Lucius

Hey GRM, I've been using a variety of your planet packs forevvvver now. I remember full well where the "trojan moon" minmus idea comes from I actually really like it. It is, as you said all that time ago, "a stepping stone. Something between going to the moon, and going to other planets", a dry run at leaving kerbin's SOI and returning to it. So please please please, is there AAAAAANY chance you can leave an optional trojan moon rendition?

So, what's this mean is a target release date for a 1.1-Ready version of this mod? I'm holding off a new career until i can give this a shot, so super eager to see how its coming along

I know you list support for "vanguard", but would that also include Custom Clusters? [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/130662"]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/130662[/URL] If not, any plans to incorporate them?

[quote name='NathanKell']All RO-required mods are updated for 1.0.5, and the RO repository is basically updated, just nailing down a few engine bits, so there shouldn't be much for Truth to do on top.[/QUOTE] Ahhh good to hear about RO being almost ready! You're a Kerbal institute all your own Nathan. Thank you for all the work (and others too)

Hey Truth, What's the word on this mod and 1.0.5? And how is work on it progressing? Just came by it now but seems very interesting

Hey so, stock install, Linux 64 bit, the latest RSS is hanging up on loading for me. My mod folder is NOTHING but stock, kopernicus, and RSS (and modulemanager). Unfortunately i don't have a log for the log gods because it doesnt crash, just hang up on an endless loading loop. I'm going to test this on my windows install and see if maybe she just no likey the linux 64 hack (it hasnt been a problem before for more than a year) [B]EDIT: Oh jeez ignore this foolishness, i was missing the RSS textures ... let that be a lesson to everyone[/B]

WOO! can;'t wait

Anyone touched this in 1.0.5? Had any problems? Love this pack personally would be interested to see that its still good

Yeah, It's hard to have something a certain way, know how you want people to experience it, and then put it out there and not have them get the experience you want. I'll say though, people downloading your mod, literally titled "harder solar system", who then try to find an easy way out of it, are not really your target audience are they? It would be nice to have the option, and in the end it really is your call, but i mean if people want to cheat themselves out of the harder, i guess that's their call?

Have to say stevehead: Would be VERY interested in a 6.4x rescale or even just 6x rescale of this system. Though potentially it would be nice to have an optional more "equatorial" launch site even if via kscswitcher if things move up to 6x scale. Other than that, so far nothing to say but good things: The axial tilt is a great little feature to add some depth to the experience! And i enjoy the kerbal system for a bit of a "realism remove" over the realistic system

OOOO i'm very interested, especially in the larger scale packs. Commenting here so i can come back and try this at home. I'll give a full report after some playtime! Good ideas stevehead!

Hraban, This is a great addition to Tantares. Just wanted to stop by and say: Keep at it! Lots of little parts, fun things to stick on stations especially, is always welcome in trying to make a unique little feeling of your own in KSP.

Hi, it's always weird to be sorta ... needy but, i think i just got buried or missed. Any thoughts on this, Beale?

Hey Beale, Still love this pack, it's stock 2.0 to me. 2 questions/requests of you, since you always seem to find work anyways 1) Any chance you could revamp the front post? Link to Contares, Tantares Procedural Textures, Q orbital systems, Curt's tweakscale revamps, do an accumulated "Tantares Industries" kind of linkfest? Surely you must know there's an endless sea of work centered around your own amazing pack, and being able to access it in one place would be fantastic. 2) Now i believe this was discussed a long time ago, but i'd like to weigh in on it again: Any chance of some more "colorful" optional reskins for some of the models? A black or green soyuz, some more color banding for the r7? I have actually tried my hand at it a few times but you have a very tight set of skins and mbms that are a little overwhelming to get into in the first place. I understand you set out to be stock-alike, and i think everyone in the thread can agree: You ARE the new stock. But i would really appreciate at least the option for a little more color and variety than grey on grey on grey. Thanks almighty loaf

Curious here: I would very much like to take the realistic engine configurations of this mod (and maybe the rcs and reaction wheel changes), without the changes to capsule size and the size of most other components. Sort of a "stock with realistic engines" for a 64k playthrough. How much work am i looking at? Do i need to manually filter through each config and cut out what i don't want included?

