XrayLima

Sorry, mean to say I'm keeping my install clean so that I can assist in the pre-release testing. I'll only add mods once it is over, offiicially released at 1.1 and the mod authors have up-rev'd their versions too. I may cheat and copy my install folder and give it a try aside from the normal install.

^^ This! Awesome, thanks!! Just need to wait for 1.1 versions. Ta!

I'd agree that to do them properly might be tricky, but I wonder if it's possible to create a simple version of the hatch that's a stand alone part, which when you attempt board it it simply opens the "Transfer Crew" mechanism and allows you to select where your want them to be placed?. The same could be created for docking port hatches and would allow two versions to exist, one with an airlock section large enough to hold one or two kerbals and a smaller one which is a pure hatch. Sure it breaks realism a little but no more than the current system and I tend to get round some of the worst examples of that with my own personal playing style rules. I'd love to try this but I'm held back by a couple of things: Total lack of 3D model design capability. Cataclysmic coding inability. Apart from those two things this would have been a doddle.......

OK this may already exist as a mod and if it does please point me in the right direction but wouldn't it be awesome to have two new parts: 1. A 1.25m door part that can be attached in line or via a radial attachment point to any crew capable part and allows EVA. This would avoid the numerous times you just can't quite get a design to work because you can't get at a hatch, or the ladder is somewhat crazy. 2. A Docking port with a door on it's backside, effectively allowing access back into your ship / base from EVA's via a docking port. This could be used to create airlocks for bases and allow access to, for example, a hab module on it's side with an adapter and docking port. I have a design of horizontal hab at the moment and I need to climb a ladder to the top of the hab, walk along it's roof then get in. Granted this may require fitting with KIS/KAS to be truly useful. Both of these could even be achieved through adding the capability to the existing docking port. Thoughts?

LADDERS!!! Every s£%ing time. Multipart Duna vehicle with Hab modules and attached lander for Duna and reentry vehicle for Kerbin. Somewhere near 700 parts all told. Built in orbit, crew sent up. Waited for transfer window, low G burn so it didn't flex like crazy. Aerobrake into low orbit. Send down lander and crew. Hours of work coming to fruition. EVA Jeb..... and.... "OH Bloody Hell, not again...". Crew forced to return without ever stepping on the planet... Urgh....

Hi all, I just had a bash at answering a question about chutes and opening pressures and just realised I don't have any method of converting altitude to pressure on various bodies. Has anyone every done one or do we know the (fairly simple I guess) equation Squad have used to model the pressure? Ideally I like to be able to fly a test mission, note the safe chute altitude during descent, look it up on the graph and then next time pre-set my chute pre-open pressure. Anyone able to help? Cheers XrayLima (Maybe this actually belongs in game play questions now I think about it.....)

Welcome Giygus! @FullMetalMachinist has given a awesome breakdown of parachute icons, so much so I'm copying out to notepad so I can use it later. The only thing missing from the posts above is that another 'undocumented feature' is that you can adjust both the pressure the chute starts to unfurl and the altitude it unfurls fully. This means that you can set the chutes to activate on the same stage as separation moderately safely as long as you ship isn't super heavy and pointy (has a high ballistic coefficient). Best place to set this, assuming you know which body the ship is going to be landing on is in the VAB as the settings apply via the symmetry. Right click on the chute and you have two sliders. Altitude is the height above ground it will open fully. On Kerbin don't go any less than around 1000 to start with but you can trim this once you are really happy with the ship design. The second is pressure. Now this, as far as I can tell, is the fraction of sea level pressure that the chute will begin to unfurl. This is difficult to set exactly as it needs you to guess how quickly your ship will loose speed, but basically I've found that by about 0.6 you ship will be at about 200m/s and chutes are safe. Larger heavier ships need drogues to scrub some speed first, but these are safe at higher speeds so I set these at about 0.45 and open at 2500m, which seems to be about the same point pressure is at 0.6 and my main chutes open. Basically, with practice and trial and error you can set things up so you don't need to sit there waiting to stage like some kind of whack'a'mole game!

I'm pretty sure a large part of the Devnote last week covered a lot of your last issue.

Slightly related question, but did the engine on the "Mun or Bust" ship on the menu get switched off sometime around release 1.0 or am I having driver issues or something? Also seen the castle a couple of times in my slightly worrying 1500+ play hours.

@Thomas P. That would be a total game changer. Properly impressive. Only problem now is that terrible feeling you get when you can't get something, not because it's impossible, but just because it hasn't been done yet! I was happier before, when I just thought it was "really difficult"!

I don't disagree with that, I think rescue missions are valuable and a really good way of building a kerbonaut corp quickly and cheaply. It's just that right now in my newish career save I have 8 kerbonauts in the KSC and missions for three more. I've only just landed on the Mun and have low tier tech. Now, I will go rescue these idiots, because you don't leave folks stranded but eventually with the new mechanic it will think I LOVE rescue missions and feed me as many as it can. Rather I think these rescue missions should remain as random occurrences, which keeps them fun, different and valuable.

You, sir, are a monster! A monster I tell you!

The recent Devnote talks about contracts self tuning to give you more of what you like to choose. To a point that sounds fine but here's a thing, I will always rescue Kerbals, A call for help is a call for help. So at this rate I will eventually have a contract list of nothing but rescues, even though I actually don't like them! Have I understood this mechanism correctly? Thoughts?

