Temeter

Had the same thing happen (on a modded install tho!). Press escape, usually fixed it for me.

Huh, I didn't even know something like airpark existed. That sounds perfect, if you could just add the part and preconfigure attitude/altitude/speed. Sorry though, while I'd like to help, I don't think I'd be of any use. Most of the stuff I did was helping out mods with setting up/modifying cfg's or translations. No actual coding in KSP that goes deeper than basic module manager stuff (which isn't even coding). That's basically why I'm so eager to experiment by misusing mods in all various, useful ways^^ You mean a Kerbal fps kind of deal? That sounds ambitious!

Haha, don't worry, I'm long enough around mods (and dabbled a bit myself) to appreciate the stuff you guys create and share with us, last thing I'd want is to bother you about it There is no need for direct interface. The thing I'm thinking about is for crafts far out of range, maybe 200km, a defense directly at your target location. Those crafts would be almost vertical on launch clamps; So when they load in, smart part automatically triggers the launch clamps and some boosters; when the boosters are empty, it drops the boosters and activates the AI module by triggering an action group. That would negate your range and speed advantage a bit. If the ground crafts would do a normal, slow start with standby mode, and I come in supercruising at mach 1.5 and 5km altitude, I'd be at a massive advantage.^^

If you don't want to pay full price for the addon, just buy it on sale. Needs some updates anyway to be less buggy.

I wonder how well the mission editor is going to work to set up BDA combat missions? Seems like it would go pretty straightforward. Ground and Sea targets would be easy to setup, and while you can't spawn stuff in the air, I imagine with PRE and smart part controlled boosters it would be pretty easy to propel enemy aircraft into air. Smart parts would even allow you to eg start planes with delay, so you could simulate an airfield assault or so. Or 'here you got an aircraft carrier with limited planes and reloadable missiles, go destroy as many targets as possible'.

Yeah, there are reasons to be disappointed about the Update/DLC's stage, but stop spreading that stupid misinformation. There is no DRM. You probably got older mods installed that break with the update or so.

Yep, I always assumed those yellow panels where there to build a MEM. What botheres me a bit is that there is no soyuz part at all. Vostok is more fun to use than I ever expected, though.

It is weird, that's true.

Interestingly enough, with the amount of fuel it wouldn't be hard to justify a MEM as big as the MK1-3. But then again, the smaller size is fine too. Most of the time we won't build exacty replicas, but use the parts for our own purposes. So there is use in a smaller lander capsule and it makes sense to be the size it is.

The offset is small, so thrust vectoring and SAS keep it from becoming a problem.

I also want to throw a proposal in the ring. IMO there are three factors that are important: First, gameplay and balance. KSP is a game first and foremost, and engines like the Vector (=SSME) have stayed true to that logic while still reflecting the real life engines role, it's amazing for space planes (with slight stretching and money balancing). It works well and is a well liked engine, so I think we can take that harsher balancing into account. Additionally, the engine should fill their own role in KSP to flesh out the sortiment, and that role could still reflect the real lifes engines nature. The Vector was heavily nerfed in ISP compared to the SSME, but it's design makes it very attractive for space shuttles. So without further delay, that is what I'd argue: Skiff: Mass: 3 tons. Vacuum thrust: 450 kN. Specific Impulse: 220-412s (more conservative: 240-370) Quite the big change, isn't it? In real life, the Skiff is a high power upper stage engine, driving the Saturn 5 2nd and 3rd stage, after all! It is highly efficient thanks to LH2, but early tech, being both somewhat bulky and inefficient, notably optimized to still work the upper atmosphere! The model is also huge in KSP, indicating a powerful engine. I think this change would make the engine fit a role that is not yet filled, a high power upper stage/orbital engine in 2.5m diameter (the poodle is not bad, but very weak for it's size), basically a more upper stage alternative to the Skipper. The high weight inefficiency can make up for the efficiency; we don't neccessarily need heavy tanks if we can just add a bit of weight to the engine itself. I also put a potential, more conservative ISP beside it, which might fit better. Wolfhound: Mass: 2 ton. Vacuum thrust: 320 kN. Specific Impulse: 140-340s. This engine is more straightforward, it is basically 'just' a purely orbital engine, but quite overpowered since it was thought to be a lander engine. The engine bell both indicates high power at relatively good efficiency, to me. I mean, that's basically what the SPS is, just scaled up to KSP-compatible thrust levels. The thrust is 160kn per ton, which put it directly inbetween the extremly efficient but weak Poodle (142), and the slightly less efficient but surprisingly powerful Aerospike (180). This basically makes it a very versatile late upper stage/orbital engine, which is always good when a Poodle is just a bit too weak and you'd rather sacrifice a bit of efficiency for thrust (which I always feel with the Poodle). Also a bit heavier to make a better single stack upper/orbital stage engine. In my opinion, this would both keep the engines as interesting alternatives to current engines, be reasonably enough balanced and also reflect the real life engines roles. What do you think? edited a bit

