Awass

It looks like KCT has disappeared from CKAN since it was updated.

Thanks so much. Now it's working with v 1.6.0.

I copied everything in the mod's game data folder into my game data folder, but the mod won't show up in game. I used Camera Tools back in 1.0.something, and it worked. Did 1.1 break it?

Well there is some serious selection bias here, being that everyone who responds to this thread has to be a forum user. If you posted this on Facebook for example, more people would say that they got their news from Facebook.

Also make sure your Clampotron Sr. docking ports are on the right way. It sounds dumb, but if you don't pay particular attention to it, it's easy to put the docking port on backwards. I did that one time and couldn't figure out for the life of me why it wouldn't dock.

So I did . I didn't have all the folders in the right place.

I downloaded HotRockets and CoolRockets as well as Module Manager and SmokeScreen and put them all into Mod Admin. However, when I started KSP, the default KSP exhaust effects were gone, but neither the HotRockets or CoolRockets effects appeared, so now there aren't any effects at all. Here are some pics: http://imgur.com/kInlCig http://imgur.com/kn9iIQf,SYJjNOX#0 http://imgur.com/kn9iIQf,SYJjNOX#1

And I'm not sure what happened to that quote

The Clampotron Sr. Docking Port is a mistake waiting to happen. I once made a station core based on it, sent that into orbit, launched another station part to dock with it, and only then realized the docking port was on backwards.

Let me start by saying that I love the look of the new parts, and they add a ton of new options for spaceplane and aircraft design. However, here are a few observations I have made: 1. The parts are too heavy/wings don't provide enough lift. Specifically, the passenger cabins. The Mk 2 passenger cabin weighs about 2.5 tons, and the Hitchhiker Storage Container weighs about 2 tons, and they both hold about 4 Kerbals. Since much of a passenger cabin is just empty space, it doesn't take that much weight to expand a passenger cabin to fit 16 Kerbals. The Mk 3 passenger cabin should weigh something like 4.5 tons instead of 6.5, which as it stands is impractical even if you use just one or two of them. Adding some wing parts with more lift but also more drag would help too. 2. A follow-up to number 1, an eighth-size fuel tank would also be nice because the quarter-size (short) already offers way more fuel than is often needed for a lot of planes and aircraft. Yes, you can adjust the fuel amount, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to place one eighth-size tank at the front and one at the back to balance the weight? Flexibility is always good. 3. The windows on the passenger cabin should be raised so that they are not in the middle of the part. This is kinda minor, but it would be nice to place wings in the middle (height-wise) of the passenger cabins without putting them smack on top of the windows. Placing the wings lower or higher than the windows fixes this problem but also moves the center of lift and center of thrust of wing-mounted engines off-center, which can be annoying when trying to balance the forces acting on a plane. 4. IVA textures. Have the internal textures not been added yet, or is it a bug that I just see black when I IVA in the Mk 3 cockpit and passenger cabin? Mainly, I want to use the new parts to make realistic-looking airliners, but usually that leads to sluggish, slow planes that only stay level at a 20 degree angle of attack for some of the reasons mentioned, even with only a few passenger cabins and minimal fuel. So how do you use the new parts and deal with the challenges they present?

Even without a free return trajectory, you can still make a figure 8 like the Apollo missions did. Just burn so your apoapsis reaches the Mun's sphere of influence, but keep the apoapsis inside the Mun's orbit of Kerbin instead of going around the far side of the Mun. Once you enter the Mun's sphere of influence, you need to burn prograde to set up an orbit around the Mun. You will end up orbiting the Mun clockwise whereas you (assumably) launched from Kerbin counter-clockwise, and you will have yourself a figure 8. I believe it's actually slightly more efficient too because you have to cancel less excess velocity when setting up your Munar orbit than if you went around the far side.

Is this a know issue then? Are there plans to fix and extend the 3.75 m parts?

It's seems pretty weird that the SLS decoupler has an ejection force of 100, whereas the Rockomax decoupler for the 2.5 meter has a force of 250, I believe. The larger diameter part has a weaker decoupler, and from my experience, the 100 ejection force really isn't enough. Also, it'd be nice to have a separator. So is this intentional, is this an oversight, or am I just plain missing something?

I totally agree, and I don't think a few cutscenes would in any way take away from the sandbox experience. And as to your second point, the cutscenes wouldn't play every launch, but only when you reached some kind of progression milestone, but by all means, the more options, the better.