M5000

Hey all. I'm coming at you with a new craft. All stock this time, and it should be pretty much perfect. So, it's been bothering me about the lack of proper Soyuz craft out there. There are some great /looking/ ones, but there just aren't any that satisfy the "Workalike" part of it all. Of course there are mods, but I wanted a stock one so that everyone can use it. My goals for the craft were as follows: -Has to work like a Soyuz. -3 man reentry module. -3 man orbital module. -Unmanned service module. -Pointy liquid fueled boosters -2-stage core. -Escape tower system. -Beautiful, gorgeous basket type decouplers. -Engine clustering. -Make it LOOK like a Soyuz. -Has to fly well (and boy does it). -Has to be usable if I want to actually do things in orbit with it. -Has to be stock so that everyone can access it. Here are some pics: Full imgur album here. In that picture of the capsule being released from the orbital core, the core had about 80-90% fuel left after attaining a 125Km circular orbit. ACTION GROUPS: 1: Toggle all CENTRAL gimballed engines. The 4 LV-T45s on the core, the 4 LV-T45s on the orbital core, and the single LV-909 on the actual vehicle. SIDE BOOSTERS USE LV-T30 ONLY and are NOT vectored. 9: Toggle Panels. 0: Emergency/landing mode. If you are going to ABORT in atmosphere, hit your ABORT button and then 0 once the escape tower SRBs burn out. 0 does the following: -Decouple the escape tower/shroud. -Undock the node where the two manned pods are attached. -Deploy entry module's parachutes. -Activate entry module's retrorockets. It is for this reason that it can work for landing mode too, staging should be set up properly anyhow. If you've done a retroburn and are re-entering, and do not use the 0 key, staging will WORK but you will need to undock the docking ports between the orbital and entry module manually. The landing-softening engines are the small radial orange ones all fueled from a single toroid. They do not burn very long, so only use them RIGHT as you touch down. They are landing softening engines, not adjustment ones, that's ALL they're good for. The .CRAFT file is here if you would like to download it. But be forewarned that the goal of this craft was NOT to be easy on the part count (it has 345) or have no debris in orbit (mine left 10 pieces of debris, though most were fairly small strut bases) so just know that. But there it is. Awesome. -M5

He wasn't the one complaining, there was another user that had complained. He was defending the devs, rather abrasively, but it wasn't him who was worried about IVA stuff.

My Soyuz replica has 345 parts, and it turns the timer yellow and causes significant slowdowns. However, I still consider the game playable and it's not a horrible framerate in my eyes.

Just because he said something does not make it okay for you to do similarly. Be the mature one and just end it before it starts. Also, don't make me actually do mod-things. I don't want to have to do that if at all possible, but mark my words I will if you don't cool it off a notch.

It would be much appreciated if you could format your posts into something a bit more readable, as it's kind of hard to understand exactly what you're trying to say. Also, you don't need to double post as there is an edit feature right at the bottom of your post. It's the one with a little pencil thing. As another point, if you don't like the way something is done, why no go over to The Development Section and see if a similar thing is being discussed. If not? Why not start a thread to bring it to the attention of the devs? They can't read minds, sometimes they need someone to say "Hey, this is out of order, and I think it would be better if XYZ." Hey now, the name calling and insults are really not uh, called for. Just, let's be nice okay?

Don't we pretty much already have a thread for this type of thing? Just saying

"M5000 playing the game" Or, if I'm feeling particularly giddy, Nexus Intelligent Systems, Incorporated, or NISI. We have the following divisions relevant to KSP: Aerospace Division: We play with planes and high-atmosphere stuff. Orbital Mechanics Division: We're pretty much stuck in vacuum. Never really deal with planetary stuff. Rocketry Division: We make things go up and not come back down. Testing, Research, and Development Division: We don't have to actually build anything, we just play with the stuff that the other divisions give us. Mission Control and Project Management Division: The stuff that's actually on TV and that people care about. Roving and Exploration Division: We make wheels do wheel things, and look deep into space. Mining and Profiteering Division: We learn how to make money from space. Entry, Descent, and Landing Division: We keep things alive when they inevitably come back down. Don't listen to the Rocketry guys. Environmental Protection, Health, and Safety Division: We're horribly underfunded. It is said that the entire staff consists of a single sentient but static hardhat.

I laughed so hard at this my mashed potatoes almost went up inside my sinuses. I never had the pleasure of having them in my game, no pun intended, but I can't believe.. Like the thought of having a Kerb come up with that name.. That's pretty much the funniest thing I've read all day...

The only problem I have with .20 is that it breaks EdTools, and less importantly, Subassembly, and that deeply saddens me, as I HEAVILY relied on them.

Shhh. My favorite Kerbs are Jeb, Lozon, Jonnie, Kirk, Erfel and Corfrid. Shhh.

Quite enjoy these... I made a picture of a basic 1.25m/1 Man OTV in my drawing notebook, and I wish I had a scanner/decent camera to share them... Something about pencil sketches that just ignites the imagination more than fully-finished drawings... Your mind has to fill in the blanks where there's no color or shading..

