TeeGee

How about see through windows? Can we have that instead?

Naw I didn't say Squad should be forcing anything, I just recommended that for each difficulty setting the game becomes more and more realistic. Maybe even have a realistic mode.

C'mon guys this is a rocket simulator... we can't only have a few aspects of engineering rockets and not have the rest of it. We need life support, different fuels, radiation, part failures, simulated aero and heating forces, line of sight communication and transmission delays etc. The whole point of this game is to teach common gamers about designing a mission in space. Rocket science is supposed to be hard and this game should reflect how much thought goes into each and every mission. I recommend that Squad has different levels of difficulty that reflect realism. Easy should be stock KSP as is. Normal should be a larger Kerbin system with life support etc. and Hard should be real life sized Kerbin system with EVERY realistic feature you can have in the game. Hard should basically be an engineering sim set in the Kerbal universe.

Well I've been playing with FAR and RO for a long time but I usually build rockets with CoP behind the CoM which usually isn't difficult in real sized rockets because of how tall they are BUT I'm currently trying out 0.64x Kerbin and my rockets generally are much shorter than my RO rockets due to the decreased delta v requirements to get into orbit. Engine gimbal in stockalike engines is NOT as good as real life engines so if you build an unstable rocket like mine, chances are more likely you'll lose control when you pitch too far away from the prograde vector.

But when I try to pitch away from my prograde meter my rocket flips. All of the real world rockets have CoL behind CoM and I would like to build reliable rockets that are hard to lose control of if possible.

Help. No matter what I do I can't seem to get the CoL below the CoM. The fairing I have is stock and whenever I remove it the CoL goes WAAAYY below the CoM but when I put it on this happens.

Is it possible to have the same plume effect but on the stock version of the engine flame? For example, have the same look of the stock engine flames but as it gets higher and higher and as pressure drops the flame expands? Just an idea.

Vanilla KSP doesn't really need an upgrade, this is more for the mods and fans than anything else. I think of stock KSP as the EASY mode for the game, when I begin installing the mods that I really want the game becomes much more difficult and involving. I think squad sees this as well and decided to upgrade ksp to the newer unity engine because people want to add bigger and more numerous mods to the type of game they want KSP to be. If squad FORCED us all to play stock KSP ONLY I guarantee people would have become bored of it and stopped playing it years ago. So in conclusion it is in squads best interest to keep the community happy and keep upgrading the game so that we can play the game we want with the features we demand. I for one am hoping for a massive performance improvement with this newer engine but am expecting nothing very noticeable.

I've been using this mod with 6.4x kerbin mod and noticed that the game chugs a lot whenever I look at the clouds... is there anyway to improve the frame rate while using this mod because I really like it except for the fact it slows my laptop down.

Does venstockrevamp use real chutes as well? I know it isn't listed on the mods list but I just wanted to be doubly sure.

Hello all, I recently visited Kerbalstuff to install another mod that I liked and found that the site is now shut down by the creator. Please confirm this update and let us all know the official story. https://kerbalstuff.com/

Has anyone ever done a mission around the kerbin system using TAC, remote tech, Dangit and the parts available from Vens' stock revamp? I'm trying to think of spacecraft designs that would work and if anyone has already done so, could you be so kind as to share how you did it? Even missions to any other planet like Laythe, or Eeloo would be great. I'm also planning on using the parts from nuclear propulsion pulse rockets mod (Orion and Medusa) but haven't gotten around to using them yet. Here is a pic of my Interplanetary craft that I am currently using to push crew and cargo to their destinations, she just had her shakedown mission to Mun, performed a landing mission, and returned her crew back home safely:

Just a little recommendation: Is it possible to create an effect in KSP that allows for part charring? For example when we pass a rocket plume over a part the part becomes blackened where the flame hit. Same with reentry. Just an idea.

Ven could I make some part suggestions? - Mk1 pod LES - I'd also like to recommend an electrical wiring part like the fuel lines for our electrical parts. I don't really care about functionality so much as aesthetics, it looks more real if we had electrical wires from our more distant solar panels to our intended core modules. - Mk3 part revamp. This mod should be stock. I've said it many times before but this is how the game parts should look like.

Has any real plume config for Ven stock revamp new bollard engine been made yet? God I love this mod and vens parts!

Wow...

AWESOME! Actually I was hoping to do a 9.8m/s/s constant accel to about halfway to Duna then go retrograde and burn 9.8 m/s/s until I reach orbit.

Hi everyone, Quick inquiry about the Nuke engine... what ISP and thrust would it need to have to maintain a 1 G thrust to and from DUNA while pushing 15-25 tons? The reason I am asking is because I wanted to start tweaking the nukes cfg file to simulate what interplanetary travel would be like if we had access to a 1 G acceleration engine. How long it would take to and from our duna destination etc. Thanks for your contribution!

