asmi

So much for realism - would love to see an engine that can run on hypergolics (no ignition system is required as fuel mixture ignites on contact, external cooling is required as fuels are non-cryogenic) and HydroLOx (extremely complicated ignition system, can be cooled by hydrogen). That's not to mention massive differences in fuel flow (and as such radically different turbopumps)... Nobel prize is hiding somewhere here

This likely isn't on Unity, but on DX9 it uses. DX11 spec requires that hardware supports 16k by 16k textures, so maybe if we force KSP to use DX11 it would stomach larger texture...

THAT (bold part) is I think the most important benefit. KSP could really use a graphics pass to make it look more like year 2014 game, not year 2008. I have all hi-res textures installed in my 64 bit instance, and it looks just amazing (I've posted a screenshot here a couple of pages back), but doing this in stock would mean either seriously limiting myself on amount of modparts I can use, or restarting KSP after every launch - both options being not particularity attractive. Unfortunately the specifics of KSP combined with limitations of Unity makes it hard to achieve in 32bits (they could make it in stock, but then after adding only few mods the memory use will go above 32bit limit). But with 64bit I can do that, and more (I got 32Gb of RAM so I can afford to put as much mods as I please without any problems - provided that they would work).

Try right-clicking somewhere in Chrome - after that it will work. Not sure why - maybe some bug with mouse handling in Unity x64.

It's nothing special: RSS + Hi-res Earth texture and normal map (textures can be found in RSS thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55145-0-22-WIP-Alpha-Real-Solar-System-(Kerbin-Earth-rescale) ) And Texture Replacer with skybox to make space look like...well... space.

Just look at that: http://www.asmitech.com/Stuff/KSP/Title.png

For me the game sometimes crashes once I get into the flight, but other times it works rock-stable for 6+hrs. It only seems to crash during scene transitions, so once I get mission going I can fly it for as long as I please without any issues. And it allowed me to use super-HD texture/normal map for the Earth (I play with RSS) so it looks just amazing! I had to remove Engine Ignitor since it caused a lot of crashes and spammed NullRef' all over the place (same is in 32bit BTW - it just doesn't cause crashes there).

Tried to run it - works like sharm (aside from minor glitches like mentioned in the OP) at ~7Gb for DX9 version (cmd line: ksp.exe -popupwindow). DX11 version was a bit glitchy (lack of shader for reentry a.k.a. "pink vessel", shadows glitches, "jumpy" letters in the context menus), consumed A LOT less memory (same install was running just under 4Gb vs ~7Gb for DX9), but otherwise OK - nothing game-breaking. System specs: i7 3930K @3.8Ghz 32Gb RAM 2400MHz 2xGeForce 680 GTX SLI Win7 Ultimate (obviously 64bit) I did replace UnityEngine.dll as well just in case. On the weekend I'm gonna try installing the hell out of mods to see if it works - since I got 32Gb of RAM, I can put in just about any mod out there

Hello guys. Initially I wasn't going to tell it, but I feel like you guys deserve an explanation. As you've probably noticed, I kinda slowed down a couple of months ago, and there is a reason for that - my mother has been diagnosed with cancer. So I'm now flying back and forth between Canada and Russia trying to keep up with my obligations to my client, and taking care of my mom, which of course leaves almost no time to work on the mod. That's why development progresses extremely slow, and I can't tell for sure when it will be released. She had a surgery and now is going through chemoterapy which shows promising results so far, but with cancer one can never be sure. With that I have no choice but to ask you guys to be patient for the time being until my family situation improves. I'm sorry for the delays.

It's going to be totally configurable, only O2&CO2 will be mandatory (I had to settle for it to preserve backward compatibility). And thanks to everyone for congratulations

As I came out of celebrating of my 30th birthday, here is a little update:

As a Russian I'm disappointed not to see Vostok-Voshod-Soyuz missions, not to mention lack of Salyuts, but instead only a pathetic series of American "me too" missions... P.S. Now you see that this project would never be completed if you keep catering to everyone's request? You need to decide where to stop, as hard as it could be - and I can tell you from my own experience that I keep delaying ECLSS 2.0 release by adding more and more features into it, and the rationale is always the same - "but it's so cool!!!" P.P.S. the first sentence is a joke for those who didn't get it, only to demostrate my point above in P.S..

