Raven.

I would agree. A lot of the mods that the OP states are incompatible worked for me as well.

Performance under 64 bit, even under 23.5 is screaming; there is no lag in the 64 bit version where the 32 bit version grinds to a halt from severe lag. The only reason why I'm still not running 64 bit is because of mod compatibility at the moment. Else I'd totally be in 100%.

I disagree, I've seen and been on forums that were much more censored than the KSP forums. I've seen a forum that as soon as someone answered a question posted on the forum, a moderator was locking the thread with the text: "Question answered, thread locked." With that being said, the better forum censors simply replaced the offending word with the text "[censored]" instead of a blank.

FAR Remote Tech 2 FAR Kerbal Engineer Redux FAR Infernal Robotics with the model rework FAR KAS FAR EVE with Astronomer Pack FAR And oh yeah, did I mention FAR?

No, an alpha means that the product is incomplete. There's absolutely no implication that a finished framework is in place when we're talking about an alpha. Actually, to take things a little bit further, there is no implication or guarantee that anything at all will be complete when we're talking alpha. My observation on these forums has been that a lot of people are misunderstanding what an alpha is. Alpha means that the product is incomplete, and simply that. There is no guarantee that anything will actually work. An alpha is a work in progress. A Beta, is a complete product that is being tested and ran through QA. Beta's are released to the public in order to help track down bugs, Alpha's are released to the public in order to get a fan base in to help not only find bugs, but to provide continual feedback as the product is being developed.

In the stock game, I doubt that SSTO space planes would dominate. Now in a modded install, with KAS and mods such as B9 that offer much better space plane parts, I think it'll be a much different story. Especially with KAS, since refueling ops on the ground would be made considerably easier.

I've played around with both. The jet-assisted SSTO rockets, in my personal experience, have their biggest value in delivering small payloads, such as Kethane probes and RemoteTech 2 comm sats. I've had very little success with jet-assisted rockets on a larger scale, especially since my shuttle fleet can lift a much heavier payload faster and higher. I got one shuttle that's been lifting 40-50 ton, 2.5 m payloads to 500 km orbits with fuel left to spare. And everything except the SRBs is reusable. So it's extremely difficult for to justify a jet-assisted SSTO rocket unless it's a very small payload. Especially when budgets is about to be introduced and when my shuttles can outperform it. Now, what I've had very promising success with, is the reusable first stage similar to what SpaceX is doing, both on a small scale and a large scale. This last weekend I played around with a reusable first stage using the new 3.75 m stock parts, and was able to perform a deorbit burn, reentry, a safe landing, and a full recovery. This has the advantage of having some re-usability, like what you would have with a SSTO, but it still has the payload capacity of a staged rocket. I am personally not a big fan of spaceplane SSTOs for multiple reasons. The biggest reason is that a NASA style shuttle that's designed correctly and designed well will outperform most (but not all) spaceplane SSTOs.

I play with FAR, but not DRE. The most recent version of FAR introduces a new gameplay aspect called aerodynamic failures. Basically, if you do not watch your angle of attack and re-entry speed, your space ship disintegrates into tiny little pieces because the aerodynamic forces become too great for the craft to handle. In my personal opinion, I think that this, along with heat damage, should be made stock.

30 km sounds like a good height, as some supersonic craft that are powered solely by jets can get that high if they are designed right.

Remotetech 2 (version 1.4) seems to have caused a lot of NullReference errors in the KSP log file. This only happened on the 64 bit version; the new version of Remotetech works flawlessly on the 32 bit version. I don't think it's Kethane itself that's broken, but rather a KSP.exe that's broken out of the box. Mileage with different mods with 64 bit KSP varies greatly. I personally did not have any problems with Kethane on my 64 bit build, but other people reported problems. 64 bit KSP is great when you have no issues, but various different mods do not behave with various different installs of 64 bit KSP, and quite frankly, the only thing in common with everyone having problems is that 64 bit KPS is just simply not ready for production. Not yet, it needs some work and I suspect a memory leak bug.

Yesterday I finished creating the master biome map for the mod. The master biome map has every single mountain range, large lake, river, bay, and slope marked off (by hand) as an individual biome, which is why the map took so much time developing (it is also 16k x 8k in resolution). Which means that this mod is now in a completely new phase of development. 120 biomes is a lot of biomes to implement, and steps will need to be taken to minimize Custom Biomes's biome detection bug that occurs at the boundary of biomes. In addition, that is a lot of science reports to write. So what I'm doing is implementing about 20 to 30 biomes (including science reports) at a time over the course of six different test versions. The seventh version will be a release candidate that will be released publicly to the forums. The two most time consuming parts of this is writing the science reports, and then testing and debugging (especially if one biome does not want to pick up). Another thing that I will keeping a very close eye on is KSP 0.24 and how the contracts system is going to work. It is possible that after the release candidate is released, and the original scope of this mod is complete, that the scope might expand out to include new contracts for KSP. This is speculative however, and is very highly dependent on how the contract system works and how the next week of testing goes. All in all, keep an eye on this thread, as a test release is coming soon!