Someone try scanning these as QR Codes... At least the black/white ones. That said, I REALLY like these. While it's kinda not my style to use someone else's flags in my own game, it does inspire me to make a similar set, which I can actually kinda do, but likely never will.. Say, what program did you use to make these?

This is what I say/think too, while some people are claiming to have performance issues actually increase, and certainly I can't speak for everyone, I personally have noticed a good increase thus far. Though, I haven't tried filling my orbit with debris yet.... I think this update really improved the feel of the game. New map view/tracking station makes it feel so much closer to completion than it actually is, IMO.

Let's keep it civil. Last few pages have been doing pretty well, after the bit of a bump in the first few. Really don't want to have to lock it if it's not needed...

Which flag do you want available for download, and more importantly, who exactly are you talking to? There's quite a few people who might think you're talking to them. Also, if you want someone else's flag, you can just right click and hit "save target as" and it will be like downloading anything else on the internet. Though, the person you downloaded from might not be as happy if they find out you re-upload it as your own somewhere else, so try not to do that

Last time, I brought you the Nexus Intelligent Systems, Incorporated Official Marking Flag Model A4... to commemorate a successful landmark! And I decided that there needed to be one to mark our failures... I present, the Nexus Intelligent Systems, Incorporated Official Mortality Reminded Flag Use it to say that someone died, likely horribly!

I have not lost any Kerbals in my official save file in .20 However, it's inevitable that I'll eventually lose one somewhere. In that case, I've devised a flag to be planted in their honor at the Kerbal Graveyard whose location is to be determined but I'm thinking one of the small offshore islands, so it will be outside of render distance when I launch things. It will say the name of the Kerbal, Cause of sudden reminding of mortality, mission, stuff like that etc etc etc. The flag will be the red one in my signature. I like this.

Remember, this is just psuedocode.. It's just my idea for how I'd basically like it to work, it's not like I'm sitting here on SQUAD's servers playing with scripts and changing things...

99% of my missions are unmanned. I won't set up a mission where it's not entirely possible to eventually get the Kerbals back. If I'm building a base, I'll build it unmanned first, then send crew. I believe I have lost one Kerbal off-world (I've killed countless in vehicular tests on Kerbin..Ugh..) It was on a largely untested and mostly unsafe Mun mission. I tried making a small, efficient 1-man lander. The design didn't work so well.. Things were in the wrong place, forgot parts here and there, all kinds of mess... The transit stage released the landing module and became a piece of debris.. As the single Kerbal descended, I quickly looked at how fast my fuel was draining and realized I'd have nowhere near enough fuel to land. Poor guy slammed into the Mun at 600m/s... Worst part? I don't even remember his name...

No, just add a probe core onto it like everyone else.. We really don't need that option, in my opinion. But I, like you, wanted to keep my lander's base on the Mun when I touched down. So I put a probe core on it and it's still there as a beacon of my first landing site.

I have had weird issues with this before. First time out of the VAB/SPH? Fine. No structural failures. Mess up while flying and hit "restart"? All hell breaks loose sometimes. Like, I was testing a mobile rover lab concept on the SPH. Right out of the SPH? Totally fine worked like a champ. Restart flight after crashing in a stress test? The rover explodes and sends parts flying away at 700m/s. I changed. Nothing.

104: We're more interested in how rockets go down than how they go up.

