Superfluous J

I have not seen one post by a developer that said anything other than "Quit being huge jerks." (paraphrased. That's the nicest I could make what I'd have said in their case). Not one has said that their feelings were hurt or that you shouldn't be critical. Just don't be a huge jerk to a bunch of unpaid help that did the best job they could under the circumstances, and for all I know are legally bound by an agreement that prevents them from defending themselves.

Hmmm true. Who knows what clever things people may figure out to do with that module.

Actually you can do it one better: This has been edited thanks to the suggestion below by SpeedDaemon @PART[fairingSize*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleProceduralFairing]] { @MODULE[ModuleProceduralFairing] { @UnitAreaMass *= 0.5 } } (Ganked from Starwaster's post and edited)

The fairings in the game are apparently something on the lines of 9 times heavier than the fairings Space-X uses. There's quite a bit of discussion going on in the Are Fairings Useless? thread. And you unlock the first one for either 45 or 90 science points. It's in the lower half of the tree. Looks like a tall nosecone in the little icon picture. And yes, it's in aerodynamic parts which makes total sense

My concern is that KSP is not reality, so real-world values may make fairings as good as the current values make them bad. In other words, they may help too much. I have no idea if this is the case, without testing, but in my personal opinion balancing the fairings to real world values is less important to me than balancing the gameplay to make them interesting.

I vote NASA. They already went there. Oh you mean MANNED? Who knows? Let's figure out getting people out of LEO for more a joyride on the Moon and then we'll talk Mars. Next up: Which tree do you think will develop speech first, Elms or Redwoods?

Oh wow I totally missed that on a first read. I think I got distracted by the pictures in the post following yours. Thanks for that. I think I'll try some different values (1/9th the mass just seems like too little, though I'll do some testing) but the structure is appreciated. Also, I downloaded Proc Fairings to look at their configs and while you're right, I suggest anyone who hates the stock texture, replace the stock fairings_diff.dds with procfairings' fuselage1.dds. I don't "hate" the stock yellow line, but that black ] mark always makes me think something is clipping through the fairing.

I'll never understand the hatred for this. It's unrealistic, sure, but it's an abstraction. That's what games (and even simulators) do.

Dumb question time. What settings do Procedural Fairings use and can't we just copy those? I've not heard anybody complain that they're too heavy but - I'll admit - I haven't frequented that mod's thread since 1.0 came out as I personally would rather use stock fairings so long as they get the job done, which I think the stock fairings do in spite of their problems. By "we" I mean the players who think the fairings are too heavy (myself included), by using a simple modman config.

Exactly, but functional The last time I used that mod it kept causing weird things to happen. I still wonder if it's what killed my original Bases series. It hasn't been updated since then, either, and the game's gone through 2 major revisions since then. I don't even want something fancy, I just want it to plop me at the space center so I don't have to go through those very pretty but also very non-user-friendly menus every time I start the game. Alternatively, QuickStaticStartMenus would be great, from my perspective

I don't know about other browsers but I was able to click that to make the image bigger, and then right click it and get this link: I'm not sure if that's the full size but it IS a png. Oh, and nice navball! If I ever reinstall this mod I may give it a run

I recently flew a plane about 1/4 of the way around Kerbin. I never got very fast, I don't think I ever saw mach 1 in fact. Due to the hardcoding of the temp display to F10 (my "record" key) I had the gauges on for the whole flight. I had the new non-retractable landing gear on the plane, and some time during the flight the temperature gauge popped up on them. 3 gauges, about halfway up. They also had a very light glow. After I landed, my Kerbal got out of the plane, took his surface science, and I recovered him. The game crashed. The log showed an OOM error. So at least in this case, high temperature or "lots of gauges" was not the cause.

I personally find all animated images annoying (Even the otherwise well done Doctor one). However, I just use adblock to hide them forever and go on with my day so no real harm done. Induce epilepsy at your leisure.

Wow we have different definitions of "basic tools for a good Mun landing." I'm nowhere near nuke and I'm about to send an Apollo-style mission to Mun. I love having the Jr docking port so low in the tree. That (and landing gear in the starter plane node) makes up for a lot of the ... part placements there.

My takeaway was that having no reaction wheels in a probe core is okay, and maybe even a good thing. Therefore, the initial furor over it subsided. Likewise, the initial furor over 1.0.2's atmo is (or at least seems to be) subsiding as well. The Round-8, on the other hand, was wrong and evil and shows that it's possible to survive without a soul, so they changed their minds when we didn't relent. I'm still torn on certain things. People seem to not like the mass of the fairings even though I seem to be able to get to orbit with less fuel with them on than without. I'm sure drag and lift and atmospheric density numbers aren't the absolute ideal and could be tweaked. Re-entry could use a kick in the pants so it becomes - if not deadly - at least something you need to think about. But these are all tweaks that are needed, not overhauls.

If you want to go the modding route, the Trajectories mod has a "fixed body" mode. when you're 90 degrees from your target, turn that mode on and verify that your white line will go over the target. Bammo, all set.

I plan on using them when I get a surplus of something. So far nothing yet.

You must actually be in a stable orbit, though 75km is a little higher than needed. I never remember the exact number but it's 69,xxx meters. I just make sure my periapsis is over 70km.

She's been renamed and regendered to match one of my viewers. It wasn't personal. I've done it to 25 Kerbals now including Jeb, Bill and Bob.

It does. I am using it right now.

Heh. CAUTION: This mod may be more useful than it appears!

I felt very much the same way. I was sick the weekend of the big Twitch 1.0 reveal streams and spent that time wrapped up with hot tea watching the streamers. And I was shocked as one after another confessed that they'd never played the game, had no plan for what they were going to do with their 2 hours, and gawked at an array of parts that they'd never seen before. Things that the entire forum has been excited to see for weeks weren't even mentioned. It wasn't until day *3* that we started getting decent information. This colored my opinion very darkly of the entire process. I understand that this has little to do with the QA and Experimentals teams but it was a huge slap in the face, and I think a lot of us, while recoiling from that, blamed the wrong hand for that slap.

It depends. Are you more familiar with FAR or .90 stock? If FAR, I say wait. You already have a similar skill set. If .90, then I say go for it. It's not like 1.0.3 is going to reverse gravity or make drag work at 90 degree angles or something. The vast majority of what you learn in 1.0.2 should apply just fine in 1.0.3.

You can orbit dozens of times with your periapsis in the high 60s. You lose almost no velocity.

I agree though in principle. There is nothing "career" specific to Kerbal stats and I think leveling up Kerbals would be a fine addition to Science mode.