asmi

You can do it already using EditorTools mod. Just set snap angle to whatever you need to depending on what kind of "symmetry" you need - and here you go - your cursor would only snap at correct locations.

Soyuz-2.1v looks very "conventional" - pretty much like any 2 stage rocket would look like (compare with Antares, Falcon 9, Zenit), unlike other Soyuz LVs with distinctive LRBs that one just can't confuse with anything

Why don't you write you own shader than? Write/debug it in Unity's IDE, than compile it and push into KSP. It involves some trickery, but it isn't that hard - I've done it for BoBCat's Soyuz DM model which dynamically blends between two sets of diffuse-spec/normal map sets. If you need any help with that, PM me and I would be happy to help.

Lol. That looks so much like new Soyuz-2.1v

New VAB/SPH tool to make your planning a bit easier:

Exactly my position. I'm not against audit in principle (infact I'd love someone to do it for my code) - I'm against delays that will be unavoidable as long as modders won't get some sort of "service guarantee", i.e. someone will ensure response within certain amount of time.

I honestly think you're trying to solve the problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Whole history of malware on PC has proved that it's mostly a social problem, not a technical one, and as such, trying to solve it using technical measures is doomed to fail. All AV products I've seen so far do much more harm that good. The only effective defense is user education - if user keeps launching all "please-run-me-you-stupid-moron.exe"'s there is little technology can do to stop him. Audit-review-approve process will only introduce more bureaucracy and delays into releasing stuff, and this will especially be problematic for newly released mods since they tend to have a lot of bugs and as such require a series of quick releases to fix upcoming problems. Since I have very little time that I can dedicate to mod development, I'd rather spend it in actual development, not pushing auditors to publish build ASAP as my users wait for the fix. So I'd be first to direct my users to disable this check, and if they would rather not - well, it won't be not my problem anymore. And again the question is who are going to be these auditors? Really good professional devs usually don't have a lot of spare time, while mediocre devs would miss problems, especially if they are well-masked as legit code (I can think of several ways to do that - for example how many devs here know what expression trees are for in .NET?). I've been doing security audits for commercial products so I know this area fairly good. An auditor needs to know what to look for in order to actually find a problem, because most would not understand a problem even if pointed at it. Someone brought up video drivers as example for signed software. I only hope that person actually know what it takes to get WHQL signature (hint - MS does TONS of testing before signing the driver). Is this audit groups going to do similar amount of testing? And if so - who's picking up the tab (I can tell you it's quite expensive process)?

1. I'm not going to include it in any form into this mod, but I can't (and won't) stop others from using it if they choose to. As a matter of fact, the reason I called waste water simply a water is to allow mining it using other mods. As for food, there is no standard definition of what food is, so after a lengthy discussion with BobCat we have chosen to have 1 unit of food being equal to one meal, which is 0.3 kg. Water has RL density of 1000 kg/m^3. 2. The cornerstone for my mod is that it works at all times on all vessels, which to me is an absolute hard requirement for any LS mod. But apparently others have different opinion on subject. Adding per-kerbal resource consumption (instead of per-vessel) in ECLSS 2.0 is the next step towards increased fidelity. Right now in ECLSS 2.0 if I recover a kerbal that just had a meal and then immediately after launch him again, he won't magically become hungry, so that kerbal's status is carried over with him no matter what he does. There are some other small things that I'd prefer not to reveal at this point. Hopefully these little things coupled together will provide for much deeper experience that any other LS mod ever could. That said, all these things require ample amount of time for both development and testing, and I prefer to iron out as much bugs as possible before releasing it to the public - because I don't want their experience hurdled by many bugs. Of course no matter how hard will we try to test it, there will always be bugs that will make it to the public release, but I'm doing my best to reduce their amount.

As a moderator, I'm officially asking arguers to stop, or I'll have to take measures. Dragon01: Waste water and urine are purified into potable water on ISS, see UPA/WPA. What you're saying was true for Mir, but Mir is long gone.

I can't honestly tell since we're redesigning GUI to make it more useful while taking less screen estate. On top of that things are really crazy at work so I can only put more-or-less solid development time over the weekends... No I didn't Potable Water means water that is safe to drink. Kerbals drink potable water and produce water, so in order to be used again it need to be purified. There are many new features in that release - for example, now kerbals consume resources independently and information is stored along with them, so even when kerbal moves from one vessel to another, it doesn't consume resources until he's hungry/thirsty - note these bars on top of kerbal's portraits - they show how soon he(she) will be need to have a meal/drink.

