J.Random

You can't store lifeboat inside lifeboat because "Space: 0.0/5.0". DERPception simply won't happen: KAS doesn't allow nested containers (or any tweaking of stored items).

Don't act like a mindless drone. Try both, do whatever you like, don't let anyone else decide for yourself.

Every second. Yes, we do exactly that already, be it fiber optical links or laser transmissions.

I've taken advantage of this generous offer and remade the part for myself. Download link for anyone who's interested. Basically, the only change is that it uses linear RCS instead of monoprop engine. I had to reimport it from .mu into Blender into Unity, and I don't know a damn thing about modeling, which has probably added a metric ton of bugs, but it works for me. No warranty, use at your own risk. All credit for original model/textures/whatever goes to RoverDude. The license stays the same.

We wouldn't call it Punycode if it was any good. This "salvation" is a pain in the donkey to debug.

readme.txt in the KSP directory has the complete changelog in it.

I doubt it. Stock chutes also get into 2 categories, and they're ok. The game breaks when it tries to show the tooltip because stupid_chris implemented it himself for his module: - public class RealChuteModule : PartModule, IPartCostModifier + public class RealChuteModule : PartModule, IPartCostModifier, IModuleInfo + //Sets part info field + public string GetPrimaryField() + { + return "<b>Parachute count:</b> " + this.parachutes.Count; + } If I revert this change back, I don't get RealChute "Parachute count: X" in part tooltip, but part preview stops exploding. I'm not sure if stupid_chris forgot something in his implementation or it's a Squad's fault. Probably former because tooltips from ModuleEngine and ModuleDecouple aren't conflicting with each other. On the other hand, maybe the game can't handle more than two primary fields, I don't know.

Dude, don't make hasty decisions. It may be a stock bug. For example, removing decoupler module also fixes this "exploding icon" crap. KSP doesn't like some module combinations, that's all.

It isn't. Problem narrows down to RealChute config for the EnginePod.

iirc, msbuild is needed for a script which packs things in a neat clean zip after the build, that's all. If you only need a rebuilt dll, you may open .csproj file in text editor and remove unneeded <import project> clauses.

16th century.

As I remember, 180 is basically a halved 170. Maybe they may try to reverse engineer 170 through 180?

Much better.

May I suggest removing the "don't open chutes" message? It isn't very readable anyway (especially in the clouds: light green on white... yeah). Can you overlay staging icons? Changing them in flight is possible, but RealChute (and the game itself) already does that, so there might be a conflict. Overlaying it with read cross/triangle/crossed circle or exclamation sign, if possible, would look much better.

I'd guess that your dishes on Kerbin side have "Active vessel" as a target, instead of Duna or sat1.

Because it wouldn't be a problem if there was a soft body physics in KSP, which airbags are kinda trying to emulate with rigid bodies? Now that's a fair answer. OK, I'll stop bothering you with it and either try to implement it myself or try adding tweakscale config to make airbags work with any craft sizes.

Thanks. I know you're doing it for free and I appreciate it. Also, I know how many mods you're maintaining. So, stop reading between lines: I literally meant that if you think that airbags work as they should and/or you don't have time for it - just say so and forget about it, no problem. I'm not a coder, so I don't know if it's even possible, but wouldn't Physics.IgnoreCollision inside OnAwake() do the trick? Even if you use generic names for colliders, can't you add tags to things (like colliders) in Unity and filter by tag?

Airbags attached to the same part do not make physics freak out. In my tetrahedron configuration, 3 central airbags on every side are attached to the same part - they stay put. Same for screenshot with squares: airbags attached to the same structural panel stay put. But panels themselves get pushed away from each other. On your video, again, they're all attached to the same part and stay put. Nevermind. I can see you're not interested in changing this behavior. "Works as intended", I guess.

Is this too close too? Because this craft started spinning right after airbag inflation and breakdanced after landing non-stop (standing on one airbag and spinning horizontally most of the time).

Yeah, I know that, but aren't they supposed to collide with terrain and other vessels while passing through each other without problems? That's why I mentioned the old thread - it was advised (by you, btw ) to attach them in this manner.

They don't. And it happens only when they're inflated.upd. Another example:

As I remember the old airbags thread, there was an advice to set airbags in a way that they intersect with each other. It doesn't work. Here's a couple of screenshots. The second screenshot contains an exaggerated effect just to show the problem. Usually, I use the first example in tetrahedron configuration, and even the slight offset sends the craft into uncontrollable spin in flight (doesn't matter if in atmosphere or not) and it's breakdancing after landing without stop. Incidentally, sometimes effect is negated by phys warp x4.

Gizmos and removal of collision detection in editor, being good ideas, are potentially dangerous for parts with moving colliders. I wouldn't like my landers to spontaneously disassemble themselves when I deploy landing legs, for example. But we'll wait and see how it works, I guess.

OK. Let's start with "core audience" argument. Judging by low entry point, science/space geeks/nerds are _not_ really an intended audience. Trial and error, "by the guts" intuitive gameplay and emphasis on visual representation of information instead of spreadsheets assume lack of actual knowledge but curiosity and urge to learn about space travel. In other words, space/science geeks/nerds "wannabes", not realistic sim fans (yet). On the other hand, complexity, if required, can be added through mods, satisfying players as they become more interested in realism. You've named the exact reason why KSP depends on modders so much already: you can't please everyone. Including me, you or Dragon01.

Lots of stuff. Orgies and mass drug addiction are first to come to mind. Also, pillaging, suicides, homicides, genocides, a couple (of dozens) of revolutions. Anarchy sounds like fun. Oh, cults! Religious fanaticism! Have I missed something?