Search the Community

When I told my mom and dad they didn\'t talk to me the whole week... Ah how peaceful that week was....

This topic has been moved to The Forum Forum, where all the good talk about the forum goes! [iurl]http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=10131.0[/iurl]

There has been talk of it drawing ideas from Elite and Firefly....

Talk about whatever you want - March was a good month for the forum: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?action=stats By far the most topic were made, by far the most new posts were posted and the highest number of new members that joined the community.

I didn\'t talk about orbits, i don\'t know. I was just saying that time warping isn\'t a problem. I\'ll think about it anyway.

So , my efforts to add to the Mun base were...less succesfull than planned After contemplating building a larger and more ambitious 'lunar outpost' , I decided to stick with what I knew and plumped for the 'Super Laika' variant of my 'Laika' class orbiter. This launcher-capsule was originally designed for simple orbital flights but the addition of some landing legs and a switch from the Kosmos RCS modules to stock (to reduce the number of mods used) extends its range into Cis-munar space. I has some strange problems with the persistance file refusing to load the last few missions , so I apologise in advance for glitches when I pass on the batton. Oh , and for those of you wondering about the name of the capsule I include a completely optional history lesson. Shortly after the launch of Sputnik in 1957 Premier Khrushchev demanded that the space program produce a 'Space Spectacular' to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the October revolution and one-up the Americans who were preparing to launch their own satellites. Deciding that the triumph of an animal in space would be sufficient , they cobbled together the Sputnik 2 spacecraft in a matter of weeks. As for its passenger , they chose a young mongrel stray called Laika that had been found wandering the streets of Moscow. On Nov 3rd 1957 she was lifted into orbit on an R-7 Launcher , becoming the first living creature to be launched into an orbit around the Earth. Though the mission made headlines at the time (Laika was lauded as 'Mutnik' in the American press) , the story was rapidly eclipsed by the race to put a man into space and the subsequent dash for the moon. Laika herself was destined to die in space , for the Russian engineers had neither the time nor the expertise to design a re-entry module. Within hours of launch the poorly designed systems began to fail and Laika died of heatstroke before the day was out. Despite this the mission must be considered highly successful , for it proved that creatures not unlike humans could Breath , sleep eat and talk (bark) in zero gravity. In recognition of this triumph , I named my humble lander after the dog. Mission Log 1. On the pad. As you can see , the Laika class is a small ship , and usually does not launch with a fairing. One was added for this mission for the sake of the delicate landing legs. The first stage is all liquid , but would normally include the addition of four small solid 'payload assist' rockets from Jordancox\'s pack. I ommited them believing that the lander could make the one way trip. 2. Shortly after 2nd stage separation. Here you can see the lander itself. The legs and large RCS units rather mess up the lines of this beautiful pack , and usually I fly with the smaller Kosmos RCS. This is where leaving out the Payload assist rockets came back to bite me , forcing me to use the capsules main engine to boost orbital speed and make the Trans-munar burn. Much valuable fuel was wasted 3. Munar Disasters! Firstly , I mistimed my TMB. I ended up in front of the mun and had to make an emergency course correction. Then , after correctly lining myself up and burning off velocity to come down manually on the base-site , it became apparent that I would run out of gas. I was forced to take an agonising decision and commit myself to landing on the Capsule rockets alone. That was pretty hair raising. I finally managed to get her down only a few dozen metres from the beacon...and was then mildly suprised to see the rover go rolling past the window! for some reason it decided to start moving when it loaded in range. I have no idea why. This is the view I got after I shifted it back into position manually In conclusion , ive had better missions. I include the Persistance file , I only hope my next crew take a spare jerry can [ftp=ftp://www.filedropper.com/persistent><img src=http://www.filedropper.com/download_button.png width=127 height=145 border=0/></a><br /><div style=font-size:9px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;width:127px;font-color:#44a854;> <a href=http://www.filedropper.com >online backup</a></div>] <a href=http://www.filedropper.com/persistent><img src=http://www.filedropper.com/download_button.png width=127 height=145 border=0/></a><br /><div style=font-size:9px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;width:127px;font-color:#44a854;> <a href=http://www.filedropper.com >online backup</a></div>[/ftp]

Meteorite101 was banned :w00t: (no offence to him, but he wasn\'t my faverote person to talk to on a forum enviroment.

