Ruedii

As a note, could you add a "craft visible" range to increase the range at which crafts are unpacked and rendered, but not in physics (instead being on rails or stationary)? This could be quite far.

Anyone have verification of this working on 1.7? Oh well, testing it anyway, wish me luck! BTW, do you have a GITHub site for me to donate stock scaler configs if I get around to making them?

Could we get the additional sizes, and possibly additional textures from Fuel Tanks Plus and possibly Space-Y expanded? Specifically, the thin fuel tanks, medium length (3/4 stock max) and extended length (1.5 stock length) From Space-Y expanded, the 7.5m and 10m parts would be nice. Engines, aren't necessarily needed, but might be nice to pull over. Finally, adding reworks for the 1.8m parts might be nice for users with the DLC installed. (Engine reworks probably aren't needed, those 1.8m engines are perfect as is.) Also, having a series of texture and model reworks more inspired by the 1.7 KSP quality passs updates might be nice. to add to the todo list as well. (I REALLY like the new Ant and Spider from the reworks.) Finally, adding more color textures on EVERYTHING. The following are available in the current atlas set if indexes are created: Black, Dark, White White/Black Light, Black/White Dark, Bright Metal, Dark Metal, Flat Metal. Kosmonaut Green. Kosmonaut Green/Orange, Insulation Orange, Insulation Beige, Space Station Fabric. If Interstellar Meshswitch permits it you could use a separate "style" and "color" switch on some of the parts, such as engines, RCS and science parts. An improved variety of textures/styles could also be created by switching out the parallax maps and/or normal maps.

I don't know if they will use full n-body physics, or on-rail plotted. However, either way.

Hopefully since it's released on Steam, Steamworks DRM will be all they use. Of course, quite a few Steam integration features will break when you run the game without a license on Steam so DRM would clearly not be necessary.

Will there be a Linux release, or is that not known yet?

Are you going to add a new forum thread for this?

Yeah, the old SXT cockpits, cool as they are, still are slightly too small on some of them. That said, it's not impossible to design one with enough height. One just needs to extend both the top and bottom to make room, and then blend it back to 0.625 on each side.

0.675 cockpit run into a serious problem: Height. With the new internal IVA overlays, the pilot's head will hit the ceiling, unless it enters a substantially taller profile in the pilot section (about 1.2m height.) This still makes them smaller than the Mk1 models. A bigger selection of 0.675 engines might be more important, though plus higher output electric engines to match new electric technology.

It would be nice to have air springs in some of the piston and hinge parts. These would not use electricity to maintain their position (unlike actuators) but could only be set to one position. However, pushed out of position they would give a specified amount and return with a specified amount of force. This would make them really good for giant landing legs. Additionally, there should be an option on some of the larger parts to "lock to air spring." This would temporarily turn it into an air-spring with the target point of the current position (NOT current target, which could be abused).

Well, the robotics do make for MUCH better large landing gear.

Yeah, from what I can tell this is feature complete. It's being well maintained. The author is currently creating content for his other mod in this Kerbal Standard pack: Grounded. That one has a lot of cool, highly modular, ground vehicle parts.

You might also have to be in physics range of the impacting vessel, not the science station, when it impacts. Otherwise the vessel is just "destroyed on rails."

Oh, having a deployable "reserve power unit" battery would also be a nice solution. (Can power experiments but not transmitters.) I think there should be one in each solar unit but having a higher capacity one that can be deployed would be useful as well. Additionally the transmitter and science units should have a spooller of reasonable capacity. and an addition "Data recording unit" should be deployable as well. You should be able to set the transmitter to only transmit when spool is full or under direct power.

Hmm, well obviously it has no power, that explains it. This is a case of how it works not being how it should work. It SHOULD have an amount of reserve power and data spool capacity. It SHOULD make them have a reserve power to be able to record the data valuable data from a specified number of impacts and transmit it later. Each transmitter unit should be able to spool so much data for transmission, as well as each science unit. Considering this is a case of a should behavior, instead of a bug, you should probably file a feature request, as that is how players of Indie games by responsive companies should function. I don't have time to right now, but I can do it for you if you later, just reply to this message saying so or I might forget. (Always love helping another Kerbal fan, and I want this feature too.)

The engine the NK-12 was used on the Soviet airliner which was also used as a medium cargo plane. The entire plane was a lot heavier, and more durable than most western plane designs. The engine itself had a very high power to weight ratio, but is incredibly heavy due to it's size.

Not to mention new ways to cram stuff in cargo bays. Collapsing rovers are now possible! Maybe we should have some Breaking Ground based parts to fold up the support vehicles for transport to other planets. Oh, and LF/OX based fuel based generators for when you get there. We still need bigger fuel tanks and maybe some Tesla style in-frame high-capacity batteries. The current grounded vehicles only have about a hour or two of fuel. They need 3 hours worth minimum, and that is presuming you have KAS to do refueling. p.s. if you want some demonstration vehicles for this, I'm game to build them. I can then hand-edit them for cleanup. I, of course, will need to make a KSP stock installation.

