J.Random

Just keep your Pe at 30km+. Your ablative heatshield will be able to keep you safe from overheating even if you try lower Pe, but if you try to brake too fast, you'll kill your kerbals with G-forces. It's safer to brake slower and skip out of the atmosphere for another pass (again, heat isn't really the problem).

That's because wheels aren't wheels. They're sticks. On topic, though, I think there was a mod allowing kerbals to stay on moving vehicles. Don't remember its name, probably something about sea sickness because it was initially made for floating/flying HooliganLabs contraptions.

Just edit RemoteTech_Settings.cfg, add as much GroundStations{} as you like.

Kongress hearings minigame?

You were meant to say Deadly Reentry, I guess, in which case - ascend slower. My solution: put radial booster lower on decoupler. Decouplers should push boosters above their CoM, forcing them to spread outward faster. If you're using struts then you'll have to use separatrons because struts kill the ejection force.

Called it! Welcome to the "Who's Who" club.

Erm... They keep aircraft in balance by providing a lift. When you have positive AoA, tailfin provides lift, forcing tail to go up and the whole aircraft to pitch down. When you have negative AoA, tailfin provides downforce, forcing tail to go down and the whole aircraft to pitch up. I don't think KSP simulates that because you have a single center of lift, but I think tailfins provide drag, which gives similar effect, forcing aircraft to stick to velocity vector.

Well it's nice... for unpaid intern's work, I guess (no offence, Hugo). You know, maybe you should get Bac9 back. Or contract him for this Mk3 overhaul.

Wait a second. Does it mirrors itself automatically, using different meshes for left and right bays, or you have to set both parts separately?

The game itself is the same for every platform. Also, "platform-agnostic" development brought us console ports, with horrible lighting and texturing masked by crapton of blur.

Are you saying that you'd feel better if noone get x64 version? Would you feel better if Squad terminated Linux x64 distribution instead?

2OP: dude, relax. Modders don't owe you anything. Check dependencies yourself. Of course, automated dependency tracking would be nice, but it would depend on modders willing to add some sort of manifest to their mod - and most of them aren't willing, if I remember Majiir's thread about repository correctly. Deal with it.

KSP doesn't "require" reusable rockets.

I don't want to discourage you, but there's ChakaMonkey. Maybe you should join with Yanfret instead of developing yet another SLS all by yourself.

And now we know: it's all Intern's fault.

Heh. Rowsdower, you're leaking info. You've just confirmed Unity version update.

Your second name isn't Stu, is it?

Seeing as the whole upper-right corner of the screen is taken by new icons in .24, I wonder if you can actually replace stock resource panel with this one, showing ARP instead of stock panel when user clicks/hovers over corresponding icon.

OP, watch this: PS Actually, not only OP. There are two floating point origins, one was before Krakenbane - for position, another one was Krakenbane - for speed.

Of course they're broken, he posted them a year ago.

It seems that "true" size for stock tanks is cap diameter for 1.25m tanks but main body one for 2.5m tanks. 3.75m tanks are simply cylindrical, no riddle there. `rescaleFactor = 1.56` did the trick for me. That's what it looks like for stock parts and tanks from ProceduralParts pack:

Not really. It's in development since '90s. But Angara is supposed to be completely russian rocket, without any parts/software from across the border, which is great. It was just a suborbital test flight with dummy payload. In the end of this year, however, they plan to launch Angara 5. Yet another test flight, but I hope it will actually go to orbit.Also, some photos: http://netwind.ru/07/09/angara.html

It's a nice part pack, but it seems that inline parts are a little smaller than they should be, because you're using external radius (including these protruding rounded-rectangular thingies) for part size. They look weird when attached to fuel tanks, for example. May I suggest using cylinder diameter as part size instead?

Launched today.

UGH! I think this... thing is the ugliest plane I've ever seen. On the other hand, Antonov's high-wingers (not only Mriya) are very beautiful birds. (Edit: except An-74. That one is a mutant baby in their family)