Played back in 2007, game got terrible, devs got greedy, and I left the place before my IQ could be affected. Still play single player once in a while to blow shit up, and you MIGHT see me play online if I am in the mood to troll children. Also, my username is a fucking embarrassment, 'NUTTY555' holy shit what was I on when I was nine. EDIT: My place was actually pretty cool. I took fireworks from free models and attached them like boosters to a rocket. It exploded because I hadn\'t edited the script at all. Talk about being very Kerbal. Link if anyone wants to play: http://www.roblox.com/Pyrotecnic-Rockets-place?id=1644077

Join the irc I showed further up and talk to me there. trbinsc is also there right now, if not sporadically AFK.

[15:16] <@Capt_Skunky> <BrownFox> how would staging on interplanetary vessels work? [15:16] <@HarvesteR> but I like the idea of an expansion pack that adds new features [15:16] <@Sordid> Though I have to say, the idea of multiple players with their own separate space agencies and separate budgets pooling their resources to do something grand sounds really awesome. [15:16] <@HarvesteR> and new possibilities [15:18] <@HarvesteR> Oh, new announcement on the servers [15:18] <@HarvesteR> we\'ve ditched the mediafire idea, because it seems they don\'t really offer an option to have a private download [15:18] <@HarvesteR> we are now setting up a new, beefier server [15:19] <@HarvesteR> it should be up and running in a few hours, and we will eventually move the entire site there [15:19] <@HarvesteR> for the time being though, we will offload the downloadable files to it [15:19] <@HarvesteR> so the community and downloads will be separate [15:19] <@Capt_Skunky> <N3X15> Why is KSP not using a relational database like SQLite for persistance? Wouldn\'t it be more effective? [15:20] <@HarvesteR> for a save format you mean? [15:20] <@N3X15> Yeah [15:20] <@N3X15> A few other people asked about this. [15:20] <@HarvesteR> the SFS format was created to be as straightforward and robust as possible really [15:21] <@HarvesteR> we did think about using established formats, like XML or something, but in the end, it was just adding needless overhead [15:22] <@HarvesteR> the SFS is just what we need really [15:22] * @N3X15 nods [15:22] <@HarvesteR> it\'s easy to work with, human-readable, and so far, we\'ve been able to keep it organized I think [15:22] <@HarvesteR> also, you don\'t see it by looking at the file, but there is a system for saving and loading metadata [15:22] <@HarvesteR> parts use it to store part-specific data [15:23] <@HarvesteR> like the amount of fuel in a tank [15:23] <@HarvesteR> which wouldn\'t make sense to have in the definition of a SAS module [15:23] <@HarvesteR> we do have plans though, to create an upgraded format later, called SGS [15:23] <@HarvesteR> SFS = Saved Flight State [15:23] <@HarvesteR> SGS = Saved Game State [15:24] <@HarvesteR> but for now, we\'re good with that [15:24] <@Capt_Skunky> <Causeless>for 0.15, are you going back to the 4-week updates, or are you going to take the time to try and iron out as many bugs as possible? [15:25] <@HarvesteR> I\'m rethinking the way we do updates here, and we might possibly do some changes to our system [15:26] <@HarvesteR> the initial idea was to return to the 4-week cycle as before, and indeed, we are not going to do a .14 sized update again anytime soon [15:26] <@HarvesteR> we\'re not THAT crazy [15:26] <@HarvesteR> but, the 4-week cycle is lacking in some respects [15:26] <@HarvesteR> Lately, I\'ve been thinking of running a dual-3-week cycle [15:27] <@HarvesteR> 3 weeks to go crazy and take the game apart, 3 weeks to fix the mess [15:27] <@HarvesteR> and a release at the end of each 6 weeks [15:27] <@HarvesteR> but we still have to discuss that as a team really [15:27] <@HarvesteR> it\'s just an idea at this point [15:28] <@Capt_Skunky> <BrownFox> Harv, would it be a good idea to have a \'Lock Docks\' function, similar to staging? Will Assemblies have a way to jetison specific nodes at will? Perhaps a bank of dock actuator buttons? [15:28] <@HarvesteR> well, I had imagined that un-docking would work only from child-to-parent [15:29] <@HarvesteR> that is, you can undock the vessel you\'re commanding, but not undock others from it [15:29] <@HarvesteR> but, that would be a nice thing to have implemented as a contextual action for docking nodes [15:29] <@HarvesteR> which is an idea I\'ve been playing with for a while [15:29] <@HarvesteR> actually, now that we\'re on the subject, I\'ve been wanting to have a discussion on this [15:30] <@HarvesteR> the staging stack isn\'t enough to control everything a ship can do [15:30] <@Capt_Skunky> on that note [15:30] <@HarvesteR> so several systems are being placed in separate actions 'channels' [15:30] <@Capt_Skunky> <NovaSilisko>is a staging overhaul going to be required for docking? considering how much will change (multiple capsules per vessel, even at launch) it might be needed [15:30] <@HarvesteR> heh, just in time [15:30] <@Capt_Skunky> Yup [15:31] <@HarvesteR> well, what