Superfluous J

No, Fifth HERE. I'm not sure how hyped I am for NH2 in relation to how hyped I was for 1.1, but I'm really hyped or NH2.

This was - I believe - my suggestion so let me clarify 2 things: 1. It was just one example out of the many ways it could be done. 2. I think the part count limit is ridiculous. Size? Sure. Mass? Yes please. Part count? So if I leave the thermometer home I can bring 800 more units of fuel? What what? But in short, I don't expect my idea to match that of the procedural tank proponents' as a whole, in every detail.

I can't tell if you're riffing on my joke or truly don't know what I meant. So just in case it's the latter: Joss Whedon

Actually specifically just a single part must reach each state and end up on Kerbin. I'm not 100% sure but that part may have to be from the "command modules" tab in the VAB. Source: I'm doing a grand tour and the only thing that's actually landed everywhere is a mk1 lander can, but the contract is still showing all the checkmarks.

But we already have the textures, and most if not all would look just fine squeezed down by half or stretched out double.

Procedural tanks that textured themselves based on contents and size.

None. I use none action groups.

I've not done this for at least a year, and KAS has changed a lot in the meantime, but if you look in the KAS folder in Gamedata you should find some cfg files that add the KAS functionality to the stock parts you can grab. What you need to do is figure out how the configs work and write one for the part you want. Back when I did it, I just copied all the lines from a similarly-sized part and put it in the config for the part I wanted to add the functionality to, and it worked like a charm.

Just gonna toss this out there. I wrote a mod specifically because I encounter a small nail (I always forget to assign things to action groups at all) and - like you - found AGX to be an overly-large hammer. So if your action groups are only "extend/retract solar panels", "extend/retract radiators" or "do all science" then may I suggest All Y'All? Link below in my sig.

Let me sneak in a "Thanks for the maneuver node trick" before this is closed. I'm pretty sure this bug has been reported before (I think it may be part of a bevy of weird patched conics things) but that "trick" may not only help me keep my sanity, but find the underlying prediction problem as well.

I understand your point, and even agree with it in part. I don't agree, though, that having one tank instead of 40 (or however many there are) will so unshackle you from restriction as to make the game unplayably boring. I also don't agree that "I want to be restricted to a set of parts" and "we need a whole new subset of parts because I'm too restricted" go together very well in the same opinion set. What if the procedural tanks would only snap to sizes you could have made with the current tanks? So you could make (for example) an FL-T600 tank once you had access to the FL-T400 and FL-T200 tanks. The tech tree could be reworked so you started with access to the 800, then got the 400, and finally the 200. Is it logical or reasonable? No less than the current tech tree.

Wait in this analogy is the Lego set the entire rocket? Because in that case I don't think you get what procedural tanks are. Or is the Lego set just a fuel tank? That's a pretty boring Lego set.

Agreed. I don't want one more fuel tank in the list until there is either (usable) filtering or procedural tanks. Or both.

Read The Man Who Sold The Moon and then Requiem. Or, read below

While true, it doesn't affect how easy or hard it is to read the post. I got the gist, but it was still quite difficult to read. And this IS an English speaking website.

Nope, you're remembering correctly. You just forgot (or never heard) the part where they scrapped that idea.

Making it biome specific. Once you get impact readings in a biome, further readings from that same biome are worth far less. Or just make it planet-wide. Though making it biome-specific would encourage (in a good way) what you're worried about happening: People would land seismometers in multiple biomes, and then hit the world with an impact probe to instantly get science from all the biomes. That doesn't sound like an exploit to me, but a fun mission!

This is sounding more and more like a Heinlein story. I hope I'm still alive on the day he hires a couple space jockeys to take him there right before his death.

I've had 3 very large games with many ships spread across the system, and all 3 of them I had to abandon due to frequent crashes. If I recall, the most recent of those games was in 0.90.

I like to put 2 of the smallest fins on, right in the dry COM of the thing I'm dropping and tilted slightly (5 degrees, the smallest snap tilt you can give something with the rotation gizmo) outward. No sepratrons and (if you're low enough) the dropped tanks just split away from your craft. Though TBH I almost never use anything and let them fall straight down. I only add the fins if I'm having problems with stuff colliding.

You should. It's a pretty good movie and if you ignore the "science" for the philosophy of it, it's pretty intriguing. Just don't watch the sequels because they're hot garbage. This discussion though has as much to do with the movie as the suffix "-ception" has to do with things within copies of themselves. i.e.: Nothing, but hey movie title yay read our article! The Matrix had a computer simulation of Earth in it. Musk was talking about living in a computer simulation of Earth. That's all.

I thought this was going to be a thread where we kept tabs on HarvesteR as he worked on a new game or whatnot. I think it'd be weird to name after him the first update he didn't work on. I much prefer "Wheel: Reinvented" above.

Other than "besides they can," there are innumerable reasons to make simulations as realistic as possible. If it is not prohibitive to do so, everybody would use the engine to simulate their everything.

I suspect either the interviewer or Musk (or both) sensationalized the comment, but I do find the argument intriguing. It all comes down to "Can you make a simulation of the Universe that is so accurate to reality, that its inhabitants are as sure they're in reality as you are?" If you answer "yes," then logically we are almost assuredly in one of those simulations. If you answer "no," then we obviously are not

Yes. Unmitigatedly. Do we have the "right"? I don't care. Does an asteroid have the right to hit a populated planet? Does a star have a right to go supernova? Does an interplanetary rogue planet have right to perturb an orbit? It has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong." It's the nature of the Universe. Planets collide. Stars die. Life expands.