I don't see the sense to argue that way. I can believe that the current missions cannot be fit into campaign because of their inherent design as their own savestates, but then that is bad design in the first place. It should have never been done that way. You can't tell me that you couldn't program the functionalities and underlying logic of the mission editor into career. Heck, superficially the whole thing acts like an extended contract system. If a contract can mess up a save, then it's probably because the system was broken in the first place. There should be no permanent effect to contracts. And otherwise, we might as well disable all modding so people can't break their career save.

True. Back then they'd put out the patch itself in beta/experimentals beforehand, and I think that was quite helpful. Also motivating for modders to work on updating their mods, so there were a lot of mods at release.

On a sidenote, that bug is already registered and should be fixed with the next patch. I wonder if they're gonna comment on the criticisms in devnote tuesday.

Yep. I still used it, just because it was more practical as a three Kerbal pod, but it wasn't a great value and also quite ugly,. Only problem is that it lacks clickable windows. Which is minor, but bothers me since it's fun to go into IVA and watch through those windows. Also kinda necessary to actually use the docking windows.

I imagine the Migs were partially built that way because the Warsaw Pact countries didn't have the industrial capacity. It needed to be simple and straightforward. The soviets did have high tech materials, though; for example the N-1 rockets lower stage engines were still relying on RP-1/Kerosene, but they had pretty advanced staged combustion systems and a very high thrust to weight ratio. The RD-170/180 engines were even more advanced, and in some regards beyond everything the americans would have in the next ten years. Or, despite the reliability issues, the Proton engines are pretty damn impressive pieces of work, the lower stage engines having one of the best thrust to weight ratios of all engines, and the mid stage managing >320 ISP with hypergolic fuels, which was at that point unbelievably efficient for a lifter engine. And the Proton is from 1965!

Except that the new pod looks far superior from the outside and evenmoreso from the inside. Keeping inferior baggage for traditions sake isn't good either.

I was optimistic too. To me, KSP is mostly fine by itself and half-hearted features like the part switcher are still a small plus, but seeing DLC being rushed this way makes it look as if the current dev team's priorities - or at least those of their leadership - are completely off. Particuarly if you make a system like the mission builder, you should be aware that modding is the thing that makes KSP great. Otherwise you wouldn't create this DLC in the first place, and the idea itself is pretty great. Implementing something like this could finally make career interesting and add some spontaneous objectives to Sandbox, suddenly you got things to do on other planets, and your skills are being challenged! But to then completely cordon it off from the actual game, in this limited fashion... Idk, it's just frustrating to me.

What I learned in this thread: The inflatable docking port actually docks to jr ports. That's pretty cool. Thought it was just an extendable door.

You sure that's what you were looking for? Oo Those are some neat drawings for a smartphone, tho.

I played two missions, both didn't end at all. Apparently the logic didn't register correctly.

Yep, there are a lot of small bugs and problems. But most of that stuff is minor, the thing that truly bothers is how the DLC mission system does not work for career contracts or in sandbox, which seems like a giant oversight. Having missions be an artificial savestate is the most lazy and pointless way to implement stuff like that. Really disappointed in that regard. I hope they are going to update that, but I'm not sure if they are going to attempt such a massive update via 'free updates'.

I think originally steam users weren't supposed to get the DLC for free at all, but they added the margin.

Patch and DLC seem to have lots of bugs

Yep, the Thrust axis is off center.