I want to do, and mind that this is not planned for 0.15 yet [15:31] <@HarvesteR> is to revise the staging system completely [15:31] <@HarvesteR> or at least add whatever is missing to it [15:31] <@HarvesteR> so I have a couple of ideas, some conflicting, that I wanted to talk about [15:31] <@HarvesteR> the first is the so-called \'hotbar\' [15:32] <@HarvesteR> it\'s a UI area where you can drag part icons to, to remove them from the staging sequence [15:32] <@HarvesteR> those would be mapped to number keys, and you could activate them manually there [15:32] <@HarvesteR> that\'s one idea [15:32] <@HarvesteR> then there is another concept I\'ve been going over, which I call \'action groups\' [15:32] <@HarvesteR> action groups are simpler really [15:33] <@HarvesteR> and already unwittingly partially implemented [15:33] <@HarvesteR> they\'re things like SAS, Gears and RCS [15:33] <@HarvesteR> only there would be more of them [15:33] <@HarvesteR> those control parts that do the same things, as a group [15:33] <@HarvesteR> both systems have pros and cons really [15:34] <@HarvesteR> because some part types are better fitted for action groups, others are better with hotbar-style mapping [15:34] <@HarvesteR> others though, should be controlled individually [15:34] <@HarvesteR> and lastly, others work best as part of a sequence [15:34] <@HarvesteR> as you can see, we have our work cut out for us [15:35] <@HarvesteR> I\'m not trying to think up a single unifying control scheme thoug [15:35] <@HarvesteR> but I don\'t want to have a lot of similar-but-not-the-same systems in either... that would just be confusing [15:36] <@HarvesteR> I would like to keep it as simple as possible though, without detracting from flexibility [15:37] <@Capt_Skunky> <Ascensiam> What environments are most likely for new planets, and are they going to follow the same size-to-gravity as Kerbin? [15:37] <@HarvesteR> well, we want to keep the entire Kerbal star system in more or less the same scale [15:37] <@HarvesteR> although it\'s not exactly a scale per se... it\'s more of a paradigm we\'re trying to follow [15:38] <@HarvesteR> radius is 1/11th of the original, G at surface is the same [15:38] <@HarvesteR> so far, that\'s been working well [15:38] <@HarvesteR> although we did break that with the Mun [15:38] <@HarvesteR> Most games exaggerate the size of the moon on the screen quite a lot [15:38] <@HarvesteR> because of the larger FOV on-screen, the moon would appear to be a speck [15:39] <@HarvesteR> you can see that in Orbiter, which makes no compromise [15:39] <@HarvesteR> but here, we wanted it to feel right, so the mun is much larger than the moon-earth relationship [15:39] <@HarvesteR> anyhow, about other planets, we want to keep going with the solar-system-spoof idea [15:40] <@HarvesteR> so there\'ll be an analogue for most \'popular\' celestial bodies [15:40] <@HarvesteR> and we\'ll get creative with the less known ones [15:41] <@Capt_Skunky> <witeken> 1) Will there come ever merchandise? If yes, what are the requirements? 2) How many times is KSP purchased? Can the devs live with the money they get from people buying the game/donating? [15:41] <@HarvesteR> Merchandise is planned for the near future, although there is no ETA on that atm [15:41] <@HarvesteR> but I can tell you this, I want a Kerbal plushie just as bad as you do [15:42] <@HarvesteR> := [15:42] <@Capt_Skunky> I think everyone does [15:42] <@HarvesteR> hehe [15:42] <@HarvesteR> we\'re looking at easier stuff first though, because things like bespoke plushies require quite the investment [15:43] <@HarvesteR> you can only make it feasible if you produce thousands of them, which means we need to be sure thousands of people would want one [15:43] <@HarvesteR> so we\'re probably going to get started with simpler things, like T-shirts and such [15:44] <@HarvesteR> but no estimates on that right now... [15:44] <@Capt_Skunky> <kHurtiZ>Please would you move the Nav ball to the right? The centre has the rocket, and the navball tends to obscure it, whereas there\'s masses of space over to the right. Other UI suggestions: the altimeter should be close to the velocity indicator (as you often need to see both figures at the same time); and also add Pe and Ap indicators in the main flight screen. [15:44] <@HarvesteR> The UI is in for some reworking, and pretty soon also [15:45] <@HarvesteR> I also dislike how the navball obscures the view, but at the same time, the navball is the most important instrument on the UI [15:45] <@HarvesteR> so we\'re thinking up some ideas to improve the general UI layout [15:46] <@HarvesteR> and more immediately, I want to add a UI Scale optino to the settings, because I do think the UI is too large right now, and also a UI transparency option [15:46] <@HarvesteR> as for moving it to the right, that\'s where the crew avatars are, and it\'s not a very immediate focus area [15:46] <@HarvesteR> the ADI on aircraft cockpits is centered for the same reason [15:47] <@HarvesteR> but most significantly, we will add a system we\'re calling UI Master Modes soon [15:48] <@HarvesteR> basically, the UI instruments would each have several modes in which they could operate [15:48] <@HarvesteR> the navball, for instance, would be toggleable between surface (current), orbit, and maybe something else [15:48] <@HarvesteR> the speed reading toggles between surface, orbit, and later target-relative [15:52] <@Capt_Skunky> <witeken> 3) HarvesteR, what do you like the most at KSP as a game? Building rockets, missions or finding bugs(xp?)