monstah

Trying either on 3G, not succeeding. Damn work firewalls.

I'm liking the KCT idea, so far. Seems configurable enough, and the inventory seems to set it on the "difficult but fair" terrain. I'm gonna fiddle around with it when I get home.

If the launch is scrubbed today (let's hope it isn't), when is the next window?

I like where this is going. Some questions: - What's KCT? - Regolith acceptable as Kethane substitute? I really like the thought that mods take care of the restrictions, which is one of the reasons I won't play without DRE or RT2. Given the planets realistic size, DRE's default settings are deadly enough (don't know about Mars' thinner atmosphere, but I played around with it on Earth once and KABOOM). This could be a scoreless challenge, like Eve Rocks - make it, and a winner is you. Given food, reentry heat, communications, and greater than stock DV requirements, the sheer fact that you landed people there and had them stay long enough is a prize in itself. I've never played seriously with RO before. Willing to take a shot here! - - - Updated - - - Given previous points about player entry level and such, and given the challenge's objective, my "good enough" mods are: -DRE -TAC -RT2* -FAR* Any mission with these is already a very different challenge from stock; even using Duna instead of real Mars! * I always play with RemoteTech myself, tho for this particular challenge it might not be needed (to alleviate entry requirements). It's about the Kerbals' survivability! FAR is also a must have for my playing tastes, but in this case it actually makes the challenge easier, so it might be optional too. So, maybe, different "challenge levels" including RT/FAR? That makes it only 3 (or 2) required mods, DRE, TAC (and RO). - - - Updated - - - Another thought: a leaderboard based on least funds spent? Just brainstorming here. Something like (Kerbal-days spent on Mars)/(funds spent to keep them there), for a possibly variable ammount of Kerbals per mission.

Yeah, it's a sad common misconception that NERVAs have radioactive exhaust; IMO it should be added to the description that the radioactive stuff is always kept within and safe unless you burn the engine on reentry or some crazy thing like that.

Has there been any word by them here? I'm looking and I don't see any. - - - Updated - - - I mean, you know, obviously not in this thread, but the previous post was 2 hours old and maybe something happened somewhere else?

So... it's just a(n educated) guess, right?

It's the Philae way, right? Pretty awesome.

Best custom tree so far! I'm missing the thermometer in the beginning, tho. - - - Updated - - - Oh, I'm using the unmanned alternate version. Like it! I like the challenge of committing to your choices. It's very hard with FAR, tho. Maybe the simplest winglet might be unlocked on the beginning? I'm stabilizing my rockets with whatever I can and it's NOT pretty.

Thanks for explaining it, the fact lots of people didn't see it was making me think I was mad!

I've had that one occasionally, too. It's weird as hell.

But I didn't mean intentionally killing them, I just said that it won't hinder newbies by making new hirings always more expensive.

That. I understand some nodes were meant for mods, which make them empty without them, but the procedural fairings thing is silly. The main reason for using this mod is to NOT need to use any other fairing mod, so it's sort of stupid to have it sitting by itself on the end of the fairings tree. Plus, I would love to be able to at least see the names of the nodes a node will unlock, even if I can't see what's in them, so I can make SOME long-term judgement. Other than that, very nice mod. Thumbs up!

Death to Comic Sans, but as for the paintbrush avatars I'm loving it!

Mod combo breaker? Anyway, I think the N+1 thing is a simplification of overhead costs of keeping N Kerbals. It only applies to active ones, by the way, so if you kill your N+1th kerbal, hiring a new one will cost the same as the previous one, since you'll be down to N again. I'm fine with it. - - - Updated - - - What the hell? My name is green?? - - - Updated - - - Meh, april fools. Duh me.

Awesome! I'd get the save today, but I'm having trouble making my Stock++ install work. Later this week!

I don't have strong feelings about it. What I would like is for the game to use more procedural algorithms like the craters linked to the biomes and possibly closeness to the existing (or added) easter eggs, to add more interestingness to existing planets. Sure, a Saturn-like planet would be awesome. I think of majestic rings and a lot more moons than Jool, and since a few mods have added rings (tho I haven't played any) and there's the asteroid spawn code in place, I don't think that would be too hard to implement. But then, if they do develop that code, they could just use it to, say, give Jool a small dark ring and many inner and outer moonlets, and not need to make a whole new planet. Personally, I'm satisfied.

In my opinion, the total cycle length is the best option, although 1 week seems a bit too short to me. Two, perhaps?

HAH! It does look like a wasabi pea. I agree it does look a LOT like ice, tho, specially the flats suspiciously at "sea level". Let's just say realism isn't SQUAD's strong point.

This is turning out to be awesome. Thanks guys

Aw, COME ON, man. That decade was more than hype enough!

I believe infiniglide is already fixed, but yeah, I agree with that. The head-bump-insta-ragdoll infuriates me.

Hopefully, there'll be better aerodynamic torque, too, like FAR

Really? My bad then. I'm not home, but if noone gives a better answer soon I'll check it out when I get there.

The scenarios are actually saved games, inside a " Scenarios" folder! Just browse there on your file explorer, look for the folder "Ships", and merge it with the same folder on your savegame