biohazard15

These KM Special parts are amazing. Atlas, now 100% more Atlas-y! Who needs FASA, anyway?

Be careful, though: you may easily break balance if you change only thrust; it might be better to tweak thrust in VAB for every launch, and design a wide lineup of launchers for every payload. One area where 5m parts need to be used with FAR\NEAR: wide-body launchers. There is a cut-off example of 5m launcher, payload: 30t station module destined to 300 km orbit. That is a very interesting design, indeed. First stage (large 5m tank + 5m K2X) has Dv of 3200 m\s, and is used for lift and partial circularizing (You need about 3500 m\s to achieve stable orbit with NEAR). It also has sepratrons for safe decoupling. Second stage ("smart" design with probe core) is used to finish orbit and to rendezvous maneuvers. And now for something completely different: Atlas! The payload is Spica from Tantares mod. Connect radial decouplers and lowest fuel tank with fuel duct, and drop booster engines at around 1200 m\s.

That would be something like @PART[NP_lfe_5m_Bearcat5x] { @MODULE[ModuleEngines] { %maxThrust = 7500 } } Note that new engines (like AHL) use ModuleEnginesFX instead of ModuleEngines.

2 Malkuth Please read http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90428-Contract-Manager and consider implementing it, at least with stock contracts. Apparently, you can disable contract type generation (as with Rescue contracts), the only question is could mod contracts be recognized automatically. On upcoming 3C: - Between 11 and 13 Kg? 1100 and 1300, maybe? Or 11 and 13 tons? Because the lightest probe (OKTO2) weighs 40 kg - Consider broad selection of Pe and Ap (right now they're circular, and can't be very high; I suggest making MinPe at 71000, and MaxAp beyond Minmus orbit) - More part requirements (solar panels, RTGs, antennas, fuel quantity, science parts)

6.25m heatshield and NEAR doesn't seem to work right. I've sent a very small surface probe to Eve, aimed for 60km Pe. This is what I got - heatshield is basically super air brake. Also, you might wish to fix normal texture name for it - that weird lightning is due to ATM not recognizing it.

May I suggest TMK-MAVR (Soviet Mars\Venus fly-by ship): http://www.astronautix.com/craft/tmk1.htm

That means new low-profile Mega Mother, I guess? One that will melt launchpad (and your PC) with its exhaust? Funny thing, I've never used 5m engines since I've started new career with NEAR and DRE. They just too powerful for payloads less than 100+ tons (FAR\NEAR requires a lot less TWR to achieve orbit, and you don't want high surface TWR with these two mods)

It would be ideal if you make controls lock toggleable through config, so those who don't like it could just turn it off. Variable snack quantity and using Hitchhiker and crew pods for snack transporting is an interesting ideas, but it will complicate things (both gamer-side and developer-side), and this is what you definitely do not need in a casual life support mod. All resources have respective containers in stock; snacks should also get containers. Three parts (in 1.25, 2.5 and 3.75 size) will be sufficient; it will also allow to avoid potential problems with mods, because you can just add snacks through MM config instead of balancing "empty\crewed" amount for every pod out there.

I really like idea of "casual" life support - one resource, no deaths. I do not like idea of delayed\disabled\forced controls, though. This a) can become irritating, can become dangerous if you doing something like landing or docking (to supply ship, for example), and c) probably will mess with MechJeb. Instead of that, there should be rep\science\funds fines. For example, you pay 100 funds and 10 rep points per hour for every kerbal that is starving ("easy" setting; make it 5x for "medium" and 10x for "hard"). This will not break anything, and definitely will not break gameplay, but it will add mechanic that can be appealing for these who don't want to go all-realistic. One very important thing that there should NOT be any new resources (except Snacks) and there should be only one new part type - Snack container (several sizes). All manned pods should get snacks (through MM config); Kerbals on EVA should get enough snacks to sustain them for 24h Earth time (or 4 Kerbin days).

It's simple: your design is too bulky, and payload's CoM is too far from docking port. You should use 2.5m docking port, and you probably should put your payload in front (push it instead of pulling)

Good to hear that, since the only mag survey contracts that can be completed properly (without sending probe in advance) is the Mun\Minmus ones. Kerbin contracts are uncompletable at all (20 days to deadline and something like 35 days to survey)

Less than 40% collected or less than 40% left to collect? That's what Wernher tells me:

Alright, looks like I found a bug there. I've accepted an "Collect Mystery Goo data from Minmus orbit" contract. Two of them, actually - for low and high orbit. Note that I've collected Goo science for these areas before (during Explore Minmus contract), so there is 0 science points there. So, I fly to Minmus, do a Goo experiment, transmit it... and "This area already been studied, try to find another place to complete contract". Funny. This is the first time I've got such thing. Magnetometer contracts works flawlessly (right now my second magsat is flying around the Mun). Man, you owe me two Goo canisters now, since that particular ship wasn't designed to return

Actually, fuel tanks is maybe the only well-balanced part type in KSP. They follow a simple formula: "LF price + OX price = 23% overall price". This is true for Rockomax and Kerbodyne, almost true for LF-T (some deviations there), and not true for two "unique" tanks - Oscar-B and Round-8. Regarding them and LV-1s, Squad might had the same balancing idea that I got when I did price patch for NovaPunch - "unique" parts for advanced designs (tiny tanks and engines, or, in case of NP, low-profile engines) cost more than "standard" parts. RLA-s balancing seems alright with heavy Monoprop engines (they balanced against KW's SPS, as it seems) and RCS blocks. LF engines and fuel tanks looks too cheap for me (but that's me), monoprop tanks is totally off-balance (200 units in FL-R50 cost more than 750 units in FL-R1?). As for monoprop\xenon engines - I don't know. That looks like Near Future stuff, and NF stuff are overwhelmingly expensive.