I really like these ideas, they would definitely help flesh out the game some more, but I'd agree that there are a few more pressing improvements needed first. That said, if the more glaring issues were addressed this type of improvement would be wonderful. Part of the beauty of the game is screwing up, and that is made the more important because we care about the Kerbals, and we only care because we see and meet them. More we see the, more we care. I would suggest though if we want (and I say YES we bloody do) a female Kerbal KSC character, and want her in the Tracking station, with it's giant radio telescopes and receivers it should be Jocelyn Bell Kerman surely?

Thought.... What if the UI changed as VAB/SPH or Tech tree was upgraded. It could go from Analogue to Digital LED (Think 80's tech) to VDU (Modern glass cockpit type) as your technology improved. That would be quite cool I think.

This is a pain of an issue mostly because it tends to be inconsistent when I come up against it. I had a very interesting occurrence with a low tech level rescue vessel. Basically three small capsules with parachutes and heat shields on an inverted tri-coupler on the top of the rocket, each sat on its own de-coupler, the idea being to separate all three at just prior to re-entry. First time I tried it: separate at 65Km, by the time they splashed down they were about 2km apart. All but the active capsule exploded on contact. Second try: separate at 35km, splash down 1.5km apart (ish), same outcome. Third time: Ride re-entry down to overheat, separate at 15km, splash down 500m apart, all survive..... interesting. Interesting side note - slight off centre weights make capsules somewhat steerable.

It's probably already been suggested but anyone else think it would be good if you could control groups of tank shutoff valves by action group rather than lots and lots of right-clicking? Useful when using docking ports to build craft in orbit, then finding out your lander doesn't have any fuel left half way through descent! Just something I'd find useful. Thoughts?

Thanks, I'll give that a try. My mod list isn't all that long - MechJeb, Proc. fairings, Kerbal Alarm Clock & KIS/KAS so there's not a huge amount to trim there! I had this issue a while back (pre .90) with just proc fairings and mechjeb installed. Building and Testing an 8 module station without Mechjeb is going to be a PITA. Anyone know if this bug also occurs in pure stock before I sink too much time into this? Cheers.

Hi all, I've just had to deorbit my second ISS type clone (multi-node, construct in orbit) space-station due to the docking ports no longer being able to decouple bug. I've seen there are a few work-arounds by editing the save game but has anyone had any luck identifying assemblies or building techniques that cause this in the first place I can avoid? On a related note - Deorbiting the station was deeply disappointing. When deorbiting a 500ish part station from 500km to Pe -10km I was hoping for more than just the solar panels breaking. Was amused to see the debris after splashdown leaving the atmosphere at a sedate 14 m/s and no orbits shown until I restarted....... Anyone read anything about fixes in the pipeline? Thoughts/suggestions? Cheers

Success!! Well, partial. Managed to parachute the plane onto a mountainside, do my science and then take off, fly back to the KSP and land. Now all I need to do is succeed at real landing. Maybe a tri or quad plane would allow me to fly slowly enough.........

Hahaha, it's only cheating because I set myself the challenge to land it! Aye, either drop probe, detachable cockpit/science combo or whole plane on radial chutes is an option. If I just can't do it, plane on chutes is the next best option. But it would be nice to know if it is actually possible and if so how!

Hey there folks, So it may be due to an overdose of turkey melting my mind but this afternoon I decided to go collect science data from the mountains just west of KSP. Built a tiny bi-plane, super stable, stalls at 30ish m/s and fitted with the little material bay, a goo container and a little antenna. All good at ground level, basically lands itself. But 4 hours later can I land it on some of the flatter areas, can I hell. At 4000 m you have to fly at about 80m/s and at landing it just can't stay stable on the uneven ground. Best I've managed was to leave a cockpit and two wing bits littering the wilderness. Has anybody else out there managed to land an aircraft on the mountains, and even better have it in state that it could fly home again? At this rate I'm going to have to cheat and parachute a probe or something down there. XrayLima

As enlightened space travelers I'm assuming most of us take our food wrappers, drinks cartons and expended boosters home with us after our trip to the Mun and beyond. Question is, how do you folks do it? Got any tricks you fancy sharing? For me the 1st stage usually takes care of itself, 2nd stage usually has enough dv, a probe core and a couple of solar panels to enable it to de-orbit itself and I plan my transfers to directly intersect the target, then adjust after separation. I've even built a joining module with docking port-RCS tank/thrusters-probe body-docking port to connect the LM and CSM pieces of my Apollo copy that deorbits itself following CSM rotation and LM docking so it doesn't leave an engine sleeve floating out there. That said 'Mun base crater' looks more and more like a skycrane graveyard and there is still junk building up, up there! So how do you folks clean up after yourselves and how much dv/weight/trouble do you go to? Or don't you bother, and it turns out I'm nuts? XrayLima

Have you looked at Georgian? It's magnificent! Although no good if you want a majority of viewers to understand it. Looks like ქáƒÂრთული áƒÂნბáƒÂნი

Greetings fellow kerbals! Ok so I've been playing KSP for a few months and apart from it eating my life its been great. And I love 0.22 and I really like the science / career mode. My only gripe so far, and I can't work out if this is just me or if it actually detracts from the experience, is that I can build suborbital and LKO craft quickly (ie first couple of tiers) that can lift goo pods but I can't really build a believable reentry vehicle that can bring them back. The CP Mk1 with a 'chute looks and feels right but clamp a goo pod to the back and it looks daft. Ditto if you build a lander / service module type thing which you reenter retrograde on the engine bell... looks wrong. I would be tempted to try and return samples separately except we can't.(yet?) Is this just me or have other people thought this? And am I destined to have to radio in the results and jettison my science pods to burn up my glorious science points in exchange for an honest(ish) landing? I've faked heat shields with fairings in sandbox, but that isn't going to fly in career! Oh the choices! XL