loppnessmonsta

95% of the game was amazing. And then you beat the area just before the final mission... and it just all starts falling apart. The main reason I hated the ending was that it made all of your choices completely irrelevant. If you got a high enough war readiness, you unlocked a third choice, but otherwise none of it had any effect whatsoever on the ending. Which I thought was a stupid way to end a series in which the main attraction is making difficult choices that affect the universe around you and then living with the consequences. So if you're fine with playing through the game already knowing the ending, it's worth it. Like I said, 95% of the game was amazing.

Forget how mods worked in .18. Most new mods, and especially b9, don't work that way anymore. So just forget about that. New way to install mods for KSP is thus: If you're on a mac, I don't know what the differences will be because I don't care about macs.

you don't need legs for landing A. the door itself can function as one giant foot that lifts the whole thing up. even landing B will just tip itself up. Could do some very interesting things with those, tbh. people who like to play with weapon mods could use landing B to angle their fire. you could use landing A as an elevator... even stack them up to get a whole lift system. obviously they'd need to be collidable, for that, but i'm sure you can do that.

aye that's a known issue. i'm sure it'll be fixed in the next update. in the mean time, you can fix it yourself by adding in it's cfg. make sure you're not adding it inside another MODULE's brackets.

that's not going to work, since the ports themselves are still square. you'll be able to get the main body aligned, but you'll still have the docking port at an angle, looking like you drew outside the line. in space.

very cool. I might have a suggestion, but I don't know if it will work. If landing legs are sufficiently collidable, you could use them to close the loop around the trailer's hitch. that way you can release and reload new trailers. or you could use them to lift the trailer up to slide the truck in or out, which i'm sure would work. and it's not all that dissimilar from how real trailers work!

I like the one that stays level and extends straight out. especially for rover carrying vehicles (It could even double as a landing foot!). but I also like the two with the teeth on the doors, which I imagine as a more 0g specialized style. Edit: I like both orbitals. As you describe them, I'd actually like to see one of each. That way one can choose between maximum storage capacity and external utility. However, if I had to pick one, I'd say orbital A. I like landing A, but don't like landing B. Unless B has an open end that can be placed at the end of a series of hollow, open-ended parts to form a longer cargo bay with B functioning as the unloading ramp. Which actually makes me think they'd all be pretty cool with open ends so you can run them together to form one big cargo space. I also like the one where the doors aren't attached, though obviously they'd need to be attached somehow. maybe on a hinge instead of a rail?

actually, the answer is yes. you can. but you need to list the change to each part, not just once. more work, but still less work than changing them every time you update.

you need more struts and more launch clamps.

this will give any part decoupler functionality. It's just a straight yank from the stock decoupler code. I slapped this baby inside the cfg for a new set of docking ports i made for myself (Explode-O-Trons!) and they work fine, while still working as docking ports. I think. Haven't actually tried to re-dock with them yet. You'll wanna tweak the values to whatever node you need and how much force etc. Hope that helps. edit: oops, didnt notice page 2. you could make like a small fairing that would hide the docking port, then when you jettison the escape tower the fairing would jettison too. or, alternatively, use an in-line docking port.

Step one: Extract the zip. Step two: Open the folder. Step three: Drag the Gamedata and Ships folders from here: and put them here Step four: Click "Ok" and "Copy and Replace" or just "Replace" a lot. Step five: There is no step five, but if you don't use steam, your ksp install will be located elsewhere.

I believe UDK said he's planning on keep it separate, but compatible. for example, ioncross uses oxygen and co2 instead of intakeair (or so i am told), so he mentioned having a fuel cell-like part to convert those resources into intakeair. tbh i prefer the intakeair choice, since earth's atmosphere isn't just a cycle of oxygen and co2. there's a hefty amount of nitrogen, and traces of other gases. if you tinker with the mix too much, some pretty nasty stuff starts happening.