Wow, a wild update appears!

Yeah, that "green" stuff can be a constant pain in the lower back, if you didin't disabled that "green" stuff altogether (which I do for any computer - mine or not - when I'm installing OS on it). But that alone shouldn't be the reason by KSP (or any other application) shouldn't use dynamic memory management.

Thing is, I didn't use any formulas (except 23% for fuel tanks), I did my balancing purely with gameplay in mind I've used stock and KW prices as reference, and tried to balance NP to fit neatly with these. My ideas about engine balance were: - Engines are balanced around thrust, Isp, weight and profile - Low-profile means higher cost (Berthas and Mothers) - Low Isp means cost reduction, if applicable (I referred to KW here - they refused to switch to 0.24 "320-360" formula for 1st stage engines, and I like that). - Big mass means cost reduction, again. With previous point in mind, you can see why NP 3.75m engines are kinda cheap when compared to NASA engines; but, they fall in-between KW engines just fine. - LFBs were scaled against NASA LFB, with thrust and fuel quantity in mind. - ASRBs are cheaper than KW counterparts if you compare their thrust; after 2 weeks of playing with both mods I feel that their cost should be raised, at least for large versions. - Bearcat 5x: direct competitor to Griffon Century (DAT BASS! NP really needs sound overhaul), scaled accordingly (GC is 55K$ and 11KN thrust; B5X is 50K$ and 10KN thrust). Other stuff: - Monoprop tanks were balanced against KW tanks (I couldn't get LF\OX-like formula for them, so I kinda improvised here) - Fairings: bulkheads are rather expensive, but walls and noses are cheap and scaled according to their size - Nosecones and winglets: I gave them stock-like price - Unique parts (stack chutes, adapters, HMX nosecones, some other stuff): I tried to give them gameplay-wise cost (not too cheap, but not too expensive; they're meant to be used in advanced designs, which are expensive by definition)

Sorry, but I fail to understand what this mod does. It automatically deletes duplicated parts or what?

Absolutely viable, and there is actually a WIP plugin that adds that functionality: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/73236-WIP-Loading-textures-only-as-required Actually, the only reason to load all parts is these small icons in VAB\SPH. Put in small PNG icons instead of actual part, and make parts load as you grab them - bingo, you saved a lot of memory. But noooo, they needed a fancy 3D graphics in ant-sized window...

Great IVA! RPM config, anyone? (DRE config also would come handy) Comparing official costs to my patch: 1) Fuel tanks: as I said in patch release notes, I balanced them according to "LF price+OX price=23% overall price" formula (this is true to Rockomax and Kerbodyne stock tanks, and KW tanks), and I did not took into account dry weight and other numbers. I feel that "official" cost is somewhat too high - for example, HH-125-B and FL-T800 has the same cost (1600), but the latter holds almost 20% more fuel. So what's the point using HH-125-B? Sometimes, costs rival these of KW (KW tanks hold more fuel than NP tanks) 2) Engines: I balanced them with KW in mind; also, I've accounted for size (of the engine itself, not its node size) - low-profile engines are more expensive in my version, because they offer more design flexibility (that's why Bertha Mini Quad costs more than small K-2X, although the latter has better stats). In general, "official" is cheaper, sometimes way more than they should (AHL costs less than NASA KS-25? I agree that NASA engines are too expensive, but this is really strange pricing!) 3) SRBs: as with engines, "official" is cheaper. BTW, why is Mk7 PAM costs more than 0.675 ASRB PAM? 4) Pods: these looks fine, although Freyja is kinda expensive. 5) Structurals and other stuff: - ASRB nosecones: I fail to justify these pricetags. 2500 for 2.5m nosecone? It's made from finest unobtanium? - Stack-mounted chutes: as with low-profile engines, these are far more useful than their stock counterparts, and should be more expensive (2x than corresponding stock chutes in my patch) - 3.75x1.25 plates: I feel they should cost more, due to their usefulness

I don't know why someone want to remove test contracts. They're actually make you think about your design, especially with realism mods (FAR\NEAR\DRE). One orbital testing? Sure, it's easy. Now accept five of these contracts and complete them in one launch. And you may wish to add some mod contracts as well. For example. my last contract flight: - Enter 83 km LKO, test CactEye solar panels - Decouple small SRB-based probe (two science gathering contracts that need to be done from Sun orbit). Send it to the escape trajectory (note that aforementioned solar panels were on this probe) - Transfer main vessel to the 90km Mun orbit, do a LV-1 test there - Decouple SCANSat satellite (ion drive-based), leave it for the time being - Decouple small lander probe (gather science from the surface of the Mun contract), leave it for the time being - Maneuver main vessel to 90kmx20km orbit with 20 degrees inclination, start a long-duration (35 days) DMagic contract - Switch to lander, land it, complete its contract - Switch to SCANSat, maneuver it to 250x250 km polar orbit, start scanning - Switch to solar probe, complete its contract

Okay, here's a bug. Kinda. As you see, it's a repair contract. But - it's given by different agency (I name my sats after agency - here, CactEye KSOSat 1 means "first satellite launched at kerbostationary orbit for CactEye agency"). Also, what does "unloaded" means? The satellite is alive and kicking... EDIT: Currently, you can use "one for all" satellite design, which is kinda dull. Can you add additional part requirements to th satellite contracts? - Random probe core - Random solar panel or RTG - Random battery - Random antenna - Random engine - Random SAS That would make each satellite rather unique in construction.

That's exactly why two weeks ago I made a temporary price patch. Look for it at previous pages, and let Tiberion work on a proper NP 2.06(?).

Thanks for this, man.

I think there is more important stiff in SFX dept. Like, you know, wheels sound. Besides, in real spacesuit, you hardly, if even, can hear breathing sounds via radio.