HeadHunter67

The Bill version seems to work fine, but the Jeb version causes problems in the VAB with 0.21.1... Clicking on it from the parts menu brings up an old-style MJ window with vessel info, it cannot be closed. Cashing in the part makes the VAB look like it's back to normal, but then you can't click on anything (even menu buttons). Even changing the Jeb-9000 part config so that all values are the same as Bill-9000 doesn't fix it. Essentially I just use the Bill part then. Not that there's any difference except appearance... nor should there be of course.

Thanks. Looks like we all ninja'd each other there.

I definitely think you should unify your creations into a single thread. I found the link for your corridors/walkways but couldn't find the greenhouse. I checked by previous posts under your username but found nothing. [EDIT: This looks like the right one.]

That's a more likely oversight than the other possibility. I'm recalling how Sumghai mentioned wanting to change the Kupola as it wasn't intended as a control component, and the explanation sounded like it has bearing on this. In the meantime, I suppose an individual user could change things either way to suit what they want.

If you're looking for more interesting and fun probe parts, try AIES Aerospace. As far as parts packs that are consistent with the stock game, KSPX comes to mind immediately. IT's only got like 9 parts in it now, because the others were added stock in 0.21. As far as "cosmetic" mods - things that enhance gameplay without adding new parts or features, I recommend Chatterer (ambient radio communication during missions) and RCS Build Aid (invaluable for seeing how your thrusters will work while building a craft). I also use SelectRoot (allows you to set a different part as the "root" of the ship), Subassembly Manager, Tac Parts Lister and Part Catalog. All of these plugins make construction simpler and easier to understand. I've just also added Editor Extensions, which allows greater control over parts placement.

Why would an airlock have torque? Or the kupola, considering what Sumghai had said about his design intent for it. If I'm understanding the system, only modules that can be used as control systems should have torque - that being, SAS systems/reaction wheels and probe cores/command pods (or any module that can be used in the same fashion). Controlling a ship from an airlock seems unlikely and might explain why those values were deliberately omitted. Of course, I could be wrong - in which case we may see a hotfix.

There's this mod: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/20-asteroids-from-fasa-2/

It doesn't... the craft that dock with it do. And when they're docked, the game considers them part of the station, so if you accidentally hit shift, any engines that aren't manually disabled will throttle up. You kind of need engines to get to and from an orbital station, as you probably can imagine.

Kerbin itself must be made out of some incredibly dense material, to have a diameter that's 1/10th of Earth but still the same gravity - especially since Kerbin's mass is 1/100th of Earth! According to the KSP wiki, Kerbin is 10 times denser than Earth. We can therefore conclude that their planet must consist primarily of osmium, iridium and platinum - a very valuable planet! This would explain why they are able to build things that endure more stress and punishment than they should. I suggest that a goal of our own space program should be to find this world, travel to it, and occupy it for mining.

When I first docked an Apollo-style CSM to my new space station (for a Skylab-fashioned rescue/return vehicle) I made the same mistake momentarily. Fortunately I cut thrust immediately and didn't alter my station's orbit too significantly. Since then, I too have gotten into the habit of manually disabling the engines of approaching craft - in fact, I do so when I begin the docking procedure, for safety. The only thing worse than firing a craft's engine while docked with a station, would be firing the engine while on approach and plowing right into the station.

You do know that docking ports on real spacecraft allow for the transfer of items and personnel? When astronauts arrive at the ISS, they don't EVA from the capsule (or the shuttle) to a station airlock. They go through the docking tunnel in their shirtsleeves. The Apollo astronauts didn't transfer from the CM to the LM (and back) by EVA. The only reason we need Crew Manifest for that is because the developers haven't yet given us docking ports that actually work as they should.

I've got to say I'm very impressed by this video - it's the sort of thing that can get space enthusiasts into this game in the first place! I'm pretty much the same way. I do enjoy learning to fly in the game, but I don't want the game to just be all the repeated trial-and-error until I get to that point. I want to enjoy the rest of the game in the meantime - designing and building ships and stations, visiting other celestial bodies, etc. I approach just about every recreational endeavor with the rather libertarian approach that one's enjoyment need not be dependent on, or justified to, those with whom one is not playing. That's the whole concept of "play", after all. We share a common game, but nothing I do in KSP really changes, harms, influences or prevents what someone else does... so what's it matter which mods I use or when I let the robot drive? Forget the flying car, where's my house on the Moon? A lot of our childhood's technological vision of the future never came to fruition because of practicality more than actual technological limitations. They can build flying cars now - but consider all the idiots you encounter on a typical daily commute. Now take away the roads and imagine the potential for disaster! If every moron has independent flight, I'd bet flying would no longer be the statistically safest form of travel. That said, I agree about the unexpected technical developments since the beginning of the Space Age. Computing and communications of today are stuff that seemed outrageous even in Star Trek when I was growing up (and in fact they may have been influenced by it!).