Instead of using tags by themselves, the users should basically have to choose ONE section to place the file in when it's uploaded. The user is prompted to enter the title for the submission. The user is prompted to select whether this is a public or private submission. The user is prompted to select whether this is a current version or an outdated version. (This will ideally always be current version upon first upload, but when they edit their post later, they can change this if the pack is outdated.) There would be, on the upload screen, a drop-down box with the following options. We will call this Dropdown 0: ---Choose One--- -Save File -Craft -Gameplay Mod (Things that make the game do more stuff, rather than being parts-based. MechJeb would be a good example, FAR and DEADBEEF's stuff as well.) -Part Mod (Things that add parts to the game. KOSMOS SSPP, KW Rocketry, KSPX, NovaPunch. Things that don't really expand what the game does, but adds parts.) -Other Mod (Something that doesn't quite fit into either category, or fits into both. Kethane sort of fits into both, though there likely wouldn't be much in this section. Maybe things like Lionhead Aerospace that are basically just re-creations of real life craft, or things that are vehicles in and of themselves like some of Bobcat's stuff.) -Other Game File (This would likely become increasingly useful as the game expands. Flags, decals, config files, new textures for parts, possibly things that mods use, such as a MechJeb Configuration file or something. Anything that basically isn't big enough to stand on its own.) Every section would then, after selecting a valid field, have another drop down box... It would be like this. We will call this Dropdown 1: ---Choose One--- Single File Pack Basically, if the user chose "Single File" as the option, it would only allow .sfs for when Dropdown 0 is set to "Save File." If the user has Dropdown 0 set to "Craft," the upload script would only allow a file with the .craft extension. If the user has Dropdown 0 set to "Gameplay Mod," the upload script will only allow a single file with the .dll extension. The user cannot select "Single File" if Dropdown 0 is set to "Content Mod," "Part Mod," or "Other Mod" is selected, as this implies that they're uploading something more complex (parts require folders and therefore a .zip). The "Single File" option will be greyed out on the dropdown. If the user has Dropdown 0 set to "Other Game File" then the upload script will allow any single file, as long as it is not a .zip, .rar, .7z, .tar, or .exe (Or, presumably, any other compressed file folder format.) If the user selects "Pack," then the user will be able to upload a .zip file only, no matter what the Dropdown 0 is set to. At this point, we will create a set of Radio Buttons that appears after a choice is selected on Dropdown 1. A line of text asks "Can all the files being currently uploaded be loaded into the stock game with no issues?" Radio 0 says "Yes" Radio 1 obviously says "No" If "Yes" is selected, the file is put into the stock half of Spaceport, if no it is simply put into the modded portion of the site. Radio buttons 0 and 1 will not appear if the user is uploading a content mod, parts pack or other mod, the files will automatically be dumped into the modded section with no choice from the user. If radio 1 is selected, OR the Content Mod/Parts Pack/Other Mod were selected on dropdown 0, the user will automatically get a text box where they are prompted to list any mods required for use. (Some mods require other mods to work properly). If radio 1 is selected AND dropdown 0 has "Other Game File" selected, the text box will appear. If radio 0 is selected OR any other option on dropdown 0 except for Other Game Files was selected, no box will appear. The user is prompted with two more radio buttons, 2, 3, and 4 and 5 and 6. A line of texts asks "Would you like to upload a readme file for your file? Radio 2 says "Yes" Radio 3 says "No" Radio 4 says "Readme File is included in the pack." Radio 4 will only appear if Dropdown 0 was set to "Pack" If radio 2 gets selected, then the user will be able to upload a single .txt file. If 3 is selected, no upload prompt for the readme will be given. Another line of text will ask "Would you like to include a how to install to replace the default?" Radio button 5 will say "No" Radio button 6 will say "Yes" If radio 6 is selected, a text box will appear with a BBCode editor allowing the user to type in their own how-to guide. No upload prompt will be allowed, but BBCode will allow for embedding of pictures. If radio 5 is selected, the default "How to install mods in KSP" will come up. The user is prompted to enter an "About" section to display on the page. The tags would be allowed to be typed in however people wanted, or have a similar list set up like now. The files would then be uploaded and dumped into the proper server folders. Tags would then be populated On every user's profile, you could browse their addons in their respective sections, or search them by name or tags. There would also be a folder for their outdated, old versions of their files. The outdated section would be a top-level folder, hidden from normal searches and browsing, but findable through specifically browsing a user's "Outdated" section of their profile, or special searching it. You could browse spaceport by "folder". If you search from the main spaceport home page, you will search through ALL public mods by title, uploader, and tags. You can then, also, from the home page, click on the "Stock" and "Modded" sides of spaceport. If you initiate a search from here, you will only search the section you're in, respectively, and will ignore the other section. However, you could also opt to delve further into the subfolders of "Saves" "Crafts" and "Other Game Files" on the stock side, and on the modded side, all of those, plus "Content Mods" and "Part Mods". If you search within one of these folders, you will ignore all other same-level-or-higher folders. There will also be a dedicated search tab that allows you to enter up to 4 lines of text. One line would be "All Search Terms" Which would look at title, user, "the about description", and tags. Another would be "By These Users" Another would be "By These Tags" And the last would be "By These Titles" And have a similar dropdown box structure as I listed above that would allow users to refine their search to certain sections of craft. The user will also have a checkbox that will allow them to search in the "Outdated" section for what they're looking for. And another checkbox that will disallow any current version files, restricting the search to the "Outdated" section only. This would be the only way to get to an outdated file, other than the direct link and finding it under the "Outdated" section on a user's profile. This would be good because it funnels files into specific places they're supposed to go, and tags, even if they are spammed, only begin to affect one folder. If it was properly moderated, you should never be able to find a modded craft while looking for a stock craft. Ahem. SQUAD, I just wrote the psuedocode for your upload and search filtering scripts. No, but seriously, does this not appear more logical than the current system?

Ahh so it is the real Parkaboy. Anyhow. The only thing that kinda bothers me about the base is the slightly unnecessary part count added by those small fuel tanks that connect between the modules. I mean, unless you need them.

>A planet with very high inclination, yes. >A planet that is almost at the edge of Kerbol's SOI. So much so that it would be nigh useless to try and orbit above it if you wanted to do a rendezvous-style insertion with it. >Asteroids everywhere. >A planet with a beautiful ring system. >Some kind of gas giant with a solid core that would be cold, but have a ton of atmospheric pressure. Solar panels would be useless on the surface, as the atmosphere would block out the sun far before you even saw the surface. >One planet, somewhere, that's exactly as life-friendly as Kerbin. Low rad levels, magnetosphere, temperature, atmosphere makeup/pressure, similar gravity, water, plant life, the works. A home away from home. >A planetary system that has all of its planets orbiting VERY close so much so that encounters would be very challenging to get how you want.