Just a fantastic little mod King Very light on the reins, very little "change", feels like a little bump to stock. Please keep up with this one when 1.1 lands, i love it!

Hey, Just for my own personal interests i started putting together a very small "soviet" tech tree based off of tantares, tantareslv, hgr, energia/zenit, and a small amount of stock items. It functions more around a "1 tech unlocks a rocket, 1 tech unlocks resizing it larger" kind of schematic, so it is a fairly simple tree, but very clearly soviet and structured. Wonder if at any point in the future when its more polished you would welcome a peak at it? Might be a nice alternative tree.

Hmmm don't seem to see any names or descriptions or manufacturers for the Bumper in their config files Don't see any bumper parts showing up on the parts list. Just me? IGNORE THIS PROBLEM WAS JUST LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE ALL IS WELL (wasn't expecting the control core in the fuel tank section)

Meh I played around with the beta FG and i'll tell you this: Yes, its a little tipsy and surly and uncooperative, but as summed up before: "y'all are gravity turning wrong". FG flies like a fairly real rocket. If you get yourself more than 5 degrees outside of angle of attack, expect to start flipping. When you lose your booster tanks, don't expect to do more than 3 degrees AoA. You should be doing a long, slow, wide gravity turn starting at just under 100m/s. Set up mechjeb to keep your max q under 30k, your max speed under 30m/s, and your max AoA before booster sep to 6 degrees, 3 degrees after booster sep, and a nice long 40 percent turn. Watch how it handles with mechjeb at the controls, and get a feeling for what the grav turn on this bad boy really is. There is no flaw to this rocket, it's just... ice skating in a cement truck. You need to handle it with some respect, not whip it around. Treat it like a lady!

OOOOOOO Any spoilers? Also you holding off on the new version until 1.1 lands?

Awh man so the "Beale X-1" title isn't meant to be, eh?