I like this. I would also like to see options to possibly build additional runways across Kerbin, and to build different hangers around the planet like what you see at the island runway. In fact, I with the KSC runway had open hangers like that.

You only get credit for the landing if you deliver a payload to the surface with the shuttle. All scores are based on the delivered payload. The altitude score is essentially how high the payload was delivered, the payload score is the weight of the payload, and the SOI score is where the payload was placed; it all revolves around the delivered payload. The shuttle itself must deliver the payload; it doesn't count if the payload de-orbits itself. Your shuttle delivered a single payload (as far as I could tell from the screenshots) to Eve orbit, not Eve surface. You see now why the point value for an Eve landing is through the roof, and why I made a distinction just solely for this achievement, as this is not easy to do. The Eve distinction does not require that the payload return with the shuttle; just the shuttle needs to return. Hope this helps, and sorry for the confusion.

B9 Aerospace works without issue with the low resolution pack, at least it does on my machine.

I'll definitely take a look at it. If you can get me the delta-v values I'll get that set up and added into the challenge. Oops! Get me the weight of the extra NERVA pod and I'll get your score corrected, you should definitely get credit for that.

I apologize for taking so long in responding to submissions. I have been in New York City for the last week with no access to internet (hotel wanted to charge me $10 for wifi for 4 hours, so I waited until I was back). So, now that I'm back in Arkansas, the first thing I'm doing is scoring submissions. Not bad. First shuttle to make it to Eve. Here's the scoop: Altitude Score: 8415.9286, because the shuttle hit Kerbin escape velocity (semi-major axis of the edge of Kerbin SOI was used) Payload Score: 1.11 * 100 = 111 SOI Score: 2340 for delivering to Eve orbit. Total Score: 1000 (Completion) + 8415.9286 (Altitude) + 111 (Payload) + 2340 (SOI) = 11866.9286 Awards earned were: The Jebidiah Distinction: The shuttle launched atop a big ole' rocket. The Squad Distinction: The shuttle was completely stock (Kerbal Alarm Clock did not alter the performance of the shuttle) The Highflier Distinction: The shuttle achieved a much high orbit than 250 km. The Ares Distinction: The shuttle achieved orbit around another celestial body, in this case Eve. The Ace Distinction: The shuttle was a manned shuttle. Oh dear, this is gonna score high. This is thus far the highest scoring shuttle on the challenge. Just landing on Laythe alone netted the submission a solid 9700 points. Then we throw in the Mun and Minmus landings. Here's the scoop: Altitude Score: 12,000 (For the Mun landing) + 47,000 (For the Minmus landing) + 84159.286 (For hitting escape velocity) = 14315.9286 Payload Score: 28 * 100 = 2800 SOI Score: 9725 (Laythe landing) + 1240 (Minmus landing) + 1710 (Mun landing) = 12675 Total Score: 1000 (Completion) + 14315.9286 (Altitude) + 2800 (Payload) + 12675 (SOI) = 30790.9286 Awards earned are as follows: The SSTO Distinction: The shuttle launched as a single stage, without ejecting any parts after launch. The Highflier Distinction: The shuttle went above 250 km altitude. The Ares Distinction: The shuttle achieved a circular orbit around another celestial body. The Constellation Distinction: The shuttle landed on another celestial body. The Ace Distinction: The shuttle was a manned shuttle. The Certified Badass Distinction: The shuttle is extremely versatile, being capable of functioning as a shuttle, space plane, and a VTOL at will. Well, here's the scoop: Altitude Score: (((73.144 (Pe) + 76.698 (Ap))/2) + 600) * 0.1 = 67.4921 Payload Score: 21.18 * 100 = 2118 SOI Score: 0 (shuttle did not leave Kerbin orbit) Total Score: 1000 (Completion) + 67.4921 (Altitude) + 2118 (Payload) = 3185.4921 Awards achieved are: The Jebidiah Distinction: This one was difficult to decide on. I was hoping the challenge would be setup in a way to where every submission could get a "launch vehicle" award (those being the Jebidiah, Piggyback, and SSTO Distinctions). This is one of those that falls through the cracks. I am awarding the Jebidiah Distinction, since using big boosters is something he would do. The Squad Distinction: The shuttle is made from completely stock parts. The Ace Distinction: Jeb drove. The Certified Badass Distinction: For doing S-turns doing reentry, missing your landing point, turning around, gliding 60km, then narrowly missing a ridge and landing on the Insular Airfield, all without pulling a Sparky, we think. The Sparky Award: The shuttle crashed and burned.

