Jm419

Can't wait!

I like it.

The Great Lighthouse actually existed in real life, you know. Not just in the Civ games. Agreed on all counts. Any progress on Holo? He can always just be moved down the list a space or two if he's not around.

Kerbal Community Build Program Episode 001 is finished: See the other thread for persistence files and craft files. Whew. Glad we're on the way!

Kerbal Community Build Program Episode 001 is finished: Also, my Youtube page: http://www.youtube.com/user/kermanbros I'm uploading two persistence files, one with the launch stage included and one without, so whoever follows me can choose which to use; one of them has engines so it can be moved on its own, while the other one has had the launch stage deorbited. With engines: http://www./download/0515qj5ch3mf1tw/Jm419_Persistent_File_%231 Without engines: http://www./download/3k9wg6s19e45sru/Jm419_Persistent_File_%232 I also have my command core craft file available: http://www./download/10t7iovhgikpoxh/KCBP_-_Command_Core.craft

Video is uploading... 155 minutes to finish the upload... this'll be fun.

Video should be up today.

Ok. Got the first flight done and recorded. Having some internet issues on my end... posting on a phone... but I should get uploaded in the next two or three days at worst. Sorry for the delay, fellas.

Sorry about the double posting, but I figured this merited it. We've begun! Or, at least, begun simulations. I built up my core, with an included command center, and tossed it on my heavy launcher to see if I could get it into orbit. I could, with plenty of fuel left over, but there are a few issues with it. 1. Firstly, there's no RCS. I couldn't find room for nine parts for a typical RCS twin-ring complement and a tank, so I left it off. It's going to be oriented in a polar direction, so docking with it shouldn't be an issue - docking to something passive is how we dock in KSP anyway - but I just figured I'd mention it. 2. Again, because of the part count, there aren't any lights. That's not a huge deal, but it's mildly irritating to dock with something that's unlit. I'd need four more parts to light it up properly. I did manage to include two RTG reactors, as requested. I'm also considering leaving it attached to its original launcher, or what made it into orbit, anyway - that way, it can be moved if necessary, and there are some solar panels on the orbiter stage. It's probe-smart, so it can deorbit itself, so what I'll probably do is provide two files - one with the launcher still attached and one without, so whoever follows me can choose which version they'd like to work with. It's attached to a Rockomax node, so there are five open ports available for docking. They're all Sr. sized, as discussed. The sixth node is oriented northward, and that has my command center attached to it, so the station has my own flair. In short: --30 parts sounds like a lot, but it goes fast when you include RCS and lights. --Whoever docks with this is going to have to do it with their own craft; the core has no lights or RCS, but it does have power. --Let's do this!

I think the RTGs are a must right now; the batteries are a good idea too, we'll see how the part count works out. I may include an RCS pod that we can just jettison once it's docked to something with dedicated RCS; that might be easiest. Also, what do we think of space tugs? Love 'em, or leave 'em? I find that they can be more trouble than its worth, so unless someone really wants one, I won't launch a tug with my module. Fair enough. If it gets above about 240 parts, it'll be unusable for me in the final version, but if we all shoot for 25 with a 5 part leeway, I feel a bit better about that. Also - lights? Are we including station floodlights, or not? If we do, everyone should have some just for consistency, but if not it'll save on count - a lot. Ok, so should I get started or wait for your intro video? I don't want to miss out if you have a set format, or something like that. Do you want me to launch and record my flight today, or wait for you to kick things off? Do we care about a maximum video length? I would think we could cover anything in a half hour, if it goes that long. One last thing - the station name. I'm going to call it "Kerbin Orbital Station" unless someone has a better idea. Suggestions? Sorry about the random questions; just trying to iron things out before we really get started.

I'll put up a core tomorrow. Shall I include some maneuvering RCS, or just leave that to the next guy? Also, what altitude did we decide on? I'm inclined to do 250k at an equatorial orbit, but that's just me. The refueling depot could be lower but still outside the render limits; something like 175k? Also, we need an executive decision on part count. I'm going to see if I can limit myself to 25 parts, and we'll see if that's reasonable. Times nine, that gives us a final count of 225 parts. Or should we do 20, for a final part count of 180? That leaves us some room so it's possible to dock with without suffering massive lag. So, what - I'll start, then the team lead from 1 can start on the depot?

Ultimately, yes. Though, I would like the updated ASAS. Seriously, though - this is one of the best games I've ever played. I've certainly gotten $23 of value out of it, and ten times more, which can only be said for some of the truly great console games - Morrowind, Skyrim, Assassin's Creed, Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic. I enjoy the game immensely, but its even better knowing there are new things just around the corner.

My save is just my first name...

Is the posted order the order in which we'll fly? Does that mean I'm first, so I should design a station core?

Awesome, I'm on the station!

That's almost exactly like my own SSTO. I'll have to get a shot of it.

Ok, some points here: Kerbin's oceans do indeed render separately; it has, in a way, two surfaces. However, that is not the case past 159 km, or whatever. Haven't you noticed the rendering jump at 160,000 m? The surface is rendered differently a long way off. What this means is we can't actually increase part counts around another body. The other bodies render similarly to Kerbin at high altitude, as they're treated as a texture rather than procedural terrain. 550 parts is way out of the realm of possibility, I'm afraid, because that 300 part limit was tested at high Kerbin orbit - outside the range of above 160 km. My 314 part ship flies at 250 km, and it's still a lagfest. If it were within 150 km, it would be unplayable - so rather than revising our estimates upward, we'd actually have to revise them downward when we're within the double-render zone of Kerbin. Now, I do agree with you about the double refueling mission. We should probably implement a rule; if you fly a fuel tank up, you fill it up before you're done. Yeah... listen, I know folks want mods, but I will absolutely not use mods in my file. What you're suggesting is that we break up the persistance file, which doesn't make much sense. As previously discussed, you're free to use mods to get your thing into orbit, but I'm not going to install mods to do this. I'm a stock purist, through and through.