? Or something else? 4) How many devs get full time paid for full time developing KSP? [15:52] <@Capt_Skunky> Trying to move things along.. quite a few questions in the queue [15:54] <@Capt_Skunky> I think Harv has stepped away from the PC... sit tight folks. [15:58] <@HarvesteR> sorry I was on the phone [15:58] <@HarvesteR> back now [15:58] <@Capt_Skunky> I figured as much [15:59] <@HarvesteR> well, just to finish up on the UI thing, the idea is that each piece of the UI would be configurable, and Master Modes then would act as a preset [15:59] <@HarvesteR> so you could quickly alternate between Flight mode and Docking mode, for instance [16:00] <@HarvesteR> If you\'re familiar with how Photoshop has its \'workspaces\', the idea is more or less the same [16:00] <@HarvesteR> now, about the other question [16:00] <@HarvesteR> the thing I like most is finding things that surprise me... things that weren\'t programmed explicitly [16:01] <@HarvesteR> like the wings flexing with C7 parts [16:01] <@HarvesteR> or how coming into the atmosphere too quickly can actually break a ship into pieces [16:01] <@HarvesteR> or names like 'Generick Kerman' [16:02] <@Capt_Skunky> <markodash> can we get a thick atmosphere monn/planet ahead of the full system release? it would be a change of pace from the normally airless bodies [16:02] <@HarvesteR> oh [16:03] <@HarvesteR> well, yeah, I don\'t think we\'d be able to release the entire solar system in a single update [16:03] <@HarvesteR> because our terrain system still has no support for things like gas giants, or ring systems [16:03] <@HarvesteR> so we\'ll probably start with the rocky planets first [16:04] <@HarvesteR> and yeah, those will have several types of atmosphere [16:04] <@HarvesteR> the venus-like planet would have a thick atmosphere [16:04] <@HarvesteR> the mars-like one would have a very thin one [16:04] <@HarvesteR> should make for some pretty interesting flying there [16:05] <@Capt_Skunky> <NovaSilisko> is the ambient light going to stay as-is, or will it change depending on celestial body? (airless bodies have none, atmospheres have some) [16:05] <@HarvesteR> that\'s already more or less implemented actually [16:05] <@HarvesteR> there is already a system in place to vary the global ambient light based on the vacuum colour and the colour set for each celestial body [16:05] <@HarvesteR> right now though, it\'s very subtle [16:06] <@HarvesteR> but it should be cool to have a reddish-looking desert planet, or a purplish looking one [16:06] <@Capt_Skunky> <witeken> 5) Will there come a more interacting tutorial? [16:07] <@HarvesteR> we will add more tutorials later I think, as they become more necessary [16:07] <@HarvesteR> as far as more interacting, I\'m not quite sure what that means [16:07] <@HarvesteR> we do plan on having training missions though [16:07] <@HarvesteR> the SFS system allows for one-off instances, and those could be used along with a tutorial to create a training mission [16:08] <@HarvesteR> you could potentially start from orbit, with a ready-to-go spacecraft [16:08] <@Capt_Skunky> <Aegrim> Will they ever make a cool launch animations effect, with the smoke flying everywhere during ignition before the game takes over and the rocket flies off [16:09] <@HarvesteR> definitely. The smoke trails and particles system is long overdue for an overhaul [16:10] <@Capt_Skunky> <BrownFox> Harv, how are you planning on developing the in-game economy? Part prices already exist; how about ways of earning coins? Perhaps in-game \'X-Prizes\', asteroid mining challenges and things of that nature? [16:10] <@HarvesteR> well, the original idea was that you\'d earn money from doing flights [16:11] <@HarvesteR> but we do have other ideas too [16:11] <@HarvesteR> you could, instead of earning money and spending it directly, be assigned a periodic budget [16:11] <@HarvesteR> that would make more sense if KSP were a government program [16:11] <@HarvesteR> if you see it as a private program though, earning money through missions makes more sense [16:12] <@HarvesteR> but I think in the end we\'ll probably go with a middle-ground approach, where you\'d earn not just money from missions, but generate interest in the space program from achieving goals [16:13] <@HarvesteR> and interest could result in more money, through sponsorships possibly, or something of the sort [16:13] <@HarvesteR> all that remains to be decided though [16:14] <@HarvesteR> but the initial idea is that money will come from doing flights, and doing flights will cost money... if you do it right, they will make