Superfluous J

Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was the changes upcoming in the 1.1 release are not strictly needed, as the tool we have now can still do them. It's super clunky, sure, but you can attain any goal (at least, any goal that I can think of) with the current tools. Similarly, the suggestion to allow swapping what "craftlet" is the "active" one is not strictly needed but could make some difficult tasks much easier.

Yeah we heard that before Thanks for the summary! Always, totes appreciated. Yes, I used the word "totes." Oooh I've been in enough "customer on the phone" office meetings to know that sound. That's the sound of "Holy $@^& you weren't supposed to talk about that."

That sounds like a cool idea. Build a rover, and then without saving it as a subassembly "merge" it with your lander, and then using the re-root tool make the lander the active craft so you can attach the rover to it. Granted it's not *necessary*, you can do that all with the present tools. But using that argument they don't need to add the ability to reroot a subassembly, either.

Interesting mix of restrictions and goals. One question: Is a chair a "command pod"? If I don't return it to Kerbin will I not get the 70 points for returning all command pods to Kerbin? I like the fact that docking ports are useless, and RCS is almost so. If I try this, my goal will be to get everything but the SSTO and Spaceplane, and I'll try for the SSTO part if it's not too difficult. Probably won't try for anything extra-kerbin though, just the stated goals. And I may even stream it on Twitch. Maybe even Friday evening...

Either I don't get it, or I do get it and don't understand why it's funny. Sorry!

While more efficient, unless I've got some sort of autopilot I don't circularize within the atmosphere for one specific reason: You can't time warp. Sure, you can 4x time warp but when waiting for a ship to get to the other side of the planet, I want a bit more than that. I'll happily bring some extra fuel to avoid that wait.

Nobody knows. We have guesses ranging from weeks to months, anything in there is reasonable. I know you want "March 27th at 8am GMT" or something but you're not going to get it. That exact of a guess is as likely to be correct as the preferred answer of SOON™

I vote for Option 4: Reboot it as New Horizons 2 or perhaps Newer Horizons and do whatever you want with it, while leaving the old system for nostalgia sake. Just make sure people know Old New Horizons won't be getting updates and is only there so people can see it/make their old saves work/whatever. But of the 3 options above, I prefer #2. It sounds also like it's the option YOU like the best, which in the end is all that matters.

I worked on a Contract Configurator config a while ago that did away with science points and had you "scavenge" parts. When you scavenged a part, you unlocked it for use in the VAB/SPH. I abandoned it because in practice it just wasn't as fun as it was in idea, mostly due to repetition. However the basic idea (contracts unlock parts instead of science) is sound and if you wanted to put the work into it (and had a better idea than I did) the tools are there.

The mod that you described sounds like GravityTurn. It does automated ascents to orbit and if you launch many times with the same ship it'll modify itself to be more efficient. Even if you don't want the game to "play it for you" it's worth installing for a while, just to see what an efficient gravity turn looks like.

Click the "change root" button, or hit "4" on your keyboard. Click the ship, anywhere. Click the part you want to be the new root. Note: This process may change slightly when 1.1 comes out, either eliminating the need for step 2 or making it work as it was originally intended. For now, though, it feels like a useless step that you still have to do.

The save is named after the goal, YouTube series name, or main mod that I'm using. So I've had "Kerpollo", "New Horizons," and "Grand Tour" save games. However, those aren't really the name of my space program. That name is "Kerbal Space Program." And I'm mostly just assuming that because nowhere does it say the name in the game and I've never really considered it.

Regarding the altitude, ignore the altimeter. Watch for your shadow (i.e., never land at night and ideally land near local dawn or dusk) and use it to judge. After a few times watching that, I prefer it to a numeric readout. I have KER installed and ignore its numbers once I'm close enough to the ground to see my shadow.

Another thing I've seen, the thing listed on the screen is the last thing that successfully loaded. So, the problem may not be with ModuleManager at all, but with the NEXT thing that was supposed to happen afterward. Like FMM said, the Output_log.txt will list what it was trying to load and hopefully at least hint at what went wrong.

Maybe he didn't create 2 threads, and actually just changed the name of his thread, causing it to save a new one.