ECLSS 2.0 WIP:

Can you show me engine in that pack that looks like J-2X or RL-10B? I haven't seen anything even remotely similar over there... The only model I've seen so far that more-or-less closely resembles J-2X is in american pack...

You've probably guesses what I would choose, but here it is - #4. There is a reason no 10 m engines exist or even in development, and it has to do with basic physics, not lack of imagination. If you want to build super-heavies, cluster engines like engineers do in reality. THIS is realistic. I've managed to build 200 mT class SHLV using BobCat's real engines only, so it definitely is possible. And you get a taste to the kind of issues RL engineers have to deal with designing such rockets. P.S. Oh and Proton has 6 engines on the first stage

I'm in exact opposite situation - having grown up and graduated in metric country and then moved to Canada, which is officially metric, but it uses imperial units a lot in common life. Even though I live there for over 6 years now, I still can't grasp imperial units on intuitive sense and always convert them to metric before I can make any sense of numbers.

A "scientific" name for liter is cubic decimeter (dm^3). One decimeter is 0.1 meter, as such 1 dm^3 = (0.1)^3 m^3 = 0.001 m^3. Metric system IS beautiful, isn't it?

I had cases which made extra orbit ruin the mission As example - consider building station unmanned Russian-style, most of my modules don't have solar arrays, and single revolution means a difference between mission success and one more piece of debris in orbit. Another one is interplanetary probes which don't have powerful antenna themselves as they are supposed to rely on pre-positioned relay sat already in orbit around target planet. This approach can save quite a mass, which is crucial for ion-powered craft (I use ion engines a lot for their efficiency). And that's the way I do things anyways - I'd like to plan trajectory ahead (all course correction burns via multiple nodes) and then watch events unfold to see if I was accurate enough with my planning Currently I use MJ's "Execute all nodes" feature, but I'd like to get rid of having to carry large dish and lots of extra power assets (batteries/solar arrays/radiators to keep them cool). If far as I understand, the biggest problem is staging. Well I'd be ok if FC wouldn't work with burns that require staging. Once staging is out, it's actually pretty simple. You can try using Tsiolkovsky rocket equation for estimating burn time. Advantage of this method is it's exact (and pretty fast too), and not simulation-based like the one MJ uses.

If I may suggest a feature, that would be improvements in flight computer, specifically better integration with maneuver nodes. For example it would be great if FC would take burn duration into account when executing a node (right now I've screwed up quite a few orbital insertion burns because of that, and the longer burn is, the bigger the difference between planned vs actually achieved results), also I'd like to be able to set up a series of maneuver nodes and have FC execute them in order even when I'm LOS (for example, parking orbit insertion burn, and then transfer orbit insertion - both of these burns tend to happen outside of MCCs visibility, and that makes certain missions impossible or much-harder-than-it-should-be).

After reloading KSP it had all vessels duplicated, I had to manually edit save file to get rid of them.

Just got weird behaviour: http://i.imgur.com/YZ8dg2P.png After I've checked the log, it's filled with this: full log file is here.

That's not even close to being truth. Their most powerful rocket has payload capability approximately equal to Soyuz, so I just mention that Russia has Zenit and Proton (former have payload capability of 1.5 times the Soyuz have, latter - 2.5 times), and US have Atlas-V and Delta-4, both of which are Proton-class (~20-25 t to LEO), and ESA have Ariane-5 which is in that class too.

Jrandom, this is stock issue :-(

Aaaand I rushed up the build way too quickly. Here is 1.0.15: https://bitbucket.org/asmi/ksp/downloads/LifeSupportMod.1.0.15.zip

This is COOL bug, let's leave it that way In the mean time, I've just uploaded version 1.0.14, in which I lowered default RCS consumption (now it takes only 20 units instead of 137.5), and I've added new config parameter EVAPropellantAmount to adjust it for those who wants to. Download here: https://bitbucket.org/asmi/ksp/downloads/LifeSupportMod.1.0.14.zip

No there isn't. It's done like that on purpose.

Ok, my apologies. Either way, my mod makes you use RCS for EVA prop. I will probably revise prop consumption once I get enough spare time to run the numbers to determine what it should be.