betaking

I think this would need some form of balancing/aspects that make it interesting to use before it could be really fun to use.

good idea. could use some better sketching out in terms of how such a thing would need to be set up/be modeled.. but its a good idea nothingless.

What if this became something like nova-punch, except for stockalike parts?

If you were to do this I'd want to have a different progression from VAB to launch.. as in it will prompt you to select crew, the default number of crew being zero. also shakedown tests and stuff... also you should be able to revert before launch.

yeah, It would be nice to have. I would support this especially if it requires remote-tech style relays.. (it would be more cool if remote-tech were made stock entirely, but this is a nice compromise)

eh, I think the guy who did the modeling did a great job, but the person in charge of the code could be forgiven for a rush job. also people are taking criticism of the OP/dev WAY too personally and need to relax/let people voice opinions/concerns.

rather than mechjeb... which I know is controversial, what about kOS? particularly if said implimentation of kOS did not have access to globalvariables for a craft, but rather had to get its information through sensors or transmitters. it would allow for automation, but at a noticeable difficulty. I think remote-tech -like functions should be added, though for science-transmission only if there are no difficulty levels (meaning you'd still be able to control the craft, just not transmit science from it). Aerodynamics, including far and deadly re-entry should be added as well, they offer challenge. some more parts, preferbly ones that are fairly modular or proceedural (possibly like proceedural fairings, structural beams/panels/girders, or interstages/fairings (rather than the automatic fairings/interstages engines have now)

I'm just hoping for some fixes to nodes, and a better thought out tech tree. Also: a better aerodynamic model. crew transfer between docked vessels. (seriously) Tweakables and/or action group system improvements. having to "have remote-tech" -like relays for transmitting science would be nice, could be a "difficulty level". early (under the hood) work in preperation for the above, and/or life support

yes, but, Its not that I don't like the drogue, its that I don't like it being attached to the top, in the sense that I can't change it out for a different docking port, but its a minor complain[t].

I only wish there was a top that didn't have a docking probe on it, this is awsome in every other way though.

what would you say about just like 60% scale or something? I mean that's a somewhat accepted standard for real-world to KSP scale. Sombody in the development thread made a good point that 12m diameter rockets (which have been made) crash the game. Thus a 1:1 scale is a bit of a crapshoot in regard to it. IDK though its cool that you made this.

does anyone have an update for the prilla launch escape system?

have you possibly considered re-arranging that IVA so it's a little more interesting, (like 1 kerbal facing the console another possibly facing the current direction?

My only problem I have is that I can't rely on the stock attenae for ascent and guidence in orbit. It falls off on ascent due to stupid things regarding max Q (which fairings do nothing against).

the interior could use some cleaning up.

no, the goo would only work once, you could close it and it wouldn't be wiped. this is a good idea.

why shouldn't the player feel punished if he makes a mistake? You shouldn't prevent the player from making mistakes, nor should you hold off them being punished for making mistakes. Rather you should tell them what sort of mistake they made.

one thing I find kind of annoying presently is the lack of a fix for some nodes, such as the 2m inline battery. Though that's a minor complaint. more pressing is that the developers apparently forcing players to build relay/communication network (remote-tech style for transmitting science, you could still control out of contact probes, just not transmit science from them) would be too hard for players. to manage Personally, I would prefer something like remote-tech to be integrated into game though (full on, lines of communication necessary for remote-controlled/unmanned-craft), so I might be a bad judge.

The thing with stretchy tanks is that they're very boring. You will need several different types of stretchy tanks, differentiated mostly by structural characteristics, and only really "effective" for a limited range as they also will have drawbacks (a tank that's structually self supporting while empty will have a greater dry mass than a balloon tank, while the balloon tanks will be weaker/less structurally sound). Or something like that.

hey is this going to be updated for .22?

I think its odd we get suborbital capsules, but not something like a probe core and a basic instrument which could be used to record/transmit information.

so like do you see the front regardless if there is a regular module there? or is there some sort of trickery going on?

what about combining this with that node-fixing module manager mod?

Okay, I think I just needed to use the probe compatability cfg.

I disagree, use RCS fuel for the Orbital manuvering thusters, and just put the right amount of fuel into the fuel tank without bothering the change the model. I don't think the amount of fuel is relevant to the actual volume of the fuel tank, though I know many would beg to differ.