KerbMav

[quote name='Champ']I think you are wrong : upgrade costs of the facilities are determined by the fund penalty setting.[/QUOTE] Huh - must be something I picked up and memorized anyway ...

A half a ton of mods, mostly UI stuff, very few parts - most changes to gameplay come from: USI Life Support - tweaked a bit harder, especially making it deadly and orange suits loose their special immortality perk RemoteTech or AntennaRange - one of them has to be on board (for now :wink:) FAR and DRE - these come and go since stock has something similar Ship Manifest - it is only fun so often to EVA to all science gizmos KER, KAS, EditorExtensions and lots of beautification and quality of life mods/fixes. Disabling Quicksave is a bit to masochistic in my opinion, as bugs from KSP and mods can lead to tears. I also allow myself launch simulations/reverts and quickloads when dealing with unexpected/unknown mod behaviour. Starting credits do not do much compared to the advance payments and record payouts, so I do not even look at them. [s] Something worth remembering: every difficulty setting can be personalized - switching it to the custom setting automatically -, but the upgrade costs of the facilities are determined by the difficulty setting you last selected before fine tuning it to your liking. So customizing an easy setting differs from customizing a hard setting - as long as this has not changed since the last time I paid attention to this.[/s]

Just another Mun landing - returned with 14 m/s dv left ... phew ... Setting the PE to 38km at Kerbin made the kerbonaut rescued in Mun's orbit miss out on the "orbit Kerbin" experience step - noted. Next stop: Minmus - and deciding what to do in the remaining three Kerbin days until the expedition gets there. Also figured out a standard training plan for new recruits: Orbit Mun, touch down on Minmus, leave Kerbins SOI, return to get rank 3 pips. Takes about 2-3 weeks I guess, should be enough boot camp for any later trip? :wink:

So ... 1.0.5 and this mod ... ? :)

[quote name='Tex_NL']I wonder how many times first person EVA has been suggested. [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/42608"]Oldest I could find so far[/URL] is almost two and a half years old.[/QUOTE] Different from what I meant but neat too. :D

Nothing special, but I think it would be kinda neat to have a small helmet camera during EVA - like the IVA cameras in pods - showing a close up of the kerbonauts face?

[quote name='tater']I want skilled crew (engineers, usually) for possible repairs, but they need to be sent on such a mission unprepared first, so I can send them prepared... makes no sense.[/QUOTE] This could rather easily be remedied by adding not even a full gainable XP to the Kerbin SOI - kerbonauts could than be trained to level three, which gives every specialization access to all important skills - so, without the "short hop into Kerbols orbit". [url]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Specialization[/url] The only really "critical" specialization is engineer anyway. Pilots learn how to point at certain nodes of the nav-ball (level 4 and 5 practically useless as of now), the player can do this by himself really. Scientists get better at lab work up to level 5 (taking experiments and resetting them available at level 0), usefull but not that relevant on an expedition. Engineers repack chutes (1), repair wheels (2) and landing legs (3) and get better at drilling ore up to level 5 - a damaged landing leg can kill an expedition or at least thwart multiple planned landings. Scientists are good as they are IMHO, they fulfill their duty of operating experiments and the more experienced brainiacs squeeze out relevant data faster in their labs. Pilots get pretty much useless after the first SAS capable probe core - might change in the future if they are needed to control probes without telemetry from KSC and/or get better at aiming at a node without pulling their flightstick back and forth at 100% until they settle the ship in the new direction. Engineers are quite good as well - maybe they could gain the ability to build struts outside of the VAB.

To guide the thread back to "good ideas for space movies" I will just drop this link - I doubt they will all be bad? :wink: [url]https://www.nasa.gov/feature/cinespace-winners[/url]

Temple

[quote name='Hotaru'][url]http://i.imgur.com/nCdhgCI.jpg?1[/url][/QUOTE] What makes these nuke engines burn so pretty?

So, now it got us too - although I do not think that any of it will cover anything in more than cold wetness.

A rather simple probe of not to many parts started swaying on its z-axis, turning off SAS would lead to precession, activating RemoteTechs Kill Rotation command in its flight computer would stop this behaviour - so while it happened in a modded install, the problem occured using a stock mechanic and stopped using a mods function.

[quote name='parameciumkid']- The Gigantor Solar Array and some of the smaller deployable panels claim in their descriptions that they include "passive radiators on the reverse side for better heat dissipation" - but wait! There's no radiator module in the part CFG. So is radiator functionality included (redundantly) in both the radiator module and the deployable solar panel module? Or, since the addition of dedicated radiators, do solar panels not do anything about heat dissipation, and thus is the description lying?[/QUOTE] The way I understand this is, that very part conducts and emits heat, but the radiator module is able to suck heat from two parts away?

