artao

everything supports JSGME. (or, more accurately, JSGME supports everything) all JSGME does is put files into places, as they exist in the folder structure. Also, I completely and utterly support this idea. It would be WAYYYY useful. .. but, of course, only if people used it.

For me the game runs several orders of magnitude better. Loads faster, better framerates, far less lag. I did a complete uninstall and re-install, and am playing 100% stock for now, until mods get updated. And I've got a pretty low-end system, so this cannot possibly be system related. Win 7 Pro 32-bit, Pentium-D dual 3.4Ghz, 3Gigs DDR2 RAM, GTX560 Ti (okay, that part is semi-high end) Tnaks Squad!! Great release!

It's hi-frackin-larious. I laughed and laughed and laughed. Great work Squad!! =D

That doesn't happen to me at all.

Yeah. I was afraid of that. Now that this is in the Off-Topic area, it is rapidly falling backward in the listings and not being noticed. In two days of being in the General section, it got to 3 pages. Anyhow, hope this stays active. Tho there is the other thread in Science section as well.

After about a week of playing, I was starting to rue the lack of night-side lights on Kerbin. Then I realized that if there WERE night-side lights, people would expect to be able to go to those areas and actually find cities and other Kerbals. And HOLY COW would that take system resources away from the rest of the game, I would think.

Along with L-points, N-Body would allow for the fun of using the Interplanetary Transfer Network (aka Gravity Tunnels) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_Network I too was going to bring up Orbiter being able to use N-Body and time-accel, but I see someone else did. .. I don't really understand the response to that tho. "Crappy orbits", which the poster clarified to "realistic orbits". Hmmm. .. While I do kinda like not having to do do regular orbital maintenance burns, on a game-play level at least (that WOULD get tedious with a large interplanetary fleet of spacecraft) I wouldn't exactly call that a crappy orbit. .. It's my understanding that Orbiter has the most accurate orbital mechanics available to the general public. KSP of course isn't meant to. Orbiter wasn't developed as a "fun" game, but rather a research simulation. KSP certainly IS developed as a fun game, with a degree of realistic orbital mechanics. I think it works, but it sure would be nice to be able to use L-Points .. and Gravity Tunnels =D

This is great! .. I figured model rocketry would have some enthusiasts around here. @Nutt007 - oh wow. I have never been IN that section of the forum. Hadn't even thought of looking there. Cool, thanks!

Holy cow that was fast. Thanks!!!! I totally wasn't expecting anything until after 0.20 was out. Question: Will we need to remove and re-add these lights to any craft that currently have the older version? I assume so seeing as the parts class has changed, not to mention all the other changes. Thanks again.

For now I'm letting it drift, and I'd prefer to drop it in a sub-orbital trajectory. However, if it gets to be too much or irritates me, I use Haystack to switch "control" to the debris and "End Flight" it.

Here's a VERY interesting video (albeit not the one I was looking for, which is even more impressive and I'll post it when I find it). This video shows what happens when a rocket's fins can't handle the stress of exceeding Mach 1. This is, again, a high-power rocket. I know there's a way to post YouTuber links thst start at a specific time, but I'm not sure how. SO! Jump forward in this vid to 1:27 to see what happens. That is not photoshopped etc etc. The fins really really DO bend and twist like that. Crazy! eh? .. .. .. EDIT HA HA!~! Found the one I really wanted to post. In this one the fins don't "explode" off the of rocket. It comes back down with fins intact. However, the fins would not be safe for another flight because tiny tiny cracks had formed throughout it's structure. .. I can't find it, but there's yet ANOTHER vid where the rocket builder-owner shows how easily the fins could shatter after that flight.

Nice vid there NeoMorph! That would be high-power rocketry indeed. That rocket probably cost a couple grand to build and launch once, and prolly around $500 per launch thereafter. It would also require FAA clearance, but for events like that (clubs often have group events) a flight window clearance can cover the entire day's worth of launch activity for everyone involved. I don't have the link handy, but one of the most impressive high-power rockets I've seen (not in person, never seen one in person) was a scale model of the Soviet N1 moon launch vehicle. Staged correctly and all. It was HUGE and quite impressive. Lemme see if I can find it on the YouTuber quick here ... ... ahh yes, here it is .. there's a longer version somewhere that shows bulding and flight-prep scenes as well, but I'm not seeing that just now.

Having seen home-brew propellent brought up a couple times, I gotta say again that that can be VERY dangerous. You really really must know what you're doing, and have a safe place to do it. All it takes is one mess up, and there go your eyes, or your hands, or your life. Mixing up rocket propellent properly is no trivial matter. Mass-produced rocket motors have had hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars invested in their development, with a focus on reliability and safety. It is in fact CHEAPER to buy commercial motors than to try to make your own. Also, when someone inevitably has an unintended explosion or other incident, the media makes no distinction between amateur rocketry and model rocketry. There's been more than enough regulations limiting safe and dependable model rocketry due to incidents involving amateur rocketry. I'll get off my soapbox about that for now, but it IS a big issue in the model rocket community frankly. Something that is strongly emphasized. Buy motors, don't make them.

YAY!! WOO!! \o/ My first successful docking. Took many many many attempts. .. .. I just really like this shot. Kerbin Mapping Satellite KMS Alpha. .. .. This one clearly didn't make it. Nice burn-up tho. .. .. Again, I just really like this shot. From the back-side of my Kerbin Mapping Satellite, KMS Beta. This one I'm trying to send off to Mun, as it turns out TWO mapping satellites around one body is utterly pointless. It's taking QUITE a while tho, what with only having these three Ion engines. LOL

You can also use the Haystack plugin to switch between ships that are too far away for [ & ] to work.