Actually, a refueling depot is something I hadn't considered. Instead of two stations, why not build a station and a refueling depot? That way, there's some more flexibility in the station, and we wouldn't have to run four tanker flights to refuel it at a high orbit. The refueling depot could then be a dedicated orbiter designed only for fueling up interplanetary flights - something which would be really useful if we ever decide to build a station around, say, Jool. You know - that could be our eventual goal of the project. We could consider this a persistance file that we slate for general release in the future, with all the infrastructure intact. A Kerbin station - refueling depot combination would allow users to skip the in-between steps and go straight for interplanetary flights. We'd be building a persistance file as a service to the community. "Want a space station, but hate docking? Try this one on for size." Except that the polar station would take an unbelievably long time to build compared to the equatorial one. Ingame months, at least, because we'd have to wait for the planet to rotate underneath the orbit, and then we'd have to launch regardless of where the space station is. Whereas you can build an equatorial station in a day if you time your rendezvous right, this would have two variables to worry about. Not to mention the (infinitesimally small) risk of collision.

OP, I knew about it, but had never seen an image of it. Thanks for that. Old timer here, too. -snip-

All right; I think it's time to determine a final part count. I believe that 300 parts is about the maximum we can do, so everyone can play with the final station as well as putting in their own part. My current space station in my own game is 314, and that's noticeably laggy - enough so that I'm considering putting up a refueling depot instead in .21. Remember, it gets ridiculously difficult to dock at a certain point, and everyone who has to deal with, say, more than 150 or 175 parts on approach is going to have a hard time if they're on a lower-power machine. We can make a pretty awesome station for 300 parts, too. My station is chock full of lights and RCS thrusters, but if I removed those it'd probably be closer to 150 parts or so. I'm going to go through the thread and count the number of folks who've signed on, and then we can divide the total number of parts by the number of users. Ok, so my count gives me some 18 members. Even with a part limit of only 20, we end up with a final space station count of 360 parts, which is really pushing it in terms of lagginess on slower PCs. That poses an interesting problem. Should we all work on the same station? If we do, our part counts will be harshly limited to 20 parts each, or less, and we'll still have huge lag issues. Unless we have a heck of a lot of coordination - ie, you build a docking ring, she'll do the fuel reserves, I'll handle the core, etc - we'll end up duplicating modules or adding useless modules. The other question is whether it's even really necessary for a space station to have eighteen separate modules. How could they each have a function? Ultimately, I'm inclined to suggest we break into two teams. This allows us to have individual part counts higher, and allows more flexibility in station design. If we increase our part limit to thirty parts each, now, we can build a station at 270 parts fully loaded, which is on the lower end of the lag spectrum. Or, if we chose to do 25 parts, we can keep the parts down to, what, 225? This is going to need some more thought; what's the minimum amount of parts we can have on a module without them all turning into some Hitchhiker modules ported together? This is probably our only reasonable suggestion, considering we have a whopping eighteen (or so) members. We can do this in a few separate ways: 1.) Put two stations in the same orbit, 180 degrees apart. 2.) Put two stations in Kerbin orbit, one in a significantly higher orbit than the other. 3.) Put one station in Kerbin orbit, and another in orbit around another body, likely the Mun. Option 1 has the most cause for concern; it would be pretty easy to mistake the stations for one another, and you might end up rendezvousing with the wrong one. Option 2 is probably the middle of the road option, albeit perhaps the least interesting for the viewers to watch. Option 3 is interesting in that it allows us to break up the members into, say, more and less experienced. We could even have people sign up for Mun Station or Kerbin Station, if it comes to that. Of course - we could even split into three teams of six. Part count is still a concern, but not by much - six modules at 40 parts each gives us a final count of 240, just outside of the lag limits on most PCs - but then, we'd have the same issues, and the project would become more and more clouded with three stations in the Kerbin system. (Kerbin - Mun - Minmus, anyone?) This is going to take some thought. What do people think? Should some people just sit this round out? Or is multiple stations the way to go? Or, ultimately, do we want to cut parts down to like 15 parts per person, to build a single, massive station?

What about this? It's in the public domain. It's kinda up the same alley, and fits the subject matter - the majesty of stellar travel - very nicely.

We should probably standardize docking port sizes, too. Nothing's more irritating than trying to dock to a Junior with a Standard when you thought they were both the same size. I vote standard size ports for the external ports - IE, on docking rings, or the fuel tanks - anything a spacecraft is intended to dock to. Large size for the station, obviously.

I get crappy FPS on a good day. I should probably be fairly high up on the build order. And let's make it 200k, so we're outside the render distance of Kerbin. 175k minimum, I'd think, considering Kerbin renders at about 159k

Seangard and Thomnard for me - they also have Allan on their crew, but he's a coward!

I'm in too. A space station around Kerbin is probably a good place to start, so we can get a feel for how the group operates. Then, maybe we build one around Duna, or hell - Eeloo.