I piece of advice if I may - DON'T RUSH! Take your time, especially since this release will force restarting campaign.

Why can't you calculate acceleration mechanically? I mean calculate vessel's PMI, and then get all engines' thrust vectors in local space (i.e. vessel coordinates) and calculate both rotational and translational accelerations? It doesn't sound too complicated to me... It won't be that simple for predicting maneuvers though since you have to take into account what control system would do (i.e. thrust vectoring, CMGs, RCS), but again you could just assume neutral control to the maneuver vector (like existing system does).

What is so impressive about Skylab? Remember we don't put stations into orbit for the sake of putting station into orbit, but to do research there. Skylab was very primitive in that regard. And imagine for a second what would've happens should that launch fail? Ooops, no mission. While for ISS it would merely constrain the mission somewhat until replacement is built and orbited.

No they are not - they rely on expansion of reaction mass that accelerates said mass through the nozzle. How exactly this expansion is achieved is immaterial (for example Soyuz DM RCS system uses hydrogen peroxide decomposed over catalyst with no heat involved).

The problem with building ISS in one launch is that all it's components would need to able to withstand whatever is above them plus launch loads (read - ~5 times it's own weight plus whatever is mounted on top of it). ISS is not able to support itself if it would be assembled on the ground. So in this case you'd end up overbuilding components mechanically just for the sake of launch, and that extra mass would stay there forever. Another reason is that there is a limit on how wide can your fairings be, right now the biggest one is 5 meters, so it makes even more sense to assemble station on orbit from relatively small pieces. Lastly, reliability. If one launch of super-heavy fails, it's devastating for the program since the price of the payload is huge, while loss of one component can be overcome more easily, and smaller LVs tend to be more reliable because they can have more test-launches within set budget, while it's not uncommon for heavies to have operational maiden flight (Saturn-V, Energia).

I've fixed it in 2.0 quite some time ago.

I've managed to fix the EVA bug. Now I just need to update notifications & map view GUI to take other resources into account - and it will be done deal.

Actually that's exactly how last few landers (starting from Venera-11 if my memory serves me) in Venera series performed final descend. Remember that the definition of "lighter-than-air" depends on the properties of said air, at 90+ atm it's VERY different than at 1 atm. These landers used parachutes for initial braking only, and jettisoned them at about 10 km above the surface, after that they were just falling down. Their shape was designed so to give them very low terminal velocity at Venusian atmospheric conditions, they've even built incredible airtunnel that was capable of simulating that atmosphere specifically to test various airfoils in order to find the best one. These landers weighed over 1 mT, and yet touchdown speed was only about 7 m/s. I've also remember reading somewhere that human would have a terminal velocity of less than 1 m/s in such conditions (if we forget for a moment that it would be crushed by the pressure and burnt by the temperature)!

I've got a long weekend ahead, hopefully I'll be able to resolve it then. I've got two major things to take care of until it will be ready for public alpha testing - abovementioned eva bug, and updating notifications so they would react to other resources as well. After that is taken care of I will need several volunteers to help me out with balancing since it would require ample amounts of playing, and I simply don't have that much spare time.

This is not a bug - I've made it that way. There is, however, a way to close it - I'll leave finding it to you as an excersize

I doubt it. After countless hours of staring at the code and tracing all code paths I've concluded that the problem is connected to kerbal's FSM initialization, which fails only when the "vessel" is being loaded from persistence. Now I'm focusing on trying to figure out why it happens.

yea, I've tried everything I could think of, and no luck either. But I won't stop trying until I succeed.

In 2.0 I will integrate toolbar support, so you would be able to hide that window.