@loiske -- re: making your own engines. That is potentially VERY dangerous, and moves from model rocketry to amateur rocketry. AFAIK you don't need any special licensing to make your own engines, BUT you sure as hell better know what you're doing, and have a safe place to do it. However! You can go halfway and get reloadable engine systems. These consist of a set of casings and bulheads you buy that are re-useable, and then you buy motor reloads which consist of tubular lengths of APCP that you insert into said casings, along with high-temp plastic nozzles that come with each engine kit. As such, you aren't creating your own engines from scratch, BUT you get the joy and thrill (and risks) of assembling the motors. I have yet to buy myself a motor-casing set, but it IS in my plans. ..EDIT.. one could, of course, also make one's own nozzles out of metal given proper equipment, or even 3D printers. making nozzles really really would be rocket science, as the nozzle shape greatly affects thrust and efficiency. Of course, it also would be riskier as you risk possibly not allowing the internal pressure to escape fast enough (or too fast) causing engine blowouts (i.e. explosion, tho APCP is designed to NOT be explosive) or not enough thrust for a stable flight. However, I do believe this would again delve into the realm of amateur rocketry, not model rocketry. ..EDIT EDIT.. you can also take another step further in actual model rocketry by using hybrid motors, which use cannisters of NO2 to increase the thrust of APCP engines. Those are rather pricey, but certainly add more to the whole thrill on the rocket engine side of model rocketry.

No onboard footage .. yet. .. Atho I HAVE designed a rocket to launch a webcam. Just haven't built it yet. And now that I have a new webcam, I can remove the case from the old one to save space and weight, and thus re-design my cam-rocket for that. .. In Progress. Also lacking photos. I've lost the majority of my rockets so far LOL .. it does take some skill in determining proper launch angle and azimuth given prevailing winds to get a successful recovery. .. And, I can't say I've done "a lot" of it over the past few years that I got back into it. Altimeters can actually be pretty reasonably priced. Simple ones for less than $50. GPS for recovery is rare, and yes expensive. Loud beepers are common and cheap tho. You can also get more advance flight computers for staging motors (required for APCP) and drogue/main chute deployment. You don't HAVE to spend much money, but you can also pretty much spend as much as you want or can. Real rocket painted KSP style? Hmm. Might do, might do. Current projects include same-scale (~1:110) semi-detailed models of Vostok I and Mercury I, and a rather large rocket designed to launch very slow and not go up very high, as well as some new launchers for rocket gliders as well as some new rocket gliders. .. Maybe even a helicopter recovery rocket. .. Also a cluster-engine rocket, but for that I need to build a proper cluster-ignition system. There's plenty to do in model rocketry without spending a ton of money.

I don't know, but I expect probably. It's my understanding that the mod-system is undergoing some big changes here, and as such I expect any mod-equipped ships to be incompatible. I urge people to remember: We've bought an Alpha-stage game here. We should totally expect certain levels of update to break our persistence files and force us to re-start. I would expect no less, as changes are made, optimizations, features added, etc etc. So, you know .. Don't be upset when it happens, and don't just quit and give up because you have to start over.

Right now it's XOO .. XartaoX Orbital Operations .. XartaoX being a common video-game name I use .. and XOO (pronounced zoo) I find humorous for a space agency.

Just wondering if anyone has put any effort into a consensus-approved list of constellations yet. I've heard tell the starfield may be receiving some changes, so that may make this all moot. It'd be kinda fun tho, no? Then at some point there could perhaps even be an add-in that could display said constellation outlines while playing. That's it. Curiosity and fun!

Heya! I'm one of those people known as a BAR -Born Again Rocketeer .. As in, I enjoyed model rockets as a kid, and have re-discovered them as an adult. Except these days I tend to design my own rockets rather than build kits. Model rocketry has come a long long way. There's a lot of model rocket motors these days that use APCP (Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant) instead of the old blackpowder-motors. Totally space-age too, as APCP is what space agencies actually use in solid rocket engines. Also, there's numerous software options for rocket design available, some are even OSS! (see http://openrocket.sourceforge.net/ ) It's a pretty inexpensive hobby too, as long as you stay nearer the lower end of the available power range. Anyone can purchase up to G powered engines, where each letter can contain up to twice the power of the previous letter; with A being up to 2.5 N-s (even down to 1/4 A or smaller) and G then being 80 - 160 N-s !! And then it goes further, up to P IRRC, but for those you need to be certified, and there's 3 levels of certification. Anyhow, rockets above G become rapidly more expensive and begin requiring more advanced construction such as fiberglass and suchnot. They also require FAA clearance with a submitted and approved flight plan. Typical model rockets of G and lower are generally cardboard tubing, with thin plywood and balsa for fins and internal components. MUCH less expensive. Anyhow, just curious who else out there is into it. That is all.

Hey thanks! I know it won't be until after 0.20, seeing how the add-in system is changing. Again, thanks for these lights. IMHO they should just be part of the base game they're so cool. OH!!! Also, it seems they don't use electricity? Could you possibly add that in too please? =]

How cool would it be to own a space shuttle cockpit. ... and just to be 100% clear, i WAS joking

These lights are GREAT! Love 'em. Really adds to the look of my spacecraft. I've a request to make regarding the lights: Would it please be possible to make it so toggling the lights' modes could be put into an action group? I don't really understand why they are part of the staging system to be honest.

You aren't playing KSP properly if you don't play it all in real-time. .. I quicksave regularly 'cuz .. you know ... the game could crash any time.