KerikBalm

I have said the same thing about a certain engine type that will be in ksp2, which doesn't even have scientific backing. Also, if ksp2 models radiation, it doesn't obsolete chemical

@The Aziz regarding mass, in orbit, or on bodies such as Gilly, the mass is not a problem no? In orbit, isn't it just a matter of a line in the config file as said here: Sure, surface construction will have different limits than orbital... but I'm just asking about EVA in general, that is what is possible under at least one set of EVA conditions. I'd further guess that constructing on Gilly gives the best of both, since orbital construction has problems of things floating away. Also a full Oscar B tank is 0.225 tons that is 225 kg, I thought each Kerbal was good for lifting 100 kg? Does it not stack linearly (like transmitter power). I figure in the case of tanks, you can place an empty tank, then fill it...

Hmm, so I thought of something that may interest me: re-enginging ships. Doesn't cause symettry problems, allows you to plan the whole craft from the start with a standard design Got a spaceplane that you want to send to duna? Take off kerbin with rapiers, change out the engines (you can have an orbital engine depot) for aerospikes or LV-909s, or LV-Ns (you can use those in EVA construction, no?) Once upon a time when I played stock size, I made designs that would decouple airbreathing engines+equipment + LF tanks after acheiving orbit (in the form of engine packs that were themselves little, very high TWR, paceplanes that I could then recover). It was a bit of a pain in the butt, because if I used 4 such engine packs, that would be 4 recoveries back at KSC for each launch. Now I can just take off the engines, placing rapiers in a linear stack, and have just 1 pod with wings and landing gear, that takes all the engines back down... or I leave them stacked at some station (engine depot), and I can put them back on if/when the space plane comes back to kerbin. I rather like the idea of an orbital engine depot with high TWR engines for landing/ascent, and high Isp engines for transfers

@Bej Kerman yes, something like that would be rather hard to get to orbit with current aero, but could one build it well enough in eva mode?

I mean... many of those "SSTO launched" things required orbital assembly via docking, but orbital assembly via docking is for the big stuff, while EVA assembly is for the small stuff. That said... In my latest 3x game (no pics), I've been using robotics to fold out some girders with sola panels instead of having all the gigantors attached along the axis... I could save some robotic parts and instead assemble girders and solar arrays in orbit. I suppose it could be cool to build some girder arrays in space... maybe even a big rotating wheel (out of structural panels) to drive around on as in an old KSP youtube video... but the lack of symettry tools will really hamper that I think

Agree, with the older 100kg weight limit (if I understand the mechanics correctly), the parts you could place were very limited. Yes, as I mentioned "trying to jury rig somethign workable after a hard landing that causes parts to fall off..." Honestly, that was never a problem for me, even at a 3x rescale: Well, with the new kerbal assist... maybe... still, the part size limits are a bit contraining to me. I would love if I could make a robotic arm that could move larger parts close to where i want them (in orbit), and then an engineer could do construction as long as the large part is already close to where you want to place it. Right now I just imagine making small rovers and tiny drones... which I could easily transport anyay I mean... I guess I could make this with EVA construction: but... I could do that before with the benefit of part symmetry, they weren't too bulky to move. I know there's got to be some cool uses, I'm just waiting to see them

Well, the design had too much fuel... Or it may be a piloting issue... I have a few points: 1) fuel != dV 2) beyond a certain margin for error, more margins come at higher and higher prices with more design compromises. 3) not all fuel is the same, too much LF and not enough O is a problem on many spaceplane designs, for example. Once out of the atmo, refueling a spaceplane, you may not want to add more LF the amount that you can use with Ox. Similarly, I have made some hybrid designs with LFO engines and nukes, such as for a Tylo mission. It may be intended to land with little excess LF for the nuke (such as if one intends to refuel on the surface), and loading it with too much fuel will doom it, or require piloting that simply wastes fuel to increase TWR before landing. 4) some designs are meant to have empty tanks for getting to/from orbit, and the tanks should only be filled when in orbit for transfers

Ah, the old days of strut spam because everything was noodly, and struts were still massless and dragless

So, other than placing and removing parts to avoid redundancy and reduce part count, what ways have you thought of to play the game differently with this new feature. I mean, there's got to be some good ones, but my creative juices aren't flowing so much. I get the idea of assembling something small like a rover on site, or trying to jury rig somethign workable after a hard landing that causes parts to fall off... but... I'm really drawing a blank for other ideas

Loosing ships on landing because of poor TWR argues against your assertion

So I finally updated to 1.11.1 yesterday, and I don't really know how eva construction works, or specifically how I might make use of it. Furthermore, I wanted to continue a save that I have put a lot of work into one big mission, for which no components have left kerbin's SOI yet (most are orbiting a 3x Mun, where Minmus normally is). I wanted to know how people envision using EVA construction in their missions, how to dovetail such uses into pre- 1.11 missions, and what exactly the limits of EVA construction are. My first thought about EVA construction relates to my modular surface base building: my surface bases are composed of rover-modules that each fit into a mk3 cargo bay. Each rover has its own probe core, batters, and power supply. I figure that I can reduce part count by using EVA construction to add those parts when deploying the rover, and then remove and store them after docking. I'd like to do the same with the TR-2l Ruggedized wheels... but I want to know: * is node attach available in EVA construction? are part offset and rotation tools (I tested EVA construction very breifly last night, with radially attached parts) * What are the largest parts that you can store? What are the heaviest parts that can be used on Laythe/Tylo (0.8g)? Can an empty FLT-200 tank be moved around * What are the limits for EVA construction? can I build things in orbit out of 2.5 meter parts and such (lets assume empty fuel tanks, to be filled later) How are the rest of you using EVA construction? I imagine that this adds a lot of possibilites that go beyond novelties, but I'm not sure what they are (particularly since I don't know the limits yet). I am excited about using it to reduce part count though :p

