Andrew_C

Thanks for the answer. It may just be me, but I like to do Hi Res scans as well. Of course, once I unlock that node I'll probably have a lot more funds so the need for a contract to send up a ScanSat probably won't be as great, and I would probably be slapping them on any new ScanSats as a matter of course. Still, I think it might be handy to have contracts for SAR scans

Hi, just downloaded this (and Contract Configurator, of course) as am playing a game on hardish settings with not much money and have been finding difficulty justifying the expense of orbiting ScanSats. Anyway, I have a couple of questions As long as ScanSat hasn't been actually used in the save, does this work OK in existing saves? Also I was looking through the mod and was wondering if it gives contracts for the SAR/hi res scanner, as there only seems to be a cfg for the lo res and Multi Spectral/biome scanner.

Hi, just popped in to say I love this mod, it really adds a bit of desperately needed variety to the early game science grind. Haven't tried the new version yet, but I certainly understand the rationale behind the changes, and I mostly treated them as single use anyway.

Well there is the ALCOR 3 man LEM style capsule, but I expect you are looking for something that unlocks a little earlier in the science tree than Advanced Landing.

Thanks for continuing this really handy mod.

I noticed that the sticky launchpad fix description says it may no longer be needed. I think it still is. I don't have the fixes installed ATM and on Saturday I had a rocket which wouldn't take off, which would when attached to a launch clamp. I will be installing the fixes, its worth it just for that particular fix.

Thanks for the node tweak CFG. Does anything else need tweaking, like the tech node, or is that OK? Advanced landing (where it is now) does seem as logical a place as Command pods IMO. I'm not good at judging balance, but if it needed rebalancing for 1.0 I'm sure someone would have suggested it. I'd just like to say thanks everyone for developing and supporting this fine mod. I dont say that enough.

I'd vote for both, but if it went Xenon I'm sure I could easily mod a standard fuel version back in. And I'm sure most who need a Xenon version, which would be extremely useful, actually, are capable of modding it in. And modders will provide for those who can't.

I really like the idea of a visitor centre to show off your achevements and deceased kerbals. But I'm not mad of the idea of it generating money. IF you get money from the visitor centre it should be dependant on reputation which at the moment doesn't seem to have much importance, and perhaps if you don't charge entrance you get reputation boost.

Well, actually I bought the game because of the funny green guys. That's the problem, they have such a varied player base to please. Still I'm looking forward to an improved flight model too, I just hope its not as mind boggling as FAR.

Just stumbled across this, they look great. I'll be incorporating the Inflato Storage Container F.L.A.T in my latest attempt at a space station, maybe a couple others. The stations nothing special, but I really think the Hab Pack parts go well with stock

I've avoided the Kraken in space so far but I accidentally destroyed the Kerbol System by activating a decoupler from a failed launch that was resting on Kerbin's surface. Does that count?

Thanks for all the suggestions and advice, everyone. I'm going to try a few designs based on the suggestions.

It's not so much a problem with the present version of Wordpad, but earlier versions saved everything, even plain text files you were editing as DOC files making them unreadable by anything expecting plain text. A big problem if you were editing an INI file. It's still too easy to do this accidentally with the versions of Wordpad in XP and later, which is why you should use a text editor, like Notepad. After all Wordpad is a (very simple) wordprocessor, not a text editor.

Thanks! I played the demo for a bit and never made it out of Kerbin orbit. I decided to celebrate purchasing KSP by trying for a Munshot, so I'm running 0.17. I think the rocket I built needs a bit if revision. Should I replace the boosters with liquid fuel rockets? I'm not sure if I can post images yet, If it's OK here are a couple of picture of it: just the lander: the whole rocket: EDIT: Also I'm having a issue with parachutes failing sometimes. I usually open about 25000m. Is that too low? Too high?

Hi, thanks for the advice. As I said above I missed the munar rendezvous and I'm on way back to Kerbin. The lander has an LV-909 engine. I don't think post pictures yet, but it's like this: module, decoupler ASAS RCS tank & 4 RCS FL-T200 tank LV 909 engine 4 LT-2 legs and 3 sets rungs and a Telus LV ladder

So I've finally made it out of Kebin's orbit and I'm off to Mun. Only problem is it took a lot more fuel to get into and out of orbit than I expected and I've only got 2/3rds a FL-T200 tank left. I'm not going to try land on Mun, but is that enough to get into and out of Mun's orbit, and back onto Kerbin? EDIT: While this post was sitting in moderation I decided to see if I could make it and missed the rendezvous by fast forwarding to much. I narrowly avoided going into solar orbit and am on the way back to Kerbin with just over 1/3rd of a tank. So I think I could have orbited mun. Still, got some nice view of it and no kerbils have died on this mission (yet). EDIT: unfortunately Joelas Kerman deceased in an Uncontrolled Flight Into Terrain after deploying the 'chute at too high an airspeed.

Hi, saw a lets play of KSP on Youtube a couple of months ago, been playing with the free version. I've been really enjoying it so I decided to splash out on the full version. Thanks for the great program!