SyberSmoke

New heat system, you can burn up and die. New Aero system, things can fly better, but turn to fast and you die...rockets especially. New stock resource system (Thanks you RoverDude), mine ore and make fuel...Dying is optional. And more...much much more.

Paul, could you give your wedges a higher thermal limit? The wedges stick out over the heat shield of the craft (at least 1.25m shield and 4 wedge part filled) and start to explode on reentry. A higher thermal limit or may be some ablation to soak some of the added heat would be very nice. Thank you for the excellent mod and the updates.

I like the thought, I am lazy and like something simple. But I think this could be a little simpler to understand for the end user. I would like to suggest that you look at doing a bar that fills up as the thermal load of the part increases. Going from blue (cool) to Red (About the vaporize). This way some one can look at the UI element and see right away when things will explode. If you continue the theme, you can even add a value into it that shows the rate of change for the part. Just keep it in Kelvin please so we do not need to translate K to C or K to F. Ok, those are my thoughts, good luck.

I am a long time fan of this mod and enjoy it immensely. It takes so much guess work out of the game allowing me to do other things with my limited time. I look forward to when it has been put back together and thank you for all the hard work.

I will toss in a couple thoughts for you. 1. A set of Radial rigid radiators. Essentially exposed blocks of fins like you have in your computer. Interstellar had some for aircraft. But there would be a second part. Since drag is a thing now, I also would suggest a second part, a cowling that can be used to cover the radiator and reduce drag. This could be animated so it can retract, or could just be there temporarily, explosively detaching permanently exposing the fins. 2. Heat Sump: An object that while small is heavy and can store large amounts of thermal energy for dissipation. As it stands our fuel tanks are the heat sumps right now. But to get good efficiency you need a big tank. There are materials though that are very good at storing heat, like plane old water. As an interface between a heat generator and the ship, the player could put this sump in between. The heat would be stored and radiators could then be used to dissipate the energy. 3. Thermocouple module: The same tech as an RTG uses, Heat is converted into charge. The heat is still there and would need to be radiated away. But if it is hot...it is making power. Not much...but hey every unit of energy counts right? Ok, there you go, my thoughts. I want some radiators also and I would prefer not to have to dump on tons of solar panels. So I hope this comes to fruition, good luck.

Roverdude: I have a request for this pack. I would like to request a single use, spring loaded air brake for reentry. The thought is simple, to act as a source of drag to maintain reentry angle for the heat shield to work on cargo that is oddly shaped has strange weight distribution, or what ever other purpose may use it for. The module when placed would also be added to the staging menu. That way on reentry it can be hit and the craft will remain righted with out needing to use a chute in very early stages. With the new Aero model, this could be rather handy for landing awkward loads.

Yes it does show. I think the reason I did not see it is because I do not look in that corner much. I watch the nav ball and my screen is large enough that the indicator menu is rather small. Live and learn...

I will take a look, I just did not see something while I was mashing keys to recover my craft.

Technically, yes you can skip off the atmo. There is a BUT there though, a pod will more then likely not be able to because it does not have any control surfaces. Something with wings though could catch enough lift to change direction and skip.

The thing that gets me is there is no indicator of the current trim setting. No where on my screen are little sliders that say "Hey Stupid, you're changing something by doing this." I mean it is a semi-permanent change that if you have no idea about can really screw over your flight, so shouldn't there be some indication of what your doing on the screen?

To help out a little, adjust the thrust to keep your ascent speed subsonic. If you get the white supersonic effect, any attempt to turn will cause you to flip and burn. Boosters I have found LOVE to send you into that territory, so tone them down to keep you nice and even. Second thing I do is when I can, try to get your rocket over a couple degrees. I have gotten it to work by tapping carefully. The other option is to set your rocket at a slant off the bat. But this can be risky because if it does not pick up speed fast, it could carter really fast also. I have also found a little odd behavior. I do not know if it is stock, but reactions wheels have a small rotational force when not used. I have had a couple rockets just flip out from this. I have also had some odd cases of phantom forces...but I have not been able to track them down. Right now the reaction wheels are my main pain in the ass point.

