slay_mithos

It's really a shame about the incompatibility with deadly reentry, because I really like the added challenge, and I have been using it since quite a while back. I know that stock does have a better heat management, but the mod suits my tastes better. On the other hand, KSPI is a great mod that adds a lot of fun things, especially for people like me that like to send stupid payloads to various stations. It also does couple really nicely with Remote Tech, with beamed power and communication on the same small-ish stations. For now, I'll keep with deadly reentry, and if I feel that I miss KSPI too much, I might change things around. Anyway, it's nice to see this mod resurfacing every now and then, even after the author stopped working on it, so thanks a lot to all of the people that put hours into making it into this updated version.

wasn't the geostationnary orbit changed from 6h to 5h59m59 or something like that with 0.24?

I was pleasantly surprised to see that it supports all the mod added science too, it helps me a lot on my 0.23.5 game.

Good, because for now, it feels more like the "random contracts" where. From what I tried of the new version (and the lot from the old), your mod is shaping up to get a place in the top of my mod list, along with FAR, KAS, Kerbal Engineer and Remote tech, as "must have".

Can we hope for a future version that integrates missions in line with what we had? The main thing I like about the 0.23.5 MCE is the somewhat story based mission lines, and the fact it gives goals progressively harder to reach as you unlock more parts.

It would indeed be nice if the "time" followed the 6h=1d and other peculiar time rules on Kerbin. I always get confused when mechjeb tells me 1d 8h and such, because the game UI prints a different time (the seconds/minutes are the same, it's just the conversion to "day" and "year" that's messed up.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43645-KSP-23-5-Mission-Controller-Extended-Ver-723-%28Opt-Use-Default-KSP-Prices%29-7-2-2012?p=1285563&viewfull=1#post1285563 (page 200) TL;DR: the mod is in the process of being completely rewritten to be in line with the new contracts

Knowing that he is doing a full rewrite, it would be odd not to take into account what vanilla KSP provides.

What I'd love to suggest is the ability to take on multiple missions, by locking the current one to a specific vessel. At the start, it doesn't have much use, but as you get missions to other planets, there is all the wait for a transfer window and right now, you need to name the vessel in order to remember what mission to take when the time comes. As I understand it, it should be possible, seeing that the "ownership change" missions keep a text in the mission box afterwards.

Hum, if MCE kept the refund, then what would be the point in installing an other mod for refunds? I'm a bit confused...

It just occured to me what "RSS" from the mission pack meant, it's for the real solar system mod. This explains why it made no sense with the altitudes and coordinates. It might be good to state what this stands for in the first post, for people that might not know what abbreviations might mean.

Hello, I'm was using the version "65", and had a strange glitch, where the text would stop wrapping, putting scroll bars in the windows. It didn't seem to be related to any error (nothing of note in the alt+F3 window), and it would come back to normal after a restart of the game. Thinking it might be because I was on an old version, I installed the version 723, but it seems to still happen. Apart from this issue, I am really loving how the mission give goals, and I can also choose my own goal. The only way it could be even better would be the ability to "bind" a mission to a flying craft, so that you could take on multiple missions, when it starts to involve waiting long time for transfer windows, but that's fairly small compared to all that's already possible. So many thanks to everyone involved in making this awesome mod and missions.

Mainsail is OP? Guess you need to rework your definition a bit... Sure, it offers a damn powerful thrust, but the efficiency is not that great, it chew through your fuel at an incredible rate. If you don't look at ISP numbers, or if you use "infinite fuel", they sure pack a lot of power, but if you take into account that they need a lot of fuel, their TWR plummets really fast. In the case of this challenge, it's even worse, because you can't decouple empty tanks, so good luck even getting to orbit while still having your rules. ISP is 280/330 for a thrust of 1500. In case you don't understand ISP, let's just say that the lower the number, the higher the fuel consumption for a given thrust. This is the main reason why people use nuclear engines in the void (low thrust, but very high ISP in void), and small vessel can be fully reliant on aerospikes (quite high ISP with a decent thrust). Your engine basically has a bit more thrust than the NovaPunch mod's version of the 2.5m of Nuclear engine (it has 300), but with ISP values far off the chart for any engine apart from the ion engine. To speak in terms you will understand, look at the Delta-V and the acceleration (in m/s²) for your ship, and try switching the engines for the "overpowered" mainsail, or other stock-like engines. While mainsail will give you a far better acceleration, due to their high thrust, you will see that the total acceleration with the given fuel (Delta-V) will be significantly lower. If you still don't believe me, then try your ship with Mainsails, and come back to us after testing that out, I would be amazed if you even manage to orbit your ship. EDIT: As I read my post, it's damn offensive, so let me say this. The challenge itself is not bad, but some of the rules (one stage, kerbal to weight ratio) make it really hard to come up with interesting designs. Maybe making the rules apply starting from when you get a stable kerbin orbit would be a bit better, I don't know.

(someone just reading barging in) Wait, ISP of 2000 at sea level, 5000 in void, and 320 thrust? I sure am not the only one finding those engine cheaty, right? The stock nuclear is 220/800 and 60 thrust. Heck, even the most efficient engine in stock parts, the ion "only" has an ISP of 4200 in the void, but for a thrust of 0.5. If you use engines that are so much more efficient and powerful than the standard ones, you might as well let people toggle infinite fuel or gravity via cheats, no? Not taking part into the challenge, it might be just me talking without knowing, but it seems to me that your entire challenge is based on having access to vastly overpowered things, so you might want to try to stick with parts more in line with the stock ones, at least for engines and fuel. Just my two cents though, so feel free not to take it to heart.

This is mostly questions to know if I will try it. 1. Can I use any body that is not Kerbal (Mun and Minmus, mainly)? I mean that the Mun is a great place for mining Kethane, as it basically got more than any other body, and Minmus is close and low gravity, so both are great for advanced posts early. 2. Can I use Orbital Construction redux as a mobile launch pad? It makes the whole thing much easier, as you can basically have a massive spaceship making the bases while orbiting the body where the base needs to go, and only needs Kethane for parts. 3. Am I limited in the number of launches in the first 200 days? Whether #2 is a yes or not, having a ton of spaceships in kerban orbit that have resources for the various future bases is a definite plus, and you can launch an insane amount of ships in a 100km orbit in 200 days. Not being good at the whole thing, those question would definitely help shape how to approach the challenge, and I am quite sure others could benefit from knowing this too. For once, it's a challenge that could be taken by new-ish players.