more money than they cost [16:14] <@Capt_Skunky> <cBBp> did you ever thing kerbal would get as popular as it has when you first started on it? [16:14] <@HarvesteR> it\'s a weird feeling really [16:14] <@HarvesteR> sometimes I felt good about it, and expected good things from the game [16:15] <@HarvesteR> other times I felt like I was working on something no one could possibly like [16:15] <@HarvesteR> it\'s been a roller-coaster ride of personal opinions about the game [16:16] <@HarvesteR> one thing I can say for sure though, I definitely didn\'t expect the game to get this big this fast. [16:16] <@HarvesteR> The state of the server is proof of that [16:16] <@Capt_Skunky> <witeken> the whole community knew what update 0.15 would be focused on. Can you give us an idea where 0.16 will go about? [16:16] <@HarvesteR> well, it depends a little on what we can actually achieve for 0.15 [16:17] <@HarvesteR> we know what we want to add for it, but from that to actually getting those features in, there\'s quite a lot of work [16:17] <@HarvesteR> but ideally, after flight planning and docking, the next big thing would be making the Kerbals themselves more present in the game [16:18] <@HarvesteR> so I\'d very much like to add EVAs then [16:18] <@HarvesteR> but we\'ll see [16:18] <@HarvesteR> it also depends quite a lot on which base features still need implementing to get there [16:18] <@HarvesteR> and we don\'t know that until we start planning the actual update. [16:18] <@Capt_Skunky> <Ascensiam> When will the sun become a solid object that can overheat ships and supply a small variety of dangers? [16:19] <@HarvesteR> pretty soon, if everything goes as planned [16:19] <@HarvesteR> but we are not planning on adding a physical surface to the sun though, only a visual one [16:20] <@HarvesteR> you\'ll be vaporized before you even get close to it, so there\'s no point in having a collidable surface [16:20] <@HarvesteR> I can say though, that I\'m pretty happy with how it\'s shaping up [16:20] <@Capt_Skunky> <Byter> how many moons will saturn (or katurn) have? you cant add so many of them...it would be a 'orbital mess' because the map view would change your orbit all the time...and: is there still a free-flight mode without credits and missions and that stuff? [16:21] <@HarvesteR> I can\'t say for sure just how many moons we will add... that is the kind of thing we judge by feel [16:21] <@HarvesteR> but we want to have a large enough amount that you can explore for quite a while [16:22] <@HarvesteR> at the same time though, there\'s no point in adding 300 bits of rock that look exactly the same [16:22] <@HarvesteR> we want each celestial body to be unique in its own way [16:23] <@HarvesteR> about the free-flight mode, that will never go away. Missions are not like game 'levels', they\'re more like quests. [16:23] <@Capt_Skunky> <NovaSilisko> is there any precedent or preferred 'backstory' for the game? alternate universe/dimension? alien construct like some have proposed? [16:24] <@HarvesteR> well, not in a very formal sense... The Kerbal universe is not in any way linked to the real one, and I wouldn\'t like to set down a very rigid storyline either [16:25] <@HarvesteR> games to me are not about telling stories... for that we have movies, books and tv [16:25] <@Capt_Skunky> And comics [16:25] <@HarvesteR> games to me are about creating worlds the player can experience [16:25] <@HarvesteR> and from that, he\'ll create his own stories [16:26] <@Capt_Skunky> <witeken> What do you do in the weekend? Do you read the forums? Typ a few lines of code? Or do you just do private stuff/play KSP yourself? [16:26] <@HarvesteR> hehe, I usually try as hard as I can to forget I have a job [16:26] <@Capt_Skunky> ROFL [16:27] <@HarvesteR> and I really need to check myself from going into the forums or doing game-related things... I could very easily get sucked into working through the weekend [16:27] <@HarvesteR> and then burning out the week after [16:27] <@HarvesteR> getting rest is as important as the work itself really. It\'s like braking before a corner [16:28] <@HarvesteR> you might crash if you don\'t [16:28] <@Capt_Skunky> <cBBp> any chance we will see a game supported animation system that works like sounds or effects and is universal between parts? [16:28] <@HarvesteR> yeah, we do want to add that as soon as we can [16:28] <@HarvesteR> for that, we will probably have to create our own animation system, and that\'s not a small task [16:28] <@HarvesteR> but it is something we want to do [16:29] <@Capt_Skunky> <Causeless> how about weather? how will any weather systems work, not just for Kerbin, but other planets? [16:29] <@HarvesteR> weather is another feature I\'d very much like to see [16:29] <@HarvesteR> although first, I\'d like to at least have a cloud system in [16:30] <@HarvesteR> the cloud system would allow us to have clouds over Kerbin, and possibly a basic form of weather, and if done right, it would also enable us to create gas giants [16:30] <@HarvesteR> or planets completely covered by clouds, like Titan