So I was doing a tourist mission and I put a Stayputnick on top of a Mk1 Capsule and In-Line cockpit. The problem I found was that after I gout out of the atmo the craft became uncontrollable. It would rapidly spin up in a single direction, usually clockwise on the axis. And because I had not SAS I could not control it. Once I got back into the atmo and released the chutes, I started pressing buttons. Turning off both reaction wheels stopped the spin. So the question, is this intended behavior? Did squad give reaction wheels a passive rotational force when not under SAS control. This could explain some of the crashes I have had launching as something just starts pulling the ship sideways and the drag is not the source (I have drag lines going a lot). Edit: This I did not know but I was pressing Alt when using QWEASD. Apparently, holding alt then adjusting your direction sets a little slider some where. Tap Alt-E and your craft will start adding rotation on your long axis. Use Alt-W and it will set that rotation to accelerate. That was something painful.

Nope, I meant what I said. Initially we would use the stick then a launch platform could be built on the pad to replace the sticks.

I do agree also, the Kerbals are the main character of the story. Reading that made me think about he Kerbals. I could just see a late tier platform that has to be manned by a Kerbal for launching Sounding Rockets But he allows you to adjust the orientation and has a big red button to press.

I found this to, and it wobbles like mad. With the new Aero model it seems like one chute was not working and was flailing around to find some air. Would the first chute put the second into a shadow of some kind so it looses effectiveness? I do not know enough about the system it's self to make a judgement, but it was clear that there was little difference with two chutes for me compared to one.

I understand that, I think we all do. The rub though is that there are experiment entries for over and on the ocean. That is 17-20 science early on. Given we can make a couple shots early and we land in the planes, the water, or the coast. So with that we are missing out on 1/3 rd of the potencial science. Plus there is also the inclination to launch things over the ocean to. So that is why I suggested what I did. Because landing an experiment on the ocean, doing the science...it makes sense. So it would be nice if there were a mechanism (one or two tiers in) that offered a way to land our experiments in the water with out them exploding. I could really see a garbage bag, some duct tape, and a CO2 cartridge being employed as a float. That said...good mod and keep it up.

Start a game, Launch a Sounding Rocket. If it triggers the mission then you have the answer. If it does not...then you also have the answer.

How is this mod hard? How is it even pseudo hard. These are small, cheep, for science only rockets that you launch to progress some in the science tree. It is not like you need to strap a Kerbal onto the thing with duct tape and set it so they can not respawn. I do not get your perspective here...or may be you just missed the intent and purpose of the mod. I think that goes against the core concept of the mod. After all Rover said in the OP: The point of the mod is for early game progression with out the need to collect gravel and dandelions from the space center. Beyond that strikes me as beyond the intent of the mod. Rover can of coarse correct me, and if history is a judge...will. But once you get to a certain point in the tree you are just better off taking the small sci experiments, tossing them in a normal rocket, and running them that way.

As suggested, removed two experiments. Results. Water Landing: Near total loss - one experiment survived. Speed at impact: 6.8-7.3 m/s Payload bounced four times destroying avionics, batteries, and one experiment. Truss flipped rapidly. Ground Landing: Payload survived Result: water is still problematic. Second suggestion: Add a second truss (Testing for water only) Two experiment payload. Results: Total Loss of payload. Speed after Parachute deploy: 7.3-8.2 m/s. The second truss worked for the first two bounces on the water. But after that the payload flipped impacting the water destroying all elements except for a battery. The trusses kept bouncing for one minute after when I reverted to VAB. Solutions presented offered limited results. For launches that land on terrain they worked. But for water landings to get over water science, the proposed alterations resulted in near total loss of payloads.