Can't forget... Terminal velocity ascents... had to make sure not to go to fast through the soup-o-sphere, as aero losses would easily overcome gravit drag losses... Took another 1,000 m/s or so of dV to get into orbit

Air hogging, pancake rockets, and pretty much being able to slam into any atmosphere at nearly any speed and angle thanks to no heating and nearly uniform acceleration on each part due to drag.

If you can't get an encounter with Minmus because it has a small SOI and a 6 degree tilt, what about Dres with a proportionaetly smaller SOI (given its distance) and a 5 degree tilt? Moho with a small SOI (thanks to being so close to the sun), and a 12 degree tilt? Eeloo at 6.25 degrees? Tiny Bop at 15 degrees? There's just no way that Minmus is harder than these other bodies

Wut? getting a minmus encounter is harder for you than getting to Moho, Dres, Gilly, poll, etc? I call BS

Said by whom? Are you referring to this BS? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ken-olsen/

@Arugela a part count of 1160! very laggy indeed. My large 3x SSTOs were reaching about 1000 tons, but they were only 200 parts or so.... Good grief... my laptop could not handle that, even a part count of 200 makes it nearly too laggy for me.

And plus, you could build planetary fortresses and massive dreadnaughts ... without calling them such. It would be the "Kzinti lesson" all over again if some alien came poking its head around and thought your kerbals to be an easy target (Yes this would just be role playing, but I'm sure some intrepid modder could make them functional weapons too). This sort of dual purpose tech is the only way I'd allow weapons in game... but railguns for launching spacecraft would also be dual purpose installations...

Yes, we have... As to the rest of your post, it is really hard to follow what you are trying to say, because so much of it seems absurd or to make no sense. I don't know if you just don't realize that it is patently absurd, or you aren't doing a good job explaining what you mean, but I can't understand your posts

Mass drivers for airless/ near airless worlds, laser launch for worlds with significant air

Agree that it would take too much work, but universe sandbox does all that stuff that you mentioned... but it would also mean that the planets would basically all need to be procedurally generated, not custom made as is the case currently. OTH, it would ensure all planets are realistic I invite you to thoroughly read the "worried about magic tech" thread and the metallic hydrogen discussion thread, and *if* you have a new argument (which currently does not seem to be the case), to post it there. Pure Water can exist at much lower pressure, it can even exist at pressures found on mars at the bottom of the helkas basin... but in that case, there is a *very* narrow range between boiling and freezing

I want a laser launch facility... although that does get into rocket territory, the first part of the launch can be done just by heating atmosphere, and would not really be a rocket when used in appropriate atmosphere... Plus the same facility could be used for powering light sails

Same here. As I think you know, I love to build large cargo carrying spaceplanes, and that cargo is often very large, and can shift the CoM, I often have significant excess fuel storage to allow for fuel redistribution to account for varying CoM depending on what payload is positioned. When I restrict myself to a mk3 cargobay, it generally matters less. Also, my cargos tend to move the CoM forward. Lastly, I do sometimes employ a method for changing the dry CoM, after payload deployment, by undocking and redocking some engines: Since moving to 2 stage recoverables on 3 or 4x Kerbin, it doesn't matter one bit really. I have a large carrier plane, with the payload + second stage slung underneath just behind the CoM. The 2nd stage always has its CoM shifted forward by the payload, but upon release its aerodynamics don't really matter. Its aerodynamics only really matter when landing with no payload: Most of my robotics on space planes are for ones with plenty of dV, and deal with landing on Duna ... or are for flying on eve (if you count rotors as robotics). Dunno if you want to count aircraft designs for flight on other worlds as spaceplanes (space being anything outside of kerbin's atmosphere, or anything outside any atmosphere). Never really needed more CoM shifting than what I get from fuel transfer, or redocking parts after payload release. Using robotics dynamically is quite... floppy. Its not so bad if you can get to space, unlock the joint, move it, relock it, and autostrut. I did try some designs with robotics moving an ore can to balance out some VTOLs, but I prefer just designing it well balanced and with enough control authority from thrust vectoring/aerodynamics(in the case of rotorcraft). So... I tried that, but I did not find it attractive considering other alternatives.

Last time I checked (1.9, 1.10?) when I used sigma dimensions with the stock system at 3x, all the stock planets were fine, but my mod planet was not fine (terrain collision was all messed up)... yet the planet worked fine without sigma dimensions (used to work fine with both). I just wanted to know if it was all sorted out before I try to pick up KSP again (haven't played in a while due to mod updating and real life stuff)

Is this still compatible with the old sigma-rescale mod?