Andersenman

There is also a mod, Camera Focus Changer, which does the same, except that it does not require you to AWKWARDLY RIGHT-CLICK THE PART AND FIND, AIM FOR, AND CLICK A BUTTON IN A CONTEXT MENU THAT IS ONLY THERE WHEN YOU TOGGLE SOME OBSCURE SWITCH IN THE SETTINGS just to refocus the camera. (Instead, you just move the mouse pointer over the part and press the O key. Unfocus by pressing O while pointing at empty space. In fact, you can even focus an inactive vessel using this mod. Fun!) Seriously, does SQUAD never ever learn from Good Practice in usability?

High-G contracts are probably the most idiotic of them all early on, just like those requiring speeds around 100 m/s at dozens of km of altitude. None of the available SRBs are strong enough to produce sufficient acceleration alone, and when you run them almost empty for maximum TWR, atmospheric heating cooks your craft before the passenger passes out, if the remaining fuel even lasts that long. This makes space hops (no stupid air to brake you) inevitable, but together with impractical part count and weight limitations that's a grind for none but the most patient and masochistic. Decline until this nonsense stops appearing.

No, it's in the game settings, Audio section.

I can do one better, even, revive it after 13! So, dear Squad, could we please get documentation, labeling, explanation, confirmation, or anything else that makes clear, without doubt, what these sliders and their values affect, and how? Thanks

Ah, dry weight, of course. Thanks!

Works for ion thrusters, so I don't see what you mean. Sure, the burntimes become impractical, but isp doesn't change with weight attached, so I can't follow.

Huh? What's an efficiency threshold?

... is an outright obscenely blunt illustration of the Rocket Equation. (This is a good thing.)

Here, have another one. When you you made me ... ahem, briefly lose contenance over the cliffhanger's resolution. And you sincerely had me in a tear or two with Chapter 40's "This is Jeb Kerman, transmitting on all known frequencies." Best hours of procrastination I've spent in a long time. Would love a printed edition. Thank you very much. Best regards A.

Up until seeing your video I was puzzled how Squad expected people to create legitimate ground bases. "Legitimate" in the sense of "not just two dumb parts that happen to have a docking port connection in the middle, and then trying to shimmy them about to exploit docking as station building", especially since roving wheels, even the lightest, come rather late in the stock tree. That was very helpful, so if you were asking me what to show, I'd say "how to fulfill certain contracts without exploiting the contract system's limited robustness against shenanigans".

Hmm, for starters you may want to stop this horribly inefficient launch profile ... Also, get rid of the Bandicam logo.

Any station on any ground. No clue how to even approach the problem in stock.

Enforced speedbumps are bad. I'd definitely not want to be required to look at something that I definitely didn't change for x iterations when going forth and back between VBA/SPH and LP/RWY. While the suggested staging UI could be fired only when the staging was actually changed, perhaps Making last-minute staging changes done at launch be persistent would be a viable alternative.

And when it finally comes, you'll pass out from exhaustion and won't get to play it immediately after all. Tadaa!

Dear Snark, Your mod fixing this was exactly what I was hoping to have confirmed! Thanks! Best, A.

Hi, Nicely worded, your explanation "why this isn't stock (yet)". I have a question (until I actually get to play with this mod); Would it help me, by default, with rescue rockets that [are supposed to] have an empty capsule where that capsule is *not* the root part, instead the root part is a probe core underneath? By "by default" I mean "rocket was created and saved before mod installation, then loaded for a new rescue mission after installation". Many thanks. A.

Stuff like this, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision

Dear Morse, we clearly have different ideas of what is considered "liked", "orphaned", "spammed", "unintuitive", "random", or "of unknown origin" and, more importantly, seem to dislike each other's to an unproductive degree, so I don't see a point in continuing this discussion. Best success with your mod. Kind regards A.

Possibly not the mod for me, yes, but I can't presume to know solely because of the change of feature X; could very well be there's very good reasoning I haven't thought about, which is why I'm here, digging to find out. No harping intended, I apologise if my ... tenacity ... was perceived as an attack of sorts.

As above. An encounter changes an orbit, no node needed. Also, the amount of patches can be too high (when subsequent orbits are altered by encounters only slightly, thus messing with your aim for setting additional nodes) or too low (when you need more after you had to crank them down for the previous reason) ... Jesus, why do I feel I need to justify every single button to you? Regex' Conics Controls feature and its window had already been requested, its implementation has been found welcome and helpful for a long time; so why this brickwalling now? "Bloat the GUI"? "Rarely used feature"? It was detachable, it was tiny, and there was a clearly labelled switch in the options to bring it up or hide it, how is this bloating or obscure? I know devs tend to feel protective of their baby, but now you're grasping for straws. No. Unless there's some hidden additional feature I have yet to discover, what it does do is change the count of orbits after how many of which the node applies, not how many additional patches are drawn. That's mighty bold of you to presume to know what one may or may not want to do in a particular situation or another.

For a mod smaller than KAS, Quantum Struts is being Continued and seems to be up-to-date and working. While these are technically wizardry, their use can be justified with parts that look like structural support without actually needing to be that.

Oh this is nice. I take it this mod ignores (yet) any terrain features (climbs, chasms, water, ...) on the way or at the destination the rover wouldn't actually be able to master, correct?

What Red Iron Crown said. To visualise the effects of any encounter. Changing functionality is one thing, but reducing usability for no other significant explanation than "I can't find a reason why anyone would need it, so you do neither" is not a good way to advertise your new tool. "Its primary task is maneuver editing ... because it's called Precise *Maneuver*"? That's you having your chain of reasoning either up-side down or not long enough: by that way of arguing you might as well remove the Conics controls entirely because, technically, nothing they change affects the manoeuvre, and never did. Yet, they went into regex' tool, were soon after detachable, even, and it was good. Not to riff on your mod, I welcome continued maintenance of (essentially) an existing tool, and by all means, solve issues and deal with features your way; but If I were to switch to yours, I need to evaluate your solutions to existing problems and find whether they really are improvements to my gameplay, not to yours. Besides, any sort of gravity assist causes a change in orbits, too, so ... that would, too, be a manoeuvre, no?

For what it's worth, among the axed windows, "Conics Controls" was added upon my suggestion, so I'd be interested in hearing, if I were to switch to your Precise version, why the switchability of node modes must under all circumstances require the invocation of a humongously screen-estate-intensive UI as well as two additional mouse clicks to create an otherwise pointless, zero-dv node for no better purpose than to invoke said UI, and/or, if I understood correctly, that window must now always be there (toggle-able, I hope) even when there isn't a node present in the first place.

Dear fine Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar. There are not enough Rep-buttons in this forums to tell you how much I want this in stock ... Praise be yours! Thank you very much. A. P.S.: I am SO close from abusing the "Report this post" functionality to dunk SQUAD's nose in this invention for how long we actually lived enduring the painfully cumbersome camera panning limitation. SO close.