The thread is unlocked and it wasn\'t your fault it was the lack to talk about that caused it.

Don\'t feel bad, it really wasn\'t your fault. This is what happens when people converse. They go off topic. Not only that, but that thread should\'ve been locked the MINUTE the target release date was missed. The community already had nearly run out of stuff to talk about in relation to the update, and postponing the update with so little new news didn\'t really help.

I\'ve made a irc channel on esper.net at #KSP_MPmod, everyone. I\'mma just going to haul my ass and start working on a roadmap of things we need doing, then we\'ll be able to start. I\'ll probably need to talk to trbinsc about the team, but don\'t worry - no-one will be removed. We just need a bit more organization if this is going to move forwards.

You go to level 94, and you see several people on the same thread of the KSP RP Forum. Why they can\'t just talk to each other, I will never know.

I was planning on adding a 2m to 4x 1m, a 2m to 2x 2m, and a 2m to 4x 2m, but they aren\'t a priority atm :/ Today I got distracted and tried to a (landingleg) cargo clamp thingy, but animations are playing havoc with my mind. Perhaps I\'ll do one with that fancy multi joint plugin that\'s the talk of the forums... I\'m going to work on decouplers and engines next (2m fission torch anyone?), then perhaps some radial bits, including in-atmosphere shroud panels that just stick to the side of the drag prone truss sections, and also function as radial decouplers. I\'ll do a truss link the same diameter as the pod, but longer, and perhaps do few pod variants (a more lander freindly version, and a 1.5/1.75/2m one). Then I\'ll have a stab at a launch vehicle, which can be used with the pack or on it\'s own as a heavy lift vehicle, and will probably feature a heavier version of the fission engine, and 2-4x1 adaptors of it\'s own (possible with 1m engines to match, possibly not). Then I\'ll do those adaptors And then, I\'ll do smoothing and textures. Oh, and I don\'t think I\'ll smooth the girders, just tanks, engines and such. I sorta like the cleaner edges =P I\'m very indecisive, so this probably won\'t be quite the order. The idea is that these parts will be about 10% more efficient than stock, not haxxor territory, but a little further up the tech ladder perhaps.

