lincourtl

Yes. I also tried it out on my 100% stock install of 0.23.5 and had the same problem. The individual parts show up beautifully though. Didn't KSP used to tell us what the missing parts/modules were?

KSP won't let me load the craft files saying they contain missing or invalid components. What do I need installed to use CMES?

In addition to the dV problems everyone else has been having, I'm also still having issues with MJ and Blizzy's toolbar. The MJ tab is still showing, but now the MJ icons in the toolbar are all blank, and sometimes the MJ icons fail to appear at all.

Ah! I was wondering why MJ wasn't showing up in my toolbar (yes, I'm using the dev build). Thank you! Going to remove the optional modules, reset my toolbar, and try again.

I've been staying away from KSP for a bit while playing Orbiter instead, so I'm just checking out the 3.x Aggressive branch of Active Texture Management now. Wow! I'm blown away. I only have a couple of tiny parts mods installed right now, but after caching my textures it's loading KSP in under a minute. Incredible. Squad should be paying you for this mod, rbray.

Maybe we're getting hung up on the semantics of 'ignition source'? I think of an ignition source as a spark, or flame, or heater coil. And from the Wiki article you cite: Hypergolic compounds spontaneously ignite when combined with a catalyst. It's chemical ignition. There's no need for any external ignition source. That's where I'm coming from.

No, that's not quite true. Hydrazine is a hypergolic monopropellant. It requires no ignition source, but it does require a catalyst. For a rocket, that often means a catalyst bed in the decomposition chamber -- a packed bed of solid catalyst particles. In this diagram, the gas chamber holds inert gas used to pressurize the monopropellant tank, and force the monopropellant into the decomposition chamber.

Oh, I definitely want small monoprop engines in stock. So useful. It'd be nice to have a couple of more monoprop tanks as well.

See the section on free orbits (a free orbit is just any stable orbit not requiring further energy input).

I did too. I've said it elsewhere, but I enjoy hearing the devs talk about building KSP almost as much as I enjoy playing it.

Quoth the wiki: Ref: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Asparagus_staging

Your middle of the night is somebody else's afternoon. It's midnight EDT for me, but ten in the morning already at Baikonur. KSP has a large international community which always seems to get shafted on the timezone thing, so I suspect the 3AM start time is partly to include those East of the prime meridian.

I've never had a need for that level of strutting. What I usually do is place a cubic octagonal with four fold symmetry above the decoupler, and below the decoupler, then use a single strut with four fold symmetry to connect the two. If you get Kerbal Joint Reinforcement though, you probably won't even need that. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out with the new joints in 0.24.

Nicely done!

Yes. All this does is replace the navball texture. The vector pips are drawn separately.

Oh, how my middle-aged eyes thank you, and xEvilReeperx.

Hey, work on what moves you. I'm just over the moon with the parts you've been making. I might say I can't wait, but trust me, I can.

That is truly a thing of beauty. I can't wait to see your IVA for this cockpit.

It'd be awesome if you could integrate this with damny's ScanSat.

OMG! I love this!

To the contrary, mods are great for showing Squad how to do things they might not thought possible. All they have to do is to continue supporting a robust modding community, assimilate the mods that add the most to the game, and they're fine. I can understand Squad's objections to n-body orbital mechanics on a pure game-play basis though. I don't think most people would find that fun. For those of us who do want that added realism, there's always the mods. But yeah, the aerodynamics issue is much less defensible. Similarly, I'd like to see realistic reentry heating, axial tilt, magnetary fields, and radiation belts in the stock game. I'm not going to cry into my Cheerios if that never happens though.

I have no idea what you just said, but I think SyFy could base a TV show on your last two comments alone.

Oh! I see now. That is problematic.

I'm totally ignorant as to how KSP/Unity models physics, so I apologize if this sounds idiotic, but is there no way to simply record the force vectors on each part when you put the ship on rails, then restore them when physics is resumed?

I love this! It's these little touches of realism that KSP is missing.