Here's a quick and dirt antenna range remix for Tantares. Can't wait to see what they do with antennas in 1.1 and integrate it to Tanta You can just name this whatever.cfg and slap it in your KSP gamedata folder anywhere, so long as you have AntennaRange. It just essentially assigns a range you would roughly expect to each antenna, perhaps not too historically perfect but gets the idea out there. I'd love to use the needle antenna to enable or disable DPAI where only crafts with the needle or a couple others can let your ship use DPAI, that would be some great next level mod integration! ALSO: IS THERE ANY CHANCE WE CAN CALL THE NEW BELL X1 THE BEALE X1?? // Specifications: // nominalRange: The distance from Kerbin at which the antenna will perform exactly as prescribed by // packetResourceCost and packetSize. // maxPowerFactor: The multiplier on packetResourceCost that defines the maximum power output of the antenna. When the // power cost exceeds packetResourceCost * maxPowerFactor, transmission will fail. // maxDataFactor: The multipler on packetSize that defines the maximum data bandwidth of the antenna. // // SHORT RANGE ANTS @PART[Vostok_Antenna_A]:FOR[AntennaRange]:NEEDS[!RemoteTech2] { @MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter] { @name = ModuleLimitedDataTransmitter nominalRange = 6364 simpleRange = 20500000 maxPowerFactor = 8 maxDataFactor = 4 } MODULE { name = ModuleScienceContainer dataIsCollectable = true dataIsStorable = false storageRange = 2 } } @PART[Tantares_Antenna_A]:FOR[AntennaRange]:NEEDS[!RemoteTech2] { @MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter] { @name = ModuleLimitedDataTransmitter nominalRange = 6364 simpleRange = 20500000 maxPowerFactor = 8 maxDataFactor = 4 } MODULE { name = ModuleScienceContainer dataIsCollectable = true dataIsStorable = false storageRange = 2 } } @PART[Vega_Antenna_A]:FOR[AntennaRange]:NEEDS[!RemoteTech2] { @MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter] { @name = ModuleLimitedDataTransmitter nominalRange = 6364 simpleRange = 20500000 maxPowerFactor = 8 maxDataFactor = 4 } MODULE { name = ModuleScienceContainer dataIsCollectable = true dataIsStorable = false storageRange = 2 } } @PART[Libra_Antenna_A]:FOR[AntennaRange]:NEEDS[!RemoteTech2] { @MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter] { @name = ModuleLimitedDataTransmitter nominalRange = 6364 simpleRange = 20500000 maxPowerFactor = 8 maxDataFactor = 4 } MODULE { name = ModuleScienceContainer dataIsCollectable = true dataIsStorable = false storageRange = 2 } } // MID RANGE ANTS @PART[Alnair_Antenna_A]:FOR[AntennaRange]:NEEDS[!RemoteTech2] { @MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter] { @name = ModuleLimitedDataTransmitter nominalRange = 3150000000 simpleRange = 18000000000 maxPowerFactor = 4 maxDataFactor = 8 } MODULE { name = ModuleScienceContainer dataIsCollectable = true dataIsStorable = false storageRange = 2 } } @PART[Vega_Antenna_C]:FOR[AntennaRange]:NEEDS[!RemoteTech2] { @MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter] { @name = ModuleLimitedDataTransmitter nominalRange = 3150000000 simpleRange = 18000000000 maxPowerFactor = 4 maxDataFactor = 8 } MODULE { name = ModuleScienceContainer dataIsCollectable = true dataIsStorable = false storageRange = 2 } } @PART[Libra_Antenna_B]:FOR[AntennaRange]:NEEDS[!RemoteTech2] { @MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter] { @name = ModuleLimitedDataTransmitter nominalRange = 3150000000 simpleRange = 18000000000 maxPowerFactor = 4 maxDataFactor = 8 } MODULE { name = ModuleScienceContainer dataIsCollectable = true dataIsStorable = false storageRange = 2 } } // LONG RANGE ANTS @PART[HighGainAntenna]:FOR[AntennaRange]:NEEDS[!RemoteTech2] { @MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter] { @name = ModuleLimitedDataTransmitter @packetResourceCost /= 1.414213 nominalRange = 9250000000 simpleRange = 56250000000 maxPowerFactor = 16 maxDataFactor = 2 } MODULE { name = ModuleScienceContainer dataIsCollectable = true dataIsStorable = false storageRange = 2 } } @PART[Fomalhaut_Antenna_A]:FOR[AntennaRange]:NEEDS[!RemoteTech2] { @MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter] { @name = ModuleLimitedDataTransmitter @packetResourceCost /= 1.414213 nominalRange = 9250000000 simpleRange = 56250000000 maxPowerFactor = 16 maxDataFactor = 2 } MODULE { name = ModuleScienceContainer dataIsCollectable = true dataIsStorable = false storageRange = 2 } } @PART[Vega_Antenna_B]:FOR[AntennaRange]:NEEDS[!RemoteTech2] { @MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter] { @name = ModuleLimitedDataTransmitter @packetResourceCost /= 1.414213 nominalRange = 9250000000 simpleRange = 56250000000 maxPowerFactor = 16 maxDataFactor = 2 } MODULE { name = ModuleScienceContainer dataIsCollectable = true dataIsStorable = false storageRange = 2 } }

How's this working with the new OPM, 1.8 nolnoc?

Yes sorry i peeked through the diagram myself and you're right they only ever cut out the center engine.

Now someone else will explain it for you better i'm sure, but i can tell you in brief, there is a chart out there somewhere of the TWR of the apollo missions, and they would deliberately cut engines as they ascended for 2 reasons: 1) was to maintain lower g forces on the nauts 2) was honestly to maintain an efficient TWR so that they were following their projected flight path (i believe) I think how it worked was, if the SV was a 5 engine craft, they would cut the center engine, then 2 side engines so you were, at the end, only running on 2 engines, never going above a 3:1 TWR. I'm gonna presumptuously go out on a limb here and say if NASA did it, its probably the more "efficient" way to go about it. Hank Hill Edit: BWaaaaaaaa -> http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/SVsim-fig3.gif