plausse

I find FAR indispensable for KSP and each time it's updated I get into playing again. Just wanted to take a moment to say thank you for keeping it alive! It is very appreciated.

Provided the number of downloads remained constant. What people feel is reasonable and what they actually do is often not the same. Historically, I think there was a very successful ksp mod that tried a premium model, with no success. Also looking at Skyrim, when people have attempted monetising, it has brought up all sorts of expected and unexpected issues making it not only not worth the effort, but often killing the joy of the creator and maybe the whole mod. I wonder if some kind of (dreaded) freemium model is a tenable answer, like patreon but maybe a little more in your face than most ksp modders use it. Maybe setting donation goals and explaining how the money is contributing to allowing the mod to continue. I think there was a GoT inspired mod for Mount and Blade which tried something similar. I'm aware this may be OT but thought I'd the team is feeling lethargic, overworked and underappreciated, it could be worth looking into. Personally I feel more implied to pay/donate to the more backend kind of mods, like this or projects to save orphan mods etc.

Looking at the wording "rated", to me it feels like that is where they have been tested to for reliability during development. If I had to shoot from the hip and suggest numbers I would think 0.5% failure up to 35% of burn time (to allow freak accidents, like a broken fuel line or something), 3% rate up to 50% burn time, 5% up to 75% of burn time, 15% after 75% - then maybe 25% at 100%, 75% at 110%, 90% at 120%, 95% above that. To me that would let the rated number make more sense, in that failures can happen below that, but that it is a reasonable ballpark for how long an engine actually can be used safely. Having a real utility above 100% I think makes "out of parameter" missions, Apollo 13 style, more fun as they have a real chance of success . I guess looking at real space missions most don't suffer engine failures, but a significant minority do. Thinking more about it my numbers above are probably way too low, but the idea is that redundancy is there for the odd time something goes wrong, but is usually not needed - rather than it being standard to go through three spare engines. Overall take what I say with a pinch of salt. Haven't used kerbalism before - I tried a while ago but it killed my framerate - I really enjoy it now though!

And here I was really impressed by how good the guesswork was. That said.. Is there anything that influences chances of failure? Because I think on average a good majority of engines breaks down for me well before the end of its rated service life (either burn time or ignitions). This would mean a lander doing a normal mun or minmus landing would either go through a few redundant engines or need several inflight repairs. I love the feature, it just seems a tad aggressively tuned. Can this be modified in config? *Edit - engines that will need restarting would probably be flagged as high quality anyway, so changed the general "QualityScale = 4.0" modifier to 8 on high quality parts. Also changed "the rated_operation_duration = 600" tp 1000. I will test if that gives a bit more juice in those high impact cases where one would happily pay more for a bit extra.

Works fo me.

This is literally the best thing ever. Since 0.18 I have waited, and waited. The last KOOSE was almost the same but not quite. Cannot overemphasize how excited I am about this, and the fabric on the inside is just the icing to finish it off.

One of the best things with ksp in My opinion is how it makes things like this project possible by being a canvas. Imaginative, practical and really impressive. Very excited.

How does this play with FAR these days? I'm obviously very excited.

Wowowoho Very exciting stuff

Don't want any MM patches tested do you? This looks like an awfully exciting idea...

KAS is amazing, and new KAS to me feels like another step up. A humble request though.. whilst new KAS definitely feels more plausible than some aspects of old KAS, it also limits some things that could previously be done. It makes sense that the rigid connectors require a Kerbal to attach, but would it be possible to change the disconnect to not need one? Or have one version that works that way? It could even be more expensive/ heavier/ need to electricity to do it.

The ion rcs is literally my favourite part. I sometimes wish for a five ways one though as well - or a monoprop version. That would be the most ironic part ever...

Love it.

Whaaaaat! I'm excited and joyed and this may be the best thing ever. A blur disc would be next level though

Second above - if you have the energy. I have no idea how I would safely land three kerbals with the stock chute. I mean I wouldnt.

I'm not trying to be flippant, but this just made me visualise a big bunch of ships out there with bulky fusion reactors. Have to say it would be a great sight though

Can't believe I missed that trick.

Given the date of the last comment in the thread, probably not. Part config fields have changed, languages been added etc. But that said, no harm in trying.

Immense.

Mr commercialised imperialist capitalist lapdog!

I will download it, view it every now and then and admire it. Promise!

I say bring it, you've done the work, it fills a niche, it looks cool. Most people* only look at IVAs now and then anyway. *based on a sample of one person (me)

Sarcasm aside I tend to re-enter at 30-50 degrees AOA depending on the plane, and make sure that my control surfaces aren't stalled even if parts of the main wing is. When it works it gives a lot of supersonic lift, and allows for shedding speed high up, and doing s turns if needed. I tend to land with empty tanks though which makes it easier. Currently I am trying to make an SSTO with low landing speed and land it on laythe with (almost) full tanks. It's proving quite hard and I'm leaning towards a supersonically optimised shape with RATO, or something like that ...

Ever been called a perfectionist? No? Ok. (Amazing work)