Mint chocolate chip ice cream comet.

the problem i think gojira is getting at, though, is that with that configuration, if you have two inputs (Like LFO), when one empties, your generator will stop providing output.... but continue draining the other input.

Very cool. could you do an animation for the fan and then have some exhaust come out? i know it wouldn't really be accurate, but i think it would just look so cool. and it would also be fun for planetary bases, where you can pretend you're pulling a (much slower) Total Recall and terraforming Duna. maybe give it a toggle option that changes the closed loop system into one that isn't? i dunno. also, now that i think about it, having the generator throw off steam clouds would be cool too.

i noticed that problem, too. it's definitely the double-animation problem (which is totally Squad's), because it's only the third toggle/extend/retract option that messes things up (or if you try to go too fast on the other two). I decided it would just be easier to use the single version, because i am supremely lazy and don't want to push TWO buttons. i mean, come on. that's DOUBLE the number of buttons I normally push! and also i'd have to wait until one side finished, and they take a loooong time because they're huuuuuuge. i should totally make a double-sized version. FOR SCIENCE

I took a look through your gallery. The custom tanks don't really appeal to me, but that's just personal preference, and I like the engines. You should definitely either get permission or use a new model for the KW tanks, though. Even if it's just temporary, it's been temporary for a while now, and you're really not supposed to distribute at ALL w/o permission. I would suggest just a quick edit of an existing skin (stock, or one of your custom ones), if you can't get permission. Maybe like a stripe or something. anyway, the engines sound a little OP. I know a lot of people prefer to use engines that aren't all that much better than stock, otherwise it seems like its too easy. I had a look at the cfgs, and it looks like you're using a fourth as much electricity as an ion engine. That's pretty low! Maybe bump it up to really high electrical use, so it lets people do short, powerful burns but doesn't do very well on sustained burns. That way it offers some interesting challenges.

there's a 2.5 to 3.75 and a HL to 2.5, iirc

in the VAB, if you hold a part in front of a node and then move it slowly closer, it will snap to the node. this makes it easier to attach parts that have both surface attach and node attach.

Excellent! I'm a thoroughly mediocre pilot, as it turns out. But I'm a great engineer! Self-sufficiency is always an enjoyable goal.

For the parts themselves, I would suggest focusing on the mechanism you're going to be using to pull this off. There are already a lot of good cargo bays out there, and it would be more flexible if your system were compatible with those. Of course, you can always make your own cargo bays as well, but I guess I'm saying I think it would be a good idea to keep the two separate, distinct entities.

reminds me, i liked the multiple pipes better than the single one for the round tank. still a beautiful part, but i thought it gave it a more beefy/industrial feeling. just thought i'd mention it because of the whole factory plugin thing you're planning.

i agree that it would be nice to have mechjeb control ion burnout as well.

Very cool idea. I'll give this a try tonight. Sounds like TAC Fuel Balancer is going to be particularly helpful for maintaining balance in-flight!

So as I've been building spaceplanes (I suck at spaceplanes.) I've been drawn to planes like the Strugatsky.. and how cool it would be to be able to do controlled airdrops. Right now, you just have to pitch up and let things just kinda tumble out, but I thought maybe the B9 crew could make it smoother than that. The best I could come up with, as far as a way to do it, is to have a special node on the tail ramps, which you then attach a special airdrop part (maybe a pallet?) to. The airdrop part would then have its own special node (kinda like how KW does fairings) that would let you string airdrop parts in sequence, and you could build your payload on the airdrop part. Now, sure, you can already do that with decouplers, but the real cool part (which I have no idea how you could possibly do) would be to have the airdrop parts move to the tail node before they actually decouple/stage, which would let you do parachutes and whatnot. Like I said, I have no idea how you could pull that off... but it would be pretty cool if you could. It would also have some pretty interesting applications in space. Just thought I'd mention it. For now, what I plan on doing, is using KAS to move each stage back as I fire them. But they're still going to rattle around a lot.