Private individuals could use the logo on a flag in their game for two reasons: It falls under "fair use", and more importantly, it's not worth pursuing any kind of legal action over it anyhow, especially against private individuals using a graphic for personal use in a video game. (How would they honestly even know?) Now if someone made a mod with that logo on it, they might get a cease and desist if the owners had no sense of humor about it.

A thousand thanks to you - that sounds like exactly what I needed! Have some rep, good sir. So I've tried out Editor Extensions and honestly, the only feature I like so far is the vertical snap. It completely hoses traditional KSP symmetry and angle snap, unless I'm just not understanding something.

Looks like all the people that said 0.21 would be smoother and more refined and load and run faster than .20 were clearly and sorely mistaken.

Don't feel bad - that's Mediafire for you. It's due to their pop-under ads and probably browser specific. I have had the same problem with Mediafire links using versions of IE for years. Just got to keep refreshing and retrying when that happens.

Do they have a craft file of the rocket from that tutorial? I'd happily try building it myself if the construction system in this game weren't so damn infuriating at times. I remember in the Sims how it used to love putting doors in the wrong orientation or backwards... the VAB does this with radial symmetry. The parts wind up at an off angle, or too close to the center object. Or if you have to do 2 pairs of 2x symmetry around a rocket, one side will be a little higher or lower than the other... then, when it's time to strut and you accidentally click the object below it and undo all that work by misaligning it... I apologize for digressing, but I can't imagine I'd be able to actually construct that as intended because of all that.

Thank you for the honest and polite responses. I agree that it must be a hard balancing act to make a capsule that can achieve Martian/Dunar orbit but not so powerful as to achieve orbit of Kerbin. I'm sure it can be done and I'm glad that it's a sensible consideration. And it's OK to have something like the current SuperDracos if the intent is as you have said, to go everywhere with them. I guess the best starting point for balance is to take the real world stats, scale them to the game, size them up against comparable stock values, give it a bit of a bonus for being more advanced, and tweak it from there. I'm not much for "maths" in my games but I appreciate that there are people who can (and like to) do so. If I understand the little delta-v map I saw on the wiki, you'd basically want something that gives more than around 2900 m/s (to get from the Dunar surface to Low Kerbin Orbit) but less than around 4500 m/s (because the idea isn't to have a capsule that can achieve a Kerbin orbit all on its own). Does that sound about right? I look forward to the ongoing success and development of your mod - and in the meantime I'm going to give my Kerbals a tan in that beautiful blue light.

I'd be interested in that, Dizzy.

Another thing that can really help in docking is understanding what the nav ball is doing. When you target the docking port you want to approach, it will appear as a pink circle on the nav ball. Try and align your ship with this indicator. As you get closer, you will notice that the yellow prograde marker moves closer to that indicator. Ideally, both will be in the center of your nav ball - and that's when you know you are on the ideal approach. Then, just take it slow. At the last moment, activate your SAS and it will help to seal the docking ports together.

I finally got mine today and I love it! More importantly, my wife loves it too, and doesn't mind what I spent on it. So it's all good

Just one observation. I do not want to start a flame war, I genuinely want to understand: Why do both of the Dragon capsules I've tried have the capability to reach orbit without any other parts but the capsule engines? Is there some real-world reason that influences the mod design? I'm not trying to be critical, I honestly do want to understand why this part performs as it does in-game.

I comprehend very clearly what he intended to say - the fact is, his claim was wrong. He made a statement of certainty before knowing what it entailed. That's why MR.Mac had the expectation that it would work. The problem isn't my comprehension - it's with people who don't say what they mean, and mean what they say. If that's not what Tiberion intended, he should have chosen his words more carefully. I'm more inclined to think that even Tiberion thought the mod would continue working when he made that statement.

It looks very nice - when you get those attachment nodes working, I may want to try it out on my space station.

Fustek is my choice, and the Large Station Structure pack adds some nice options too.