Like regex, I would like procedural tanks and wings. I'd also like the procedural tanks to predictably and automatically change texture based on size and content, so you can tell at a glance (as you can now) what the tanks contain. Unlike regex, I won't use the word "crappy" to describe part of the game. I also agree with Talavar that a hinge would be wonderful. I'm hopeful that the bugs that keep us from having a stock hinge (and that keep Infernal Robotics in a constant state of buggyness) are just magically gone in Unity 5, but I've not heard anything on that so I assume they're still there. In addition, I'd like a way to transfer fuel between craft, be it with an IVA fuel line or just a way to say "transfer the fuel between these 2 craft." I'll take anything. We've got refueling bases, we need a better way to transfer fuel than claw-cars and landing on docking ports. I'd also like cities and clouds. And when I say "cities" I mean buildings and roads. And freeways between them.

I also never thought to run the converter in double time by activating LF/O, LF, and O. So we're all learning things here

It actually depends on several things, most notably the concentration of ore and the skill level of the highest skilled engineer in the ship, if present. Drills will drill 0.075*c*m per second, where C is the concentration and M is a multiplier based on engeneer skill level: Level Multiplier ☆☆☆☆☆ 5x ★☆☆☆☆ 9x ★★☆☆☆ 13x ★★★☆☆ 17x ★★★★☆ 21x ★★★★★ 25x (Stolen from the wiki) So if the concentration is - say - 10% (a good percentage) then your unmanned station would drill 0.075*0.1*1 = 0.0075 ore per second. A level-5 engineer would bump that oup to 0.075*0.1*25 = .18 ore per second, or an ore unit every 6 seconds, or about 10 ore units a minute, or about 600 per hour. The converter is easier, it just converts ore to LOX at the rate of 1 combined unit per second, costing 0.5 ore per second. More important than which goes faster is what can they do in 6 hours. When you leave your mining base and come back six months (game time) later, a simulation is run very quickly that drills and then converts things in 6-hour blocks. Because the bottleneck is likely to be the converter, you can just make sure the ore tanks have enough room to hold 6 hours of ore supply for the converter, or 360 minutes, or 21600 seconds, or 10800 units. Unless I mathed bad. But the idea's sound.

Well it would enforce not being able to transfer them through girders and fuel tanks, and make it obvious why it was impossible. Not that I'm championing it, but it IS a point.

Oh I know. I wasn't going for "get the asteroid on the ground" though. That's boring. I was going for "Make a plane out of an asteroid."

I may still be the only one to land an Asteroid on Kerbin using wings. I may forever be the only one, considering even I'm not dumb enough to try in the new atmo. Well, I'm not dumb enough to try AGAIN.

Agreed on all points. We have the worst of both worlds right now, where you have to leave your ship to time warp in the space center (which for some reason is "safer" than continuing to play the game part of the game and time warping there) yet all the things that SHOULD slow you down but don't end up ruining your missions. NASA never had to scrub mission because everybody forgot to check on the probe for the 10 hours surrounding the flyby.

I must hype. It's lack is the mind-killer, the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my hype. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the hype has gone there will be everything. And there I will remain.

Disabling crew transfer (or any other kind of transfer) would be quite difficult, as the Claw links 2 ships into 1 as if you used docking ports. So, this Claw clone (Clawne?) would link the ships together as well. And I for one wouldn't mind that. Crew transfer around ships already allows you to go through girders and the like, why not allow transferring through fuel lines? If it bothers you, either don't do it or just assume you're taking a shortcut to doing the busy work of getting out, clambering around, and getting into the other ship.

It's likely that your rocket's center of mass is far backward (this happens as you burn fuel yet have heavy engines at the back). and maybe the rocket is JUST aerodynamic enough to make it through the worst part of the atmosphere without flipping, but adding this little bit of extra drag was enough to tip the scales. The 2 easiest ways to make the rocket more stable are to disable the top fuel tank of the first stage until the bottom ones run out, and to add fins to the very bottom so it wants to keep going forward. I'd try them in that order, not shying away from doing both. Another option is to redesign the rocket so there's more weight up front all the way up, perhaps splitting that launch stage into 2 stages or adding more fuel to the upper lifting stage and taking it away from the bottom one. As others have said, though, without pics we can only guess.