TMS

My ascent plan: get above 30,000m ASAP. From there, ascend at sub-50m/s until your AP is over desired altitude. Boom. In orbit.

Sad thing is that kerbals on EVA used to have that flexibility in stock. It got borked/improved some time around 0.20.

Not bad, considering the official mod repository has les than 400 mods and had a head start. Here's to everybody involved. *raises glass*

The suggestions forum is just a talking shop with an unknown audience. Having said that, it might be useful if/when this is implemented: Harvesters opinion on "the little things that hurt"

I would definitely encourage you to continue on the asymmetric issue. The approach being taken by the other guy is essentially reordering parts, as I described in one of my previous posts. While that will appear to work, it will have inherent limitations due to it being a workaround how craft files are currently read, rather than a solution. Firstly, it will only ever work for even equivalent ratios of intakes to engines - it will never be able to handle three intakes and two engines. Secondly, the part reordering approach doesn't actually prevent asymmetric burnout - it just delays it to a point where your atmo thrust is so low anyway, that it's not a significant problem. The approach you describe is superior and would appear to not have the above limitations. More importantly, as you have discussed with others, it is more in keeping with another aim of this bugfix pack: to provide examples of how the stock game should work. Squad would never implement a part reordering solution. They would implement a different way of pooling and distributing the intake resource.

That video was sheer babble. Also...

Well, that all sounds awesome! "Working concept", you say? Looking forwards to seeing that released.

Whoa, whoa! The hitching issue has been unresolved for as long as I've played the game. It's got better with each version, but is still present. Is your solution well-known? Might want to write up an idiots guide if it works.

That's a good idea. Preferable if it was able to set perspective to a targeted port as well, rather than the COM of a targeted vessel.

I'm interested in this. I have been successfully circumventing this bug by adding intakes and engines in groups (intakes-engine-intakes-engine) according to Kasuha's fuel flow rules thread. The down side is that the intakes and engines need to be the last things placed on the vessel, so tweaking or changing a SSTO's payload means pulling off and reattaching the intakes and engines... which is a monumental ballache. How's the fix progressing and what approach are you taking? I assumed any fix would need to alter the placement order of parts (meaning a plugin or some sort).

Flag fell over as well. FAIL.

Thanks for this, Youen. This mod is already a 'must have' (alongside KER and PreciseNode) for me.

So, given that the harpoon failed and it bounced several times, I'm assuming that the screws are useless without some sort of downwards force to make them 'grip' into the surface? I assume the propellant is exhausted from the initial attempt? Really hoping they can resolve this. Once again highlights the value of opposable thumbed, autonomous organics in space.

Always like that (or it changed within two weeks of the dailies becoming a thing). Stops older threads taking the limelight. Kinda wish they'd added tags for that forum so you could filter by which type of daily you were looking for.

lol... reverse jet engine sounds on braking as well. Haha! Ace. Couple of minor issues: Is it possible to have a tweak button to add/remove a set of gears from the braking action group? This ability is present on the stock gear. It's not immediately obvious what "dynamic steering" does. It's not obvious which keys control the motor. Other than such trivia... just brilliant.

Wow... so much amaze!

Skids in space and in your pants.

Agreed on the probe cores. Still makes no sense to me, not least as they are essentially redundant. Docking and associated RCS parts need moving into the earlier part of the game. Docking opens up a world of possibilities and its a shame one has to grind for so long before the option is available to you. After all, as a new player, recreating the two-ship Apollo solution is usually high on the agenda. I'd like to see more station-building parts introduced with some sort of actual function. I'd love for there to be a reason to haul specific modules into orbit and for orbital construction to be desirable. Some sort of abstracted life support would also be welcome, even as a difficulty option, in order to emphasise the difficulty and danger of space travel. Part of me believes that a tech tree structure will be difficult to finalise before details of the aerodynamics are known. I still live in hope of a system rescale so that achieving orbit in itself is a true challenge.

I tend to use Reddit more these days, in spite of Reddit's terrible GUI. I wonder if that's a trend amongst longer-term users? The modding is far lighter-touch, less outright cheerleading, it's easier to spot new emerging mods and (for whatever reason) Squad seem to respond to Reddit commentary/critique more than their own forums. On another note, every large forum I've ever run or contributed to goes through this sort of existential crisis from time to time. It's usually unfounded.

This basically sums up my perspective. I'm fine with the concept, but the art direction is like Rayman goes to Space. Maybe the next mod pack to be integrated into stock will be Wacky Wood Wares?

So, the upgradable KSC buildings preview has been released today. I think it's fair to say that the models are quite underwhelming. I'm wondering if this mod is capable of tackling the replacement of lower tier KSC buildings, if people were willing to contribute reworked models and textures? Congrats on being showcased on Scott Manley's channel, BTW.

Please tell me these models and textures are replaceable? Sorry guys, I want to be supportive, but it's too cartoony for me. I get that it's supposed to be representative of humble beginnings, but the textures and poly count are really low grade. I'm feeling that if memory limitations are a concern here, then it might be worth forgoing plans of multiple tiers and sticking to a smaller number of models that are done at a higher standard. Ack.... I hate being mean with feedback. Help us Kerbinside, you're our only hope.

Is there a particular milestone that you want to achieve for the next release, rbray?

I had no idea this was still being worked on. I assumed rbay was on extended hiatus. That screenie looks awesome, btw.

Hi there, Is there a way to force the icon into the stock toolbar? I have blizzy's toolbar installed for a couple of older mods that rely on it, but would prefer Trajectories to appear in the stock toolbar (cleans up the map mode screen). The OP kinda indicates that the stock toolbar is only used in the absence of Blizzy's toolbar. Is that correct? Oh, updated to the most recent release and I'm impressed with the accuracy in stock and the improvements with manoeuvre nodes.