horndgmium

Possibly I will, but I haven't used it so I don't know what it's like. What does it do? I was also considering adding boat parts... carriers might count for points too. What do you guys think? @Queso thanks again so much. I'll link to all of the mods on the front page, but not redistribute.

I love you. I mean I love this plugin. Meh, porque no los dos?

Cool cool. That's up to you since you're going first! When you start you'll be creating the persistent so I suppose there won't be anything to download; like I said just mark when you start. Also guys, I added a couple mods to the list, intended to cut down on parts in our crafts.

Haha, yeah things can always go horribly wrong no matter what you do. Yeah I took your advice before and I started using invisistruts and it really helps a lot. I suppose it's kind of a limitation of a game at the moment that we can't "reinforce" certain joints. As always though, more struts, more better!

Yeah but the general consensus is that we CAN'T play without three mods hahah. I guess I kinda looked at this more like "what three mods will you never play KSP without even if you have other mods installed".

This would be sweet as an ongoing challenge... like every week or two post a new one and add people's scores up or something to see who keeps the lowest on multiple missions.

Yeah, reopened now! Still hasn't started yet, the teams need to be finalized. I haven't heard from everyone yet. But it can start whenever, I think I will give Dragon Army first go now. If DA wishes to start then they get two days before they need to surrender the persistent file, at which point we will move in order of teams listed. Stealth_Eagle: if you want to start, you can download the persistent whenever, just notify me/the thread.

Well that's nice and simple, I like it. Haha who's calling it cheating!?

1. MechJeb 2. FAR 3. Active Texture Management (I think this one has been incredibly overlooked here... you can't play with tons of mods without it!)

Yay alliteration... But question: is there any hope to consolidate the procedural mods (wings, parts, fairings [others?]). Consolidation is always nice.

I don't want this to die because I agree, but I just want to say that FAR isn't perfect, although when compared to stock aeros it's basically God. Aerodynamic failures especially are unique in KSP though... in real life, an aircraft is made on one frame, and aerodynamic failures entail the breaking of the parts, whereas in our system it entails parts falling apart from each other. And currently that makes sense, because that's how crafts are built in KSP - as a bunch of parts thrown together. So I guess I wish that there was a way for FAR to act upon an aircraft as a whole rather than than on individual parts, because it seriously hinders G-tolerances and performance. In real aircraft, there isn't really a critical point, but when you gradually contribute to the stress by pushing the edges of the safe and tested flight envelope, you might then get a failure. So like I mentioned on the FAR thread at one point, it's really frustrating when my wings fall off pulling 2.5 G's for only an instant just because FAR didn't realize that the wing/body connection won't ever break, but maybe the wing itself will. Many aircraft that are tested for 7-9 G's can sustain 4-6 indefinitely, and aerodynamic failures will NOT occur from hitting only 9 Gs, but instead aircraft stress will occur. THEN on future flights or future times you hit 7-9 Gs, your aircraft is more likely to have a stress failure, and will certainly at least contribute to stress at an accelerated rate too (maybe even my stress). After-thought Edit: But seriously though, I am continually peeved by people complaining about add-ons being difficult or not perfect. 1. It's free. 2. YOU CHOSE TO USE IT 3. It's under development. Contribute in a productive manner or leave.

Can't argue with that logic!

