier versions, though I haven't used it regularly. - The new BuildEffect config option is great! The base rate falls off a little too quickly for my preference, and I like being able to change that. I'm currently experimenting with it at 0.1, and I like the feel of it. - As for general build times in RSS, they feel pretty well balanced in their current state, tbh. For example: a basic, stock-part tier 1 orbiter for career mode with RSS takes about 10 days to build (24 hr days), just re-using the pod used to unlock the t1 tech -- long enough to feel substantial without being onerous. That's for 154 fuel tanks, 31 LV-30's, 32 decouplers, 5 command pods (one recycled), 6 goo cans, a girder piece, a heat-shield, and a parachute. We'll see how things go as I dig further into the tech tree, but it seems pretty good so far. - The "warp to complete" function doesn't work properly with RSS for some reason. It starts warping just fine, but then it doesn't stop when building is complete. - The one feature I'd really love to see, though I have no idea what the feasibility of it might be, would be to have currently-built VAB/SPH ship inventories loaded into the mission-prep window you get when you click the landing pad or runway in the space center screen (rather than the saved-ship-type list). I keep clicking on them to prep duplicate/standard-type missions, THEN remembering you can only run simulations from there with KCT installed... It's really annoying, to say the least. If you could find some way to implement this, then I'd probably keep the mod installed for regular play. Anyway, I love the concept behind this mod, and it's fun to see it develop. Thanks for all your hard work!

Switching into "free" camera mode before letting can help. If you've got nothing over the hatch, then your kerbal may be colliding with the ship as it tries to re-orient itself the camera.

There's a thread on using various construction techniques like this to get different looks with stock parts stickied at the top of the Spacecraft Exchange forum.

This is a fantastic little series. Both the station design and the way you presented the launches are extremely artful. Great job!

For the two smaller wheels? Fashion! Use whichever looks best on your rocket. For the larger wheel? It provides a better structural connection when sandwiched between two large segments than trying to put a smaller part in the same location.

I died at 1:50. Then it just got better. Thanks!