Some things that they might seek or we might offer, the specifics to be left to the imagination of the reader: - hospitable environment compatible to their needs - military staging area and supporting manpower - a workforce more flexible than robots, selfmaintaining and easy to reproduce - lifestock/prey/hosts for parasitic reproduction (dead homeworld, trip on generation ship to long already, etc.) - biological compounds of medicinal value - stories/intellectual exchange/answers to their big questions - another perspective on life, the universe and everything - ancient artifacts (ancient astronaut cult, no matter if true or not) - new food for the minds of a species that has explored itself and its world completely - company in the wide empty void - someone to take care for - refuge for their offspring (from war, plague, etc.) - someone to remember their dying species

[quote name='RocketPropelledGiraffe']How heat calculations can be considered "non-physics" is incomprehensible to me... Software development really IS a world of its own. :)[/QUOTE] Heat is calculated by itself and not as part of the physics engine, physics meaning the interaction of individual parts in the simulated environment and with each other.

What am I not getting here?

[quote name='Interplanet Janet']I'd give myself a face, if I weren't a paper bag...[/QUOTE] Good evening, Mr LaBeouf!

[quote name='MegaUZI']At least people respect you more as a book addict than as a game addict. :P[/QUOTE] But thanks to digital copies you can hide the games better! :wink:

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']I am unaware of such discussions. I've personally made craft with >20 LV-Ns, and I know others have gone even higher.[/QUOTE] [url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66866-why-are-there-people-who-stick-more-than-one-nuke-on-their-ships[/url] Regular not in the sense of every week, but the question turns up once in a while. [quote name='cantab']We almost have that now with the crew cabin. No control is a drawback, but it's workable.[/QUOTE] Nyah ... I though of a more inline option - but the doors might work out for rovers now that I think about it ...

I once wrote a mini config mod for the nuke engines. Basically I lowered the weight of the engines by x and added two fuel modules that held either the active fuel or the depleted waste, so the weight would stay the same. But I never figured out a good consumption rate for the fuel to neither get ships stranded to easily nor having a limitless capacity.

Then why do we have regular discussions about the maximum reasonable number of nuke engines?

[quote name='Temstar']Back in the days when NTR used a standard chemical rocket fuel mix people were suggesting all day long here on the suggestion forum that we should have separate oxidiser and fuel so that NTR can use just fuel like their real life countepart so we can fine tune the oxidiser to fuel ratio on nuke spacecrafts.[/QUOTE] I am still onboard with that and would even go so far to introduce a seperate jet fuel - then ISRU would even be less like magic, as it could just be called water and not produce jetfuel.

- 1,25m pod and/or lander can for two kerbonauts (why is the 2-man can so big??) - 3,75m cockpit for our exporation dreadnoughts - rover cockpits (no more climbing on top of the rover as if it were a tank) - electric atmospheric/underwater propulsion (propellors/rotors) Not having read the whole thread: [quote name='Majorjim'] Perhaps you could scale the power usage with the number of props used.[/QUOTE] Just have the propellors/engines have enough drag/mass (whichever is more reasonable) that spamming them would asymptotically diminish the net gain of doing so - like the nukes for example. In regards to tweaking existing parts: - flexible fuel tanks (LF/OX for rockets, LF only for planes/NUKEs - maybe even seperate plane fuel?) - adding a switch in the editor to make engine fairings depend on a. engine size, b. size of next part under the engine

For reference: [url]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Experience[/url] The logic seems to be, that distance counts more than subjective difficulty, as orbiting Kerbin (inevitable for every mission?) and planting a flag on Minmus will get the kerbonaut to level 2, while planting a flag on Mun (higher gravity and orbital speeds, therefore more difficult and risky to land and take off from) will miss level 2 by one experience point. Level 2 is even easier to get to by simply launching from Kerbin and leaving its SOI for a moment to orbit Kerbol. (OK, the experience here most likely comes from the extensive length of this field trip!) Even stranger IMHO are the numbers for Moho and Eve. While it takes more dv to get to Moho, it is much more difficult to return from Eve. One could argue that landing on Eve is much easier, being able to use the atmosphere to brake from interplanetary speeds and parachutes to finally land, but as the new rank is only awarded upon return to Kerbin, maybe orbiting (Moho > Eve) and surface operations (Eve < Moho) should be treated differently. Jool's moons all award the same XP despite varying difficulties to landing on/taking of from them. Flying in Jool's atmosphere awards less points than in Laythe's, although it theoretically takes more effort to leave Jool's atmosphere again due to its higher gravity/orbital speed and flying on Laythe is checked anyway during any landing.

[quote name='GusTurbo']What's all this then?[/QUOTE] [url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/119442-Bug-Fairings-Collisions-and-Craft-Launching[/url]