Arsonik

Is this still working? I'd love to see an update.

Pass me that driver, we are going to Eeloo today.

Thanks for coming back.

Do bear in mind this game was available for purchase by 2013, could have been earlier if I'm not mistaken. It's not unreasonable to expect it to run on 2013 hardware.

You're gonna have to sink a heck of a lot faster to catch that guy though.

Is there a deadline to this service? For instance, if I decide to order something after the holidays will you still be accepting Kerbal stuff? The example models look great btw. It seems like the really long struts get removed completely, is this true? It could be the high contrast of the photo. I'm going to submit one or two things for sure, but I'm in no hurry and want to get something I will really be proud to share and show off. That is why I ask about a submission deadline. Thanks it advance.

I had that happen to me just the other day. Same exact background. *shrug*

I've done something similar, by splitting bays up into purposed smaller sections by using multiple small mk2 cargo bays with a mk2 probe as a "divider(s)", just with out the clipping. As long as you open your bay(s) with action groups it still looks more or less like one bay.

Your pride isn't on the line or anything here mate, don't be defensive about it. But the truth is this game and its community have always encouraged sharing of things and ideas as far back as kerbalspaceprogram.com and obviously here on the forums. You are right that you delude your own experience a bit by skipping the assembly buildings, but it doesn't make it an experience not worth having.

Did you have the probe on upside down? Was it plugged in? You made sure you pressed the power button before calling tech support, right?

I like this idea simply because it would make retractable wings..... Use it for a small re-entry vehicle that has to be in fairings during launch for example. Idk, think I'm gonna go test it and see if this works at all. Yeah. Doesn't really work so well in practice. Not in FAR at least

Not exactly what your looking for, but whenever people ask about voyages like this I think back to Scott hitting several of the major SOI's on his second launch in career mode. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqPyyaUjTpI] If this is possible, what you are asking for is definitely possible. The biggest obstacle for most people is constructing a craft that fits the bill but doesn't melt your PC (or crash the game). Cheers

Perhaps for some people, but there are still those who don't have extra memory available that will be unaffected by patch 1.1.

Given stable 64bit support I suppose the biggest adjustment for me will be actually "completing" a file and getting all that juicy science. All of my time in career so far has been limited to blitzing the tech tree and going back to sandbox. I simply due to much mod swapping, reinstalling, and things of that nature to keep a stable career file. This is due in part to mods updating anywhere from hours to months after a new version, or simply something new coming a long that looks like it does a better job then what I already have in place for that purpose. I'm hoping I will finally be able to take my "core" of mods and run with them on Direct X with out fear of crashing and stability issues for once. I'm not looking to add much here either. Mostly just take what I already have and push it into a realism install without jumping through hoops. The performance hits for OpenGL are a big price to pay.

I mean, you could use them to help steer the rocket as well if it was a super duper heavy whackjovian size deal, as opposed to using winglets. That would reduce redundancy by having one system for two jobs. I kinda like it.

In some sense that is very true. I think it is eloquent in the way that as the complexity of the crafts/ships you design increases so does the number of possible failure states. This is very much like the real world where adding additional complexity can be a detriment to the mission if it isn't absolutely needed. Add a strut? Sure. Well now that strut flew off and rips your fuel tank open. This works mainly in part to the lego block building style of the game. Failure states can be simulated in rigid body flight simulators of course, but it doesn't feel quite as natural IMHO.

Lel this is to good!!

