Anquietas314

The data structure you describe here is roughly a "list", not a tree; a tree has "branches" (hence the name), so for example if I have 5 nodes (call them 1,2,3,4,5), 1 is the "root" node (the "top" or "bottom" of the tree depending on whether it's drawn branching downwards or upwards), and you have 1->2 (2 is a branch off of 1), 1->3, 3->4 and 2->5, then that's a very simple tree. You could certainly use something like that for implementing space programs though, with the root node being the *end* goal of the program, although a dependency graph (to allow for inter-related parts) might be a better choice You can also generate procedural trees/graphs/<insert your favourite thing here> directly Otherwise a good suggestion

Hi, welcome to the forums (and KSP!) There is a search feature in the top right corner (it's a little derpy sometimes mind), but I think in this case you're in the clear. I've seen suggestions for it buried in other threads, but not an explicit thread like this There is no such thing as "faking" your way into doing something KSP; there is no wrong way to do something (unless you're doing something really stupid), there's just your way, and (probably) better ways You can rotate the map by holding right click and dragging though - use that to get a better angle on where you are with respect to the marker. They're also slightly transparent. Otherwise, yes, we do need some way to see the markers while on EVA

Yep, that's the one.

Norpo: that actually doesn't matter. the problem is the use of URL tags for images. IMG works fine with a link that doesn't point directly to a .jpg/.png/etc.

You're using URL tags instead of IMG ones. That's all you need to fix. EDIT: Wow. Yes, that is exactly what that is. That's got to be one of the funniest bugs I've seen. How.... Just how.

You should at least go to Duna for the giggles I remember the first time I tried to land on it, I just sent a 3-man capsule with a parachute and no way to get home. Right up until 500m above the terrain I thought for sure the parachute just wasn't going to work; I was still coming in at well over 400m/s after a gradual descent, then suddenly BAM: the parachute brought it down to a "safe" landing velocity just before it hit the ground. That's probably my fondest memory of KSP to be honest Don't click the spoiler if you want to go to Duna without knowing what to expect

My second generation Mun mission costs just over $60k to launch, but my first one cost quite a bit less than that (like 30k - I no longer have the design saved). I get almost all of that back though, thanks to the StageRecovery mod - basically, put parachutes on all the things, and instead of stuff getting deleted when it hits the atmosphere you get a refund based on the mass of the component, how many parachutes you put on it and how far from KSC it "landed". It could be considered cheating but I see it as a replacement for missing/broken stock functionality As for Duna, I haven't tried to launch a mission to there yet - the transfer window is 184 days away according to Kerbal Alarm Clock. I should probably say: the only mod I have installed at the moment that affects gameplay/balance is the StageRecovery one. The rest are just utility mods (KER and so on)

Well, not quite. This is Minmus we're talking about, not Gilly or Pol Protip: always, always disable sticky keys the moment you install windows. Also disable the ones relating to holding shift for 8 seconds and whatever the other one is. There is a mod listed in CKAN I noticed that lets you simulate launches before committing to them when you're on hard difficulty. I don't have the name to hand though.

I'm not an engineer or an aerodynamics expert.... but why would making the parachute thinner and stronger, but not making it bigger give it higher drag? It might make it slightly more effective or deploy faster sure, but to my knowledge drag is a function of the surface area that's "in the way" of the air stream? Otherwise I'm fine with the idea, but there needs to be quite a few utility improvements with tweakables before it should be in the game (e.g. all symmetrically placed parts only requiring you to set the tweakables once - there's a few parts, like landing gear, where this doesn't happen). I don't think the system should be overly complex though. For instance, probe cores shouldn't have 5 options on whether to give them SAS, hold pro/retro etc; instead maybe make it so you can only upgrade them to have SAS, or hold "__" abilities, where the second one just gives you the best software you've got for that - software doesn't have any impact on the physics, other than needing something to run it

It's worth considering that if you have a lot of active contracts, you don't get many (if any) new ones, even with a fully upgraded mission control (far cheaper than top tier R&D)

10 years worth of battery power is an insane number of batteries dude. lol

You really want to be careful about converting reputation though. It's what unlocks the better contracts for you. If Kethane's intended to work with career mode I would imagine it's doing the same thing as what happens if a Kerbal dies. Seeing as I don't let my Kerbals die, I'm not certain what the reputation hit is but I do imagine it's large.