I want this to be a thread for people to talk photography and show their work. Makes me duty bound to post first Some more of my photos, ones I\'m more proud of. Spoilered for bandwidth considerations

We don\'t talk about mission Monday-1... :-X

5 points for be a Master Rocket Scientist. 5 Points for have much posts. Min 5 points for MLP (I not talk about the Mobile Launcher Platform) =5/10

How bout you get on skype more so we can talk music =P

Appreciate the help, mate, I\'d really like to see this happen. I\'ll see if I can send a PM to the original author, and talk to him about this. Also, rocket2guns said, in the OP of that thread, 'Free and open for any use! Do whatever you like with it this is an open source project.'

Very nicely done, sirguinea. I love it. With respect to the whole structural integrity thing, I feel like I should mention that in a distant-future science fiction, all our assumptions are likely to be rendered irrelevant. I mean, it\'d be equivalent to a 12-th century blacksmith trying to predict the design of a mun mission. 'Oh, clearly it would have to be bird shaped, or else it couldn\'t possibly fly, and you\'d need some kind of pen for the draft animals, which you\'d use to power the wings . . . ' Hell, they have antigravity and inertial dampeners and force fields. We have no reason to believe they can\'t just magically shift the center of mass to anywhere they damn well please. I think they even talk about 'structural integrity fields' in the technobabble. Just read any futurism stuff from the 1920\'s and you\'ll see what I\'m talking about. The problem is that in terms of design, economics, and engineering, it\'s basically impossible to identify the limiting factors and natural consequences of a particular technology before it is invented. Maybe space ships will need to be compact, to maximize structural integrity. But then again, maybe materials tech will advance so far that we have ultra-strong, mono-molecular polymers, but the fusion cores that everyone uses for power have such massive heat production that spaceships need to be long and spread out to maximize surface area for radiators. Or maybe we\'ll have portable electromagnetically-contained black holes to dump our heat down, but we need a MASSIVE and uninterrupted power supply or else the damn thing will eat the ship, so we need a solar array the size of a small moon. Would that even work? exactly. Think nuclear submarines. Internally powered subs that can stay under for months or years without surfacing? In 1930 they would have called you an idiot for suggesting such a thing would exist within 24 years. 'Where would get its air?'. Predict space ship design in 2364? Best of luck with that. Not that I don\'t love a good try. Just don\'t expect to actually be right.

I think I know why the background is transparent. If you hop on skype, we can talk about a fix for it.

All this talk about probes, has anyone toyed with the idea of a star wars esqe probe? More specifically the type that slams into the surface instead of dealing with parachutes and engines? Would make for some interesting fire and forget landings.

So, I\'ve been pouring over the forums for a while now, reading a lot of posts, and posting myself from time to time. It\'s been fun to see what other people do when they play this game, the ideas they have, etc. However, I\'ve noticed something that bothers me, and that\'s the continual fixation the community has on violence. STOP RIGHT NOW, AND PLEASE DO NOT JUST SCROLL DOWN TO THE BOTTOM AND POST ABOUT HOW SANCTIMONIOUS I AM. I\'M A HUMAN BEING TOO, AND I HAVE A POINT TO MAKE HERE. Thank You It\'s just that I\'m a huge fan of science, science fiction, and something that I\'ve always attributed and admired about both of those is that they always talk about the end of our \'Romance with Violence\' that\'s been going on since our ancestors clubbed the first boar to death. I find it really annoying/disconcerting when a new ship/part comes out of the plugin and add-on department, and the first post is from someone who put guns on it. A few things I pieced together to show you what I\'m talking about: I was going to grab a few examples from the RP forum, but there were far too many and I quickly decided to exclude it. I realize that the forums are going to become some peace-loving convent (and I wouldn\'t enjoy it if it were that way). Does this kind of thing bother anyone else?

I like the Armaggedon pattern \'cause it reminds me of the German howitzer... Getting involved in guard talk here... I collect Elysians so don\'t have many tanks... :\'( Nice rocket designs! Keep launching! ;D