That looks incredibly overkill for 1 orange tank....... Sorry for your loss though. RIP Hvy Lifter

I would very much enjoy a system where I can specify my own mission parameters piecemeal. So you have a list of varying objectives and flight conditions recognized by the game, much like the current contract system does. But when you opt to take a "mission", you, as the leader of this space agency, can choose what parameters to include in your mission. If I want to go to the Mun with 3 Kerbals and bring back surface sample, perhaps test some parts while I am there. Basically the current system just modified to give the player control of the mission. The Mun mission outlined above would look something like this when you are planning the mission You have a list of options you select from to form the mission [X] Explore The Mun [ ] Explore Minmus [ ] Explore Duna [ ] Explore Eve ........ [ ] Perform Surface EVA with 1 Kerbal at Destination [ ] Perform Surface EVA with 2 Kerbal at Destination [X] Perform Surface EVA with 3 Kerbal at Destination [ ] Perform Surface EVA with 4 Kerbal at Destination ........ [X] Collect Surface Sample at Destination [ ] Perform Goo Experiment at Destination [ ] Conduct Science Jr. Experiments at Destination [ ] Record Atmospheric Data at Destination ....... [ ] Test X Product at Destination [ ] Test Y Product at Destination [ ] Test Z Product at Destination [ ] Test N Product at Destination This is about as clearly as I can outline my idea so I hope the concept is clear because I think this would suit both styles of play ("hardcore" "realistic"/ "arcade" "casual"). Giving the player more control of their experience is always the best solution, no? That way, people that want LOLSOKERBAL contracts can make their own. And those of us trying to simulate a space program can simulate a space program. Of course, each objective you opt in for would have an associated reward (funds/rep/sci) and perhaps a multiplier towards your total mission reward for taking on multiple objectives.

I'm not going to try and outline any kind of installing instructions, but I did find that with EVE and 64k installed your clouds will be inside of the ground and look reallly, realllllly bad. I went into the configuration file for EVE and just set the cloud layer to 12,000m. - Navigate to "......Kerbal Space Program/GameData/BoulderCo/Clouds/cloudLayers.cfg". - Open the .cfg and press "Ctrl + F" to open the search dialogue. - Search for "body = kerbin" or just find it manually in the .cfg file. - Right under this line you will see "altitude = xxxxx" I think 4000 is default. Change this to 12000 or whatever you find suits you. I'm not going to try and outline any kind of installing instructions, but I did find that with EVE and 64k installed your clouds will be inside of the ground and look reallly, realllllly bad. I went into the configuration file for EVE and just set the cloud layer to 12,000m. - Navigate to "......Kerbal Space Program/GameData/BoulderCo/Clouds/cloudLayers.cfg". - Open the .cfg and press "Ctrl + F" to open the search dialogue. - Search for "body = kerbin" or just find it manually in the .cfg file. - Right under this line you will see "altitude = xxxxx" I think 4000 is default. Change this to 12000 or whatever you find suits you. Also, I always delete the city lights folder from BlouderCo and EVE folder in Gamedata. I think they look crummy but that is personal preference. When all else fails "RTFM"

I was getting the impression from the OP that if you use 2 fairing bases you can have a smooth fairing wall without any curvature. I haven't actually checked yet. Maybe I'm just not following correctly. I was aware you could already do inter-stage without 2 fairings, but due to the finicky-ness of this I have gone back to Procedural Fairings.

The destruction in that video simply didn't look anything like that in KSP in my opinion.

I wasn't aware this works. Although I never tried either... Which is kind of silly considering that procedural fairings involved a similar method of using 2 fairing bases. D'oh!

What if we could "weld" individual stages together? I'm not talking about the Ubizor mod. That thing was buggy as hell, fun as it was. A stock implementation.. Optional perhaps? A huge construct would still wobble like crazy between stages. But it wouldn't look like fuel tanks are made of paper-mache anymore. And? Lowered part count! I'm sure SQUAD has already considered all the possibilities of full/partial ship welding since Ubizor has been around for quite awhile now and been rather popular. Im not really preaching for or against part welds, but I think this would make a cool stock implementation.

Yes but we are talking over 3k dV here. I'm surprised that has 3k dV. And the surface gravity on Tylo is 7.x versus Kerbin's 9.8. If it gets that kind of dV you could put it under a Flea Booster and have an orbital capable 2 man delivery system for Kerbin. That is 2 things I never use that would work very well for that narrow purpose (deliver 2 Kerbs to LKO).