The solution there really would just be to make that apply to everything, except possibly electric charge. If that one's a problem for you in this case it usually means you're doing something wrong. You should either make a suggestion or file a feedback issue in the bug tracker I do have to question why you're docking things that use xenon though; with an ion drive you want as little mass as possible...

What if some or all of your "special kerbals" - I assume you mean Jeb, Bill and Bob - are already dead? Some of the later contracts are already quite brutal for new players to be honest.

Yeah that would be nice. There's really no reason not to have that if it's in Career mode - training astronauts doesn't cost funds or reputation, and their abilities have no impact on any resources except science in the case of scientists

If you're talking about the station and outpost contracts, you don't need to provide the kerbals, just the space for them. - - - Updated - - - Doesn't that have a reputation penalty? lol

A couple gigantors cover that. Example usage: collecting a whole bunch of crew reports and EVA reports out at the Jool system, holding onto them so you can keep track (without using notepad/similar) of where you've been already, and then transmitting them when you're done for the immediate science gain (because damn does it take a long time to get home from Jool).

The asteroid related contracts don't become available until you're actually capable of finding them and repositioning them. That is, when you have the top tier tracking station and have unlocked the claw (there may also be a requirement for the kerbodyne parts or something)

I agree, but I think there should be a reasonable minimum requirement on the battery life of the satellite (perhaps enough for 3-4 orbits with the probe core active?).

Hmm. Yeah that would be cool, but I think it should be treated as a completely separate suggestion

There are plenty ways you can have fun with the parts available that come before purchasing the second R&D upgrade that do not involve cheating; you can do "land a base on the Mun" contracts and similar. Those pay exceptionally well, and although not the easiest thing in the world to do, they can be done quite cheaply.

This is the red herring. Engineers are not relevant to the argument, Pilots are. Actually engineers ARE relevant to the argument; in order to train them and make them useful, you need to launch them into orbit; they don't have SAS to do that. If the OP believes that a SAS-less probe is completely useless, one would expect them to also believe pods that don't contain a pilot are completely useless (for flying rockets with) since that would be a consistent position. The fact you're doing this to train the engineer isn't relevant. You can of course overcome the SAS problem in one of three ways: 1) Add a second pod and put a pilot in that, which adds dry mass to the rocket, as well as the cost of a second pod, making the overall rocket more expensive to launch. 2) Get a probe core that does have SAS and put it on the capsule. This is better than option 1 since a probe core is far lighter than a capsule, but requires you unlock an SAS-capable probe. 3) Launch the darn thing with no SAS. Obviously a similar situation applies quite easily to a satellite made using a Stayputnik. Now this is a straw-man and a red herring; girders and science equipment can't pilot at all - they are not control parts! Additionally, the point was not that engineers can't hold a vector - it's that they can't figure out how to stop the ship from spinning. This is debatable; the primary purpose of probes could also be said to be not endangering lives. Being able to fly a rocket is really just a requirement of fulfilling that goal. This is your (completely subjective) opinion. I don't have a problem with you expressing your opinion, but it should not be taken as irrefutable fact. This is the strawman. The poster reinterpreted OPs post as stating an opinion of preference, in order to attack it. This is not a straw-man! See my previous post, but to summarize: the OP was a statement of opinion. That opinion being that the Stayputnik is completely useless. In other words: they dislike it. I don't know what this is supposed to be but looks like a combination of both strawmen and red herrings. As ddenis himself (correct me if I'm wrongly assuming gender) said, it is (obvious) hyperbole. Game balance is an inherently subjective matter; preference is unavoidably involved. Now, can we please stick to discussing the matter of the Stayputnik probe itself instead of making idiotic claims that peoples arguments for or against are straw-men and/or red herrings? This is a forum for suggesting things in KSP, not for criticizing peoples argumentation skills. I'm sure the devs are quite capable of disregarding foolish arguments on their own.

The button is "R", also the symmetry modes are "Mirror" (old SPH style) and "Radial" (old VAB style)

I guess you've never tried to transmit 50 experiments at a time before?

That's what the "disable crossfeed" button on docking ports is for.