VAB: Once your parts are tested and pass inspection, they are available for assembly in the VAB. I could go on for pages on how the parts in KSP look like garbage but I'm going to refrain from discussing that.. for now. First, stacking parts just like normal BUT once you've finalized the rocket stack, you are able to WELD the parts together. Once you weld the part, the attach node disappears and the part becomes ONE piece. In my version, once your rocket is assembled and you are ready to launch, click the WELD button and the attach nodes in your rocket become visible. If you click on the nodes, that action welds the part together AT THAT NODE. Welded sections make the rocket stronger and also decreases the part count. Depending on the size/level of the VAB, you can only weld a LIMITED number of attach nodes together. Radially attached parts cannot be welded to the core part. IF the radially attached part has an attach node it is able to be WELDED in its own stack. The reason I want welded parts is because I am tired of seeing wobbly rockets. Struts should ONLY be used to anchor radially attached parts, not to reinforce core stacks. New part: Fuel IN ports. Rocket tanks are transported to the pad EMPTY, thus they should be fueled on the pad (which is why all of those tanks exist around the pad). Adding a fuel port to tanks allows the tank it is attached to to be fueled. If the tank is welded to another tank, the capacity of the parts are SUMMED into one tank when we right click on the part. Once our rocket is moved onto the pad, fuel lines from the launch tower (I'll cover this in a second) should be feeding into these ports. Once we open the fuel ports, fuel starts to fill up our tanks. Same thing happens with fuel crossfeeds. If you want to allow crossfeeds between tanks, they NEED fuel ports. Not only that BUT a fuel line can only allow a finite amount of fuel in per unit time. Thus if a rocket booster requires a fuel flow that exceeds the fuel lines flow rate, the engine will starve and not run once its main tank is depleted. Launch towers: Ok we absolutely NEED LAUNCH TOWERS. A rocket stack cannot launch without one in real life and thus nor should it be ignored in KSP. We need launch towers for many, many reasons: transport crews up to their Command pods, fuel tanks, provide umbilical power, stability, comms, maintenance etc. Towers should be built IN THE VAB as part of the stack in this manner: once the rocket itself is assembled, we have one last part to attach to the bottom, the launch pad. The launch pad has a fire trench, legs, and sound suppression water system built into the flame trench. Once you attach the launch pad to the bottom of the 1st stage rocket cluster, a procedural generated launch tower should appear from the pad like the launch clamps usually do to the height you want. At the top should be the crew ramp with white room that leads to the CM (if you have one) attached to the elevator shaft that goes all the way to the ground of the VAB. The flame trench is also procedurally generated depending on the size and number of boosters on your stack. Example: If I have a core booster with 1 big engine and 2 side boosters with smaller engines, the launch pad should have 3 trenches that are generated depending on the size of the engine, one for each engine. Each with their own sound suppression system. I recommend that for the BOTTOM MOST STAGE for every rocket with ENGINES attached, ONE node should appear directly center and bellow the final core engine cluster to allow for attachment of the launch pad. Launch clamps should automatically appear and attach to the rocket once we've finalized the tower height. Fuel: Easy. If we have attached fuel ports on our rocket that are facing the launch tower, fuel lines AUTOMATICALLY come out of the tower and attach to them in a 90 degree fashion from the tower. Build time: I've always liked kerbal construction time so I'm going to adopt its strategy for building rockets. Once you are satisfied with your stack, the top green button should not longer say LAUNCH but BUILD!!. Once you click it, it will ask you if you are sure? Click yes and the VAB will dump you outside and the VAB will be temporarily INACCESSIBLE until the rocket has been built. Build speed depends on the VAB level. The time it takes should be AT LEAST a week. The option to fast forward to completion should obviously exist. Every unit of time spent building, costs money. If you stop building, the parts that have already been assembled will go into storage until they are needed for another launch. Parts that are recovered are ALSO stored here, providing incentive to reuse your rockets/planes as much as possible. BOTH THE VAB AND SPH have VERY LIMITED space for rocket storage. THE SPH can hold up to 9 craft in storage while the VAB can only hold 1 complete rocket at a time. For this reason, it may be a good idea to keep planes in a hanger near the runway as opposed to wasting space in the SPH. The completed rockets cannot be stored anywhere else other than held temporarily in the VAB until they are launched. I like this idea because that means that the VAB is devoted to ONE rocket launch at a time, like in reality. Roll out: Once we have built our rocket, we should have the option to roll-out. Once selected, we should see the VAB doors open, and the crawler with the launch pad and rocket stack emerging out of the VAB doors slowly. We should be free to watch the rollout in its entirety OR skip it entirely. Once the crawler reaches the launch site, it sets the pad down and rolls away back into the VAB. This is SOOO important of a feature to me because it is the big reveal of our design. Once at the site, we have the ability to fuel, man and launch our rocket at our discretion. Launch: First staging should be the open fuel lines for fuel. Second staging is retract crew ramp, third stage is sound suppression water system, fourth is engine ignition, fifth is clamp and fuel line release etc. Continued...