Absolutely cool. We need new higher torque electric propellers and some high capacity batteries to go with them. Hmm, maybe Community Tech Tree needs to add an "Efficient Flight" branch for a place we can put these . . .

All of them tend to have a maximum speed of 290 m/s which is way too high. Maximum speed of piston engines are about 200m/s. This is world record speed, but it's really only a little inching over the actual production military planes. A civilian plane would be typically much slower. Physics-wise this is because piston engines just don't handle high speed intake air very well. The engine intake manifold looses efficiency long before the propeller becomes the primary limiting factor. Maximum speed of turboprops are much higher. Their turbo-crank powerhouse can actually continue creating torque at supersonic speeds, but the propeller blades just can't deliver it. Large turboprop planes can go as high as 240m/s (no where near the 290m/s) this is the maximum cruising speed of the Tupolev Tu-114 airliner. The fastest turboprop powered production plane. This plane had 4 of the largest turboprops ever built. It is also the largest and most powerful civilian turboprop plane ever built, weighing in at over 90,000kg dry and having over 4x11,000kW of engine power. Experimental turboprop planes have gone faster. The XF-84H hit a full 278m/s. However, not even the engine configuration could be considered "production." It was also known to give a constant sonic boom off of it's propeller, even at idle, knocking ground crews unconscious on occasion. It also had a 30 minute ground spinup time before takeoff, which could be heard 25 miles away. 10 out of the 11 test flights ended in forced landings. Let's just say, it doesn't qualify as a production engine configuration. This insanely impractical nature of the plane was needed just to get 38 more m/s, only a 15% gain. Still getting back the US claim on the world record from the Soviets. was probably worth it for some in the US military even if it was no where near a production plane. If you want more detailed accurate information The KAX engine pack author knows a LOT about this kind of stuff. The reason nobody complains, is they just use that pack for more realistic engines. I was thinking of only removing the bulkhead on the side the door closes into, not both sides, obviously. However, making a separate "Dual Sliding Door" one for a longer one might be a more structurally sound looking option for one twice as long. It would basically look like the configuration I had with the center bulkhead removed. A similar, shorter cargo bay could be made from the Service module. I'd even recommend making that a part variant of the standard cargo bay, as often I run into a problem with the cargo bay sliding door being too long when it opens, and messing with my design. The other option is to make the "remove open side bulkhead" a tweakable switch for this configuration. I know it's just cosmetics, but I understand things have to look logical, and removing both bulkheads would look plain weird. Having the bulkhead removed with nothing attached also would look weird. BTW, I noticed some Z-Fighting between a few of your parts. Do you want me to report them as I find them? I'm using the Mesa drivers which tend to be an order of magnitude more sensitive to Z-Fighting, due to strong favoring of 16bit Z Values to save computation cost, and lacking non-standard surface-dominance routines to prevent z-fighting.

It's more an issue of the speed/power curve. Specifically the propellers pull you too fast. I've heard complaints on other threads.

BTW, I've noted the complaints about the power curves. Do you want me to take a look at them. I would favor fun over realism, and only enough realism to improve the fun. I know that people who want a higher level realism will go for the KAX engines, and we should tell them to do so for their engines, and point out that the rest of the Airplane Plus parts work great with the KAX engines.

I noticed in a recent experiment that the bulkheads on the MK1 cargo bay and Service Modules get in the way if you try to use them facing opposite to create a double sliding door. Is there any way the bulkhead on the "open" side could be removed to allow this usage? Here is an image with a use case interfered with by the bulkhead in question: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y1lFSZyBP-v2wfBNh-WVl9Dv1x8VIJLJ/view?usp=sharing

Yes, it's been working for a while. Patch came out right after breaking ground. You can't hold the sensitive Breaking Ground instruments in KAS storage, though, due to game balance, though. You can only hold other items there. The Breaking Ground instruments also have no attachment points, so can't be hard attached to anything. They are also marked that radial items can't attach to them meaning you can't hook conventional electrical devices to them for power. The breaking ground robotics can be handled completely with KAS/KIS and will interact with KAS devices through in game physics. Future plans involve using the Breaking Ground robotic routines for KAS mechanics if the user has Breaking Ground installed. Several mods plan to do this. This part of the extended compatability hasn't been created yet.

I don't know, but I've made something similar. Did you actually load that onto the truck? If so, that would be a great way to improve recovery value using KAS and the Breaking Ground Robotics (or Konstruction Robotics) to load the craft onto the truck system.

The airplane plus engines need more tweaking. The nature of prop engines are tricky. A prop engine has a HUGE amount of stationary thrust, but as it moves faster it loses thrust substantially, meanwhile, jet engines maintain their thrust quite well at high speeds. Still, Airplane Plus' maximum speed and maximum thrust are too high. Especially the maximum speed. Depending on the model, most propeller and impeller systems max out at between Mach 0.25 and Mach 0.85. Many of the Airplane Plus propellers have top speeds between Mach 1.5 and Mach 2.1. That is way too fast. As of power that's also an issue, even by KSP's overpowered standards.