almagnus1

Well, if TakeTwo does something stupid and removes the mods from KSP it's gonna kill the community.

It's been a while since I've been able to use Infernal Robotics, so I have two questions with it's current state: How critical is TweakScale? Did the rework parts pack get integrated into the base mod?

From what I'm seeing of the S-IC construction, it looks like once you've gotten the core put together, there's a lot of subassembly construction, so you could have one person start working with bag 6 on the S-IC just building sub assemblies and allowing the person working on the S-IC to meet them in the middle basically, which would greatly accelerate the construction. The same could be done for S-II also. The only thing that's not clear on S-IC is how they're handling the intertank, specifically with the blocks that you're using to complete it. Are those basically 8 of the same sub assembly, or are the two batches of four slightly different?

That's good to know =) So factoring in: So taking the bag mapping and the stuff from the PDF, that means we have the following bags => hardware mapping Bags 1-6: S-1C Bags 7-10: S-II Bag 11: S-IVB Bag 12: Everything else So with sufficient devices, you could definitely put quite a few people to work making stuff. That could be quite a fun family project =)

If we wanted to conscript include friends and family with the build process, how well does the set allow for parallel construction?

Thanks for the tips! =D If anyone else has any other advice, please let me know =) I wish we could time it for this, but we're going for a birthday, so it's more hoping that the launch schedule lines up with the visit as people are flying in.

I'm going to be visiting the real KSC [not the Kerbal one] later this summer so.... Does anyone have any recommendations on stuff to do (or avoid) at KSC and the surrounding area?

Yeah, but what would be an ever better run of it is to have the landing on Duna occur in the same spot all three times, and land back at KSP all three times. And while we're at it, if you can actually manage to land ON the launch pad twice (so all three trips start from the same spot), that would be even more impressive. Yeah, it's been done, but Hazardish has shown a level of precision that the other one didn't.

Very impressive, and a solid work overall. **Throws Gauntlet** Now do Duna! =D

I'm working with Sounding Rockets again for the first time in a long time, but I'm encountering an issue where I don't see how to stage the fairing shells... which is making things difficult. Sounding Rockets is one of about 63 mods being installed (all being managed via CKAN). There's no indication on staging, nor are there any hooks that I can use for the subgroups, so I'm wondering if there's something in the config I did wrong, or if there's something that has changed and I've just missed it. Edit: Did a wipe and reinstall of the KSP directory and all mods, and the issue is resolved.

Soooo, we should start calling the kerbonauts kerblams and the Sun Kerbol? I like it!

Do you think this mod is ready for publishing on CKAN? I'm not part of the team, but I know enough of the indexing to get you going along the path to getting OSF listed. Essentially, it boils down to getting a JSON file that defines your dependencies (if any exist), and any special installation instructions you may have. The targeted version of KSP and latest mod version is used to determine which version of the mod is being updated for CKAN. Keep in mind that this info is several months old, so it may not be entirely accurate. The spec is at: https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN/wiki/Adding-a-mod-to-the-CKAN What I've done in the past to get mods added is create a rough draft of the JSON that has everything I see, then open a new issue here: https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN/issues/new That generally gets you going in the right direction. If it wasn't after midnight PST, I'd help get you started a bit better, but hopefully that sheds a bit more light on how CKAN works.

Do not feed the magic boulder after midnight.

It makes about as much sense as "We shouldn't name it because it starts with K", or any of the other reasons provided for why Kerbol isn't an acceptable name for the star. And also, no accounting for taste, I see.

You need help on your examples, as the only one that's bad there is Pol Pot. You realize that's a very Kerbal RV, right? I mean, it's exactly what we'd do for an RV that'd land and detach from a wing section for use on Laythe.

The problem with Bol is.... Uwe Boll.

But when the language goes into YouTube, what happen then?

That's a Transformer =P Kerbol also sounds like Kobol from Battlestar Galactica (see http://galactica.wikia.com/wiki/Kobol ) which actually makes the refernce kind of fun too =D

That's like trying to get an American and a Canadian to say the following phrase identially: Sorry, I was out and about.

It's cause we were trying to follow the Sun on Kerbin and got lost because we should have been using Kerbol........

"The Sun" is our star, not the star of the Kerbin system. That's like astronomy 101 stuff dude.... Then you have those of us that pronounce mole and bowl as rhyming words, so your logic is clearly flawed. Hooray for regional accents. In other words: Don't change it cause it will suck (whatever it will be). Oh? Show us the proof.

We have all know the star that Kerbin orbits to be known as Kerbol, and even the Wiki article calls it this (see http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Kerbol ), so it's time to make the change official. Rename The Sun to Kerbol!

If we know position and velocity vectors, wouldn't that be enough to replay the failure? For most failure scenarios, it's because there's a weakpoint in the design (like oscilation caused by having too small of a node bear too much stress), and most of those failure scenarios wouldn't need the precision that would make floating point rounding an issue.

One feature that would help us figure out (and fix) RUD situations is the ability to be able to replay, and watch, a failure from an arbitrary point of view, and be able to slowly step through the failure as it occurs. Ideally, being able to see aerodynamic and physical stresses on the parts would help, as that can help us determine if we need to add more struts, SRBs, fins, duct tape, and/or prayer to fix the design flaw. I mean, I don't mind a spectacular RUD every now and again, but being able to pull more data from the fireworks show would help improve that aspect of the gameplay experience.

Check out RealChute.