Here are my tips on how to keep the core spirit of KSP intact while giving it some more features that enhance the immersion and wow factor of the game: Give the player an avatar Kerbal. This avatar is the director of the KSP and you can name him whatever you want. The campaign should start off with a car pulling up to the center with your kerbal inside, and you are given a tour of the center with Von Kerman. The previous director had an "accident" with one of the rockets and you were recruited to replace them ASAP. As a result, new safety features need to be put into place to prevent any more "accidents" from happening and to improve and inspire the rest of the kerbal race for space exploration. Your first job is to allocate budge for R & D and launches. Gathering science should NO LONGER be the only way to unlock new parts, but it can be used for a boost to funding and engineers. Parts require 2 things, money and engineers. And as oppsed to being able to unlock and use a part as soon as you can afford them, the parts should be researched that requires TIME. The more advanced the part, the more time it requires to research (and thus more funds). Science gathered from missions can be used to attract and hire newer engineering teams that can make the process go by faster and cheaper. SCIENCE SHOULD NOT BE A CURRENCY TO UNLOCK PARTS. I thought this was a silly idea since it was implemented. For example: Lets say you gather science from Mun on an EVA and return it to Kerbin. The science you gather is complied into your space programs science reputation pool, which in turn unlocks better engineers who want to work for you. At the beginning of the game only the craziest and dumbest engineers are part of your program staff but as you get more scientifically reputable smarter engineers start applying to work for your program. ANY engineering team can start research on a part in ANY part of the tech tree BUT it would take more or less time depending on the skill of the team doing the research. YOU SHOULD ONLY HAVE a limited number of teams, each with specific skill and knowledge level that impact how quick it takes to research and develop new tech. ONCE the part is built, you need to TEST IT at least a couple of times to certify it is usable for rocket craft. We as the player DON'T have to actually test the part BUT we can watch the test if we wanted to in the testing facility. Each part that we test has a chance to fail depending on the engineering teams safety record. If the part was a rocket engine, it needs to survive ignition, burn for x amount of time, gimbals in all axis (if it has gimbal ability) and survive shut down. IF a parts fails, it costs money and requires re-testing. In order to test a part we need a new testing facility. We should also be able to upgrade this facility, further improving the safety stats for each part we test. Once the parts passes testing, it is green lit for use on our rockets in the VAB. Engineering teams should have the following characteristics: - stupidity - safety - efficiency/speed - SALARY (per unit time) Our space program should have finite engineering teams with their own salaries, and finite slots to research parts. Engineering slots depends on our level of science facility. Tech tree needs to be overhauled. No more progression. It should be cut up into Engines, Structural, Tanks, Utilities etc. You can research ANY part you want at ANY time. The problem is that the more advanced the part, the longer it will take. Your program becomes a BALANCING ACT of funds spent on R & D, salaries for engineers and launches. If you start your program with crappy teams and start research on the KS-25 engine, all you're gonna do is spend a lot of money and TIME on one engine part. Your goal should be to develop simpler parts that allow rocket launches to gather MORE science to attract BETTER teams to research better parts FASTER, SAFER and THUS CHEAPER. Continued....

Well the thread is titled "parts" but I agree with that as well... not to mention we need to really improve the models, textures, and lighting in every respect, add clouds, scatterer, proper sound effects and other visual and auditory bits and bops etc.

- Movable parts like hinges etc. We need parts that can allow us to build things like the canadarm, retractable ramps etc. - thermal tiles and flush heat shields. - fuel lines that have restricted fuel flow based on caliber of pipe. Wider fuel lines = faster fuel flow to meet the demand of rocket engines. If we use lower caliber fuel lines that don't meet requirements of an engine the thrust power should be diminished proportionally. - navigation lights for airplanes. - steerable nose wheels for larger landing gear - heat damaged parts (ALL OF THEM) - life support parts. It's time to incorporate this NOW. - sound suppression water system and pumps. Acoustic damage needs to be part of the game. - CAR AND TRUCK PARTS. - Helicopter parts - Boat parts

Why not just build your own launch tower? I'm all for having towers but I'd rather be able to build my own than have a premade one that is like the launch clamps or the fasa towers. All we need is a retractable ramp, maybe by including some hinges etc. I think what KSP needs is movable and robotic parts for things like the canadarm, ramps, movable hinges etc. THEN we can build our own towers. PS: What I'd really like to have is the ability to FUEL MY ROCKET on the launch pad. The launch clamps should have the function of fueling our rockets. We should be transporting our rockets empty and waiting to fuel them on the launch pad. It's a feature that would add to immersion. I'd also like to be able to transport Kerbals to their rockets via car from the astronaut complex. The VAB is NOT where kerbals should get onto their rocket... they should be manning their vehicles outside the VAB at the launch tower via car etc from the astronaut complex to the launch tower.

That news alone makes me squee in glee. Rocket parts and pods ALL need a big make over--BIG TIME. I'm a patient man, I can wait!