[WIP][1.8.x] SSTULabs - Low Part Count Solutions (Orbiters, Landers, Lifters) - Dev Thread [11-18-18]

[Shadowmage]

5 hours ago, CosmicGoupil said:

Hey Shadowmage, are you still looking for a modeler for the IVA's ? I'm having a lot of fun with SSTU's parts and I really can't wait to have cool interiors for those inflatable modules. 

Indeed -- looking for someone with modeling experience to create the actual IVA meshes and textures.

I already have quite a few offers from various forum members who are willing to do props and IVA configs, but it seems like there is a severe lack of people with the knowledge and interest to do the actual modeling part (which is the part that I dislike; doing props isn't hard, and I don't mind... but the modeling is terrible work).

So, if you have some experience with modeling, Unity, and Part-Tools/IVA mesh setup