The Payload: 1- Avionics Unit 2- Batteries from Jebs remote 1 of each experiment 1 - 0.35m parachute nosecone The problem: The small nature of the sounding rocket payload truss causes collision mesh overlap. The Result: The payload can be partially or wholly destroyed because of the overlap. Testing: The above album demonstrates the effect. Both launches used the same payload. Speed at time of full parachute deploy was 7m/s apx (it fluctuated between 6.3 and 8). The first launch was fired toward terrain. The result as the truss intersected with the terrain sinking about half way before sitting on the terrain. This of coarse also meant that the avionics package and two batteries also hit the terrain and were destroyed. The second launch was into the ocean. The on parachute deploy, the same speed of 7 m/s occurred. In this case the effect was worse. On impact the truss started bouncing violently on the water. At first only the avionics package and batteries were destroyed. But after three more bounces, all experiments and the nose cone were also removed from the truss. The simple solution for terrain would be to add a second truss adding more space for the impact. But this would also increase the weight of the rocket and parachute. But for water landings a second truss did not matter as it would bounce violently and the payload would be destroyed. Permanent Solutions: 1. Increase the crash tolerance of the experiments so they can withstand the impact at a reasonable speed. But this may not solve the issue with water landings. 2. Add an additional survival mechanism, a 0.35m and 0.625m inflatable inline cushion. The cushion can have a larger collision mesh that KSP will have less of an issue understanding. It can also act as a float for in water and could be a reentry shield for the rockets. After all...I am sure some one will make one that can get to space.

I was thinking that also. But I also had the thought of implementing a small inflatable. Terrain and water landings with a single chute have this tendency to cause catastrophic failure. The thought behind the inflatable would be to add in a cushion to add in extra space for the collision meshes. Especially for water landings where the object can bob when it lands wiping out all of the objects in the payload leaving only the cone and payload rack.

Last I saw for Interstellar, unless they changed it, the upgrade was done as a separate tech and then applied on a part by part basis. The idea was more to research the upgrade tier (to a limit) and it apply to all parts. I also understand the concerns concerning part sharing. The file could be locked of coarse, or the files could just use the stock values and the person sharing could say "this is this tier". The potencial is there to get better then stoke values, but it should not be so much better as to make past craft completely obsolete. Say after four tiers the NERV would get an extra 10 ISP in space going from 80 to 90. It would be a science sink, a reason to keep experimenting with out being over the top.

Science...stock or modded there is a point where once you get enough, there is no need for more. You have unlocked everything...there is little compelling you to go get more and parts that generate it become...redundant. So I am curious if a mod can update part values/attributes with out making a new CFG for the part? The thought is the creation of a mod that does not any any parts. Instead you use science to research upgrades to parts based on your discoveries. Nothing over the top, more like small incremental upgrades. Give the PB-Ion a small boost to thrust, make tanks fractionally lighter with better materials (The tank not the contents), upgrade the mk1 command pod with better batteries. Basically the sort of thing that we do with science all the time. Look at what is happening with the F-1 engines used in the Saturn V Rockets. After all this time, a team has taken one of the engines apart, redesigned it, simplified it, and used modern rapid prototyping techniques (Selective Laser Melting Technology) to make an updated and more efficient version. So...I ask...can it be done?

Why even use youtube at all? If you can get the file downloaded...just upload it to google drive for a short time and share via link. That way your Youtube profile is not on the line. There are many file lockers out there that give you enough room...

Fortunately it is likely not a model issue but instead a part file issue that could likely be fixed by changing a single line of text. The model is probably true, but its orientation in unity could be off by a fraction of a degree. If that is the case, the thrust component of the model would also be off as it would be tied to the model. Who knows when the problem manifested really. But I would guess it is something that was done by accident in unity and it has just gone unnoticed. I hope they fix it, may explain some instability I have had in the past also. I avoided mainsails because they always drifted slightly. Any way it is up to the developers to decide...not us.