Payload engines are perfectly allowed. Why not use them? Especially if you got a ridiculously large payload.

Northstar, that is awesome to hear. A great girl can make all the difference in someone's life. I hope the relationship continues to be great for you . In the meantime, here's what I got far you: Altitude Score: A semi-major axis of 12,000 km was used for the score (semi-major axis of the Mun). So the altitude score was 1200. Payload Score: 5.005 tonns * 100 = 500.5 SOI Score: 1070 for Mun orbit Total Score: 1000 (completion) + 1200 (Altitude) + 500.5 (Payload) + 1070 (SOI) = 3770.5 The awards earned: The Jebidiah Distinction: The shuttle launched on top of a rocket. The Highflier Distinction: The shuttle went much higher than 250 km. The Ares Distinction: The shuttle obtained an orbit around another celestial body The Ace Distinction: The shuttle was piloted by Bill Kerman. The Sparky Award: The shuttle crashed and burned during testing.

Good job, good to see another B9 submission. Here's what we got: Altitude Score: A semi-major axis of 12,000 km was used. This is the semi-major axis of the Mun. So the altitude score was 1200. Payload Score: 1.97 tonns * 100 = 197 SOI Score: Payload was delivered to Mun orbit, so the SOI score was 1070. Total Score: 1000 (completion) + 1200 (Altitude) + 197 (payload) + 1070 (SOI) = 3467 The awards earned are: The Piggyback Distinction: The shuttle was launched piggybacked on two rocket boosters. The Highflier Distinction: The shuttle went higher than 250 km. The Ares Distinction: The shuttle achieved orbit around another celestial body. The Ace Distinction: The shuttle was a manned shuttle.

I got a shuttle that can meet this challenge with minimal modifications. However, it will be next week before I can get it online since I'll out of town for a week. But once I get back I'll be sure to post it.

Looking really good Northstar, the only thing I need now is a combined weight of the two payloads dropped off, and then we'll have a score. So far I have you down for: The Jebidiah Distinction: The shuttle launched on top of a rocket. The Highflier Distinction: The shuttle went much higher than 250 km. The Ares Distinction: The shuttle obtained an orbit around another celestial body The Ace Distinction: The shuttle is piloted by Bill Kerman. The Sparky Award: The shuttle crashed and burned during testing. Close enough, it qualifies. Just give me a payload weight and we're good.

I had similar issues. The regular textures from B9 caused the game to lock up and crash. But if I switched to the reduced textures, it worked perfectly fine in Directx 9.

Direct3D 11? Now this is interesting. I wonder how well it works. Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to try this soon because I'll be away from my gaming rig for a week.

In my own opinion, that OC is fine. That processor can handle it so long as he manages the heat. Squad did figure out how to do it. And they did test it. The poll at the beginning of the thread, at the time of this post, is only showing a 72% success rate for DirectX based configurations. This is not a failure rate you want to have in an official release. 64 bit KSP is not ready for official release or support yet, neither will it be for when 0.24 comes out. Not until that failure rate is less than 5%. My hunch is that we will not see an official x64 KSP until 0.25 or even 0.26. The glitch between loading screens is the Unity player is not flushing the video buffer out while loading a scene. Which means that the x64 Unity Player, at this point, has an unconfirmed, non-game-breaking bug. This is simply my theory though, and I could be wrong on this. The cases where switching to openGL is a driver compatibility issue between Unity and the graphics driver. These cases are issues that Unity, nVidia, or AMD needs to fix, not Squad.

I agree, though they probably already have and are talking about it. And yes, I agree, this is a breakthrough. The only problem I've noticed so far is that KSP x64 crashes with the HD textures from B9 Aerospace. The reduced textures work fine, but not the HD textures. Don't know why. I have 16 GB of memory and KSP takes up about 6 to 7 GB. Maybe the possibility of an 8 GB limit with KSP x64? Unless someone has already broken this limit. I think they knew it would work. My understanding of the x64 bit client not being release before was because of stability issues, which we are observing with this. It seems like the 64 bit Unity player still has some work to to go with compatibility with certain graphic cards and driver sets. Plus there are some graphical glitches that need to be sorted out before a supported release. The glitch with the Astronaut Complex is one such example (speaking of which, this seems like a video buffer bug with the x64 unity player, such as the program not flushing the buffer out like it should. This would explain some memory leak issues as well).