Hey so I was thinking that our mobile processing lab is cool and all for resetting experiments and increasing transmission value, but I have some suggestions I think would add some much needed depth pretty easily! These are not entirely dependent on each other, so please don't write them off if you see one you don't like. 1. Make analysis of samples (goo/materials bay/surface samples) have very minimal value if not returned to Kerbin (or analyzed in a lab on the surface of that body). The only information that can be gained by "analyzing" a sample abroad is seeing what it looks like, which can be done from a telescope on Kerbin anyway. Especially if these samples are obtained with a rover/probe rather than a live being to mess with it. 2. Have a multitude of experiments that can be run on a sample if you return it to Kerbin. Each of these should yield science (some more than others). Examples of experiments: Mass Spec, Chromatography, Reactive analysis, etc. This could be done it a new building called the 'Science Labs' or something along those lines. Thous would add some more depth to hanging around the Space Center as well. 3. There should be two types of mobile processing labs. The first - one that you bring down to a surface to a rover/base and that can do a minimal analysis (the same way that would happen on Kerbin but somewhat less value). If the same sample is analyzed on a different body, the science gained by doing a secondary analysis on Kerbin should not be lessened (much). Reason for this: the environments in which analyses are conducted are different. You need to do both to fully "science" some sample/area. **My Main Idea** The second - an orbital processing lab. Continuing with the above notion that doing science on a sample in different environments should yield different scientific data, analyses carried out in free fall should yield more data than analyzing a sample on a body with gravity. This is similar to the idea of our Space Station - we can already do tons of science on Earth, so we started sending things to space to see how they handle a stint of weightlessness. Including people. 4. You should be able to send samples up from Kerbin into orbit as well, and carry out experiments on them there. This will, of course, yield more scientific data. So Science on Kerbin is more complex than go send a Kerbal to a spot and recover him after clicking some buttons. Once you recover a Kerbal with experiments, they should go into a repository. When you're launching a research mission, you should then have the option to take missions up with you, and then when you get to where you want to experiment, you can in the orbital/surface lab. 5. Extending the former point, you should be able to conduct experiments on samples from one celestial body on any other celestial body, as well as in low and high orbits of the same/other bodies. Why shouldn't you be able to analyze a Duna sample on a Mun base or in Kerbin orbit? Those are different experiments! 5. (A Maybe) The area in which you do research should reflect the scientific advancements you make. Ex.: sending a probe to the surface of the moon and landing will let you upgrade parts that reflect rovers. So if you never do missions intended to gain certain advancements, you might send a colony ship to Duna without even having simple rover tech. Another example: More missions around Kerbin will improve your plane parts (although that's another discussion - I still think you should be able to fly planes to start and get science that allows you to reach further and further into the atmosphere, until you reach the scientific level that has discovered the technology to fly manned missions into space). 6. Why do you always have to click a button for science? Some of it should be automatic. Like crew reports. Anytime anything happens, the crew reports it if they're in radio contact IRL. Thus, by extension, you are gaining science by simply conducting a mission, and it should be that way. And if a ship returns to Kerbin, you can gain more science by recovering it and analyzing what happened to it in space. Side no. 7. Make it so that multiple reports can be stored in a command pod. Like really? Do they only have the memory space to record one sentence before they have to transmit it? TL;DR: more places/ways to do science

So I meant to write this post a while back. I was annoyed that the scanner missed spots when timewarping too fast (read: traveling over the ground too fast). But I realized that the scanner has a time-delay between scans causing the gaps, and wanted to get rid of that. Here's a tip in case anyone would like it / hasn't figured this out yet: putting multiple Kethane scanners will allow you to timewarp faster, thus scanning a whole celestial body much more quickly. The benefit is directly related to the amount of scanners on your sattelite, as well. Happy mining!

What do you mean? Everything is scaled up by 1000 but that's why the budgets were too. But comparatively I was actually getting cheaper prices somehow in MJ than in MCE. And yeah I don't see why not, you'll just have to find someone to buy!

Which one? I think there are a couple in Africa

But why would the parts unload once they're docked together? Or would a long truss with a docking port > 2.5 km from the CoM fail to load?

Got it! I'm considering just deleting the teams and making them again anyway...

Thanks, Chris. It might be better just to post links in the case of those other mods. Guys: lets restart. I'm going to update the teams with the recent developments, but I'll probably miss some so let me know.

Yeah, I also think that the added benefit from the jet engines would get outweighed by their uselessness and added mass fairly quickly when the intakes run out. Can real intakes even hold air like that?

For some reason Wiki won't load for me right now :/. Idea: an asparagus staged rocket with higher TWR (lighter engines smaller tanks maybe?) on the outside. Don't drop the stages. Wa-la: SSTO. Nomenclature is a treacherous business. But to be honest that's overcomplicated and since this is a game, overengineering combined with the new parts could make it possible. All I'm saying is, as the famous quote goes: if you say something is probably not possible, you are most likely right. If you say something is impossible, you are almost certainly wrong.

How so/what theory? - - - Updated - - - How so/what theory?

Did you calculate that to be impossible or just saying it's impossible? I'm itching so hard to prove it can be done to all the "no it can't be done don't even bother you losers" kind of people, but also totally unwilling to remove FAR from my gamedata.

Guys you realize that you can make an SSTO rocket too, right?

Hey man that guy made himself a celebrity haha