theSpeare

Is anyone else having issues with "break." causing code error?

Using the 3D printer to set up an orbital station around Vall to explore Jool. Kethane miners land, dock, store, convert. I start my new base of operations there.

Please weld some long truss sections!

Is there anyway you can turn off the overlay for the title screen? It's obviously not game-breaking but I just don't really like seeing anything other than the original Kerbin.

I agree with with Snillum101 (although I don't really like the idea of module pricing simply because that would be too complicated to implement). My other reasoning was simply: you pay for mass by delta-v already, slapping on extra cost on mass kinda warps that cost.

Yeah, although keep in mind I would simply just hyperedit a single command pod into orbit (preferably into a very high one, so time warp can be high enough to deplete resources). To get rid of the time-warp kill thing for me (at least to remove the annoyance of it repeatedly going on and on) I just set the death chance to 1.

So I was just testing this mod out, two big questions I'd really like answered please! 1. I fast forwarded until it killed off two out of three of my crew, then wanted to fast forward again until the last one died off as well - but it would kill time warp incessantly before I can kill him off (there's no scrubber, so I intended to kill them by CO2 emission overload). But it would just keep killing time warp. Is there anyway to turn this off, or is this a bug? 2. I put my ship into orbit (a very high one so I could time warp) and tried to kill the entire crew off again through use of CO2 overload. When I fast forward, I kill the first one but then the next few fast forwards don't kill the second but still pauses repeatedly. When I check map view, my orbit has changed. By quite a bit. Originally it was a clean 1M orbit, and now it's 1.6M by 200km. Is this normal?

Staying with the stance that you should make it configurable to choose between the two methods of balancing. We can even just use ModuleManager to support unbalanced pack costs.

Yeah the same thing happens for me - nothing explodes even without shielding. Is there a fix for this?

You're probably using the wrong units for your input. By default it's in meters (you can use 'k' and 'M' for kilometer and million meters respectively.)

Temperature limit went down to 1800 for the mk1-2 capsule, is that right? I believe I did see max temp tolerance halved

Will this work with other part packs like KW Rocketry? EDIT: also I did a normal re-entry from an 80km orbit with a 'standard' angle, the effects came up but nothing actually blew up. And this was without using a heatshield - is this normal?

I'm really really pleading for the return of pricing by part costs - or at least the ability to toggle between the modes of pricing by mass and cost. Please return this feature.

The difficulty settings changes the cost scales. Hard just makes things more expensive, and vice-versa.

I really much preferred the older method of using part costs, even if it was inconsistent. Is there some way you can leave this configurable?

Yeah, I understand your dilemma here. Just my side of feedback, the majority of cost by parts would be better than charging by mass. Charging by mass will increase costs rapidly. More mass = more/bigger engines + more fuel = even more cost. Not sure how you would go around fixing the issue of inconsistent part pricing by authors, but that's my side of the coin feedback. Maybe release an edit package or a modulemanager type deal to scale the prices via cfg. When I installed the new version with your default values I saw one of my vessels jump by about 20%.

Yeah, I use KW Rocketry as well. Are we allowed to edit all the KW Rocketry config files to scale up the costs and distribute? Is there some way, when you read the parts in, you can read the developer author for the part? Maybe you can scale part costs for specified mods. Yeah, the thing with integrating mostly mass into costs is the problem of adding some small part that would be quite expensive to manufacture and install, and yet since its mass is incredibly small it barely affects the cost. An example is mechjeb or kerbal engineering parts. RTGs is another example. In my opinion I don't think you should take mass into account too much - mass should already be affecting your costs a lot via liquid engines and required fuel. Thoughts?

What's in the works, and how far out is the next update do you think?

So I'm assuming you compensated for the inconsistencies in part costs by scaling up mass? EDIT: I scaled down Mass to 3000, Solid Fuel to 7.2, mono up to 18. In my opinion though it's all pretty good - I think you might just need to crank up the starting budget by a bit and raise the mission rewards to fit the new bump in costs.

Crew insurance has to be configured by the player under the "configure" button. I set it to 100,000. The higher the better - then play with RemoteTech EDIT: I'll test it out

I believe reusable launch vehicles should be encouraged - but they should be the method of cutting down costs by a large margin, not the only way to make profit. There should still be more than enough profit if you go the normal route of disposing your engines after use, but the reusable one should increase that profit by a large factor.

Just came on to say that the icons are beautiful. Good job bac9

But that's pricing just for engines - you also had to pay for expensive solar panels, batteries, other things like MechJeb and such - things that were not necessarily compulsory (thereby allowing you to make cuts and increase efficiency)

I haven't had a look yet exactly, but how did you compensate for lack of construction costs? Surely there must still be pricing somewhere for this. Maybe add a toggle button for this feature?

I think there should be a slight cost for the small refurbishments required on recycling the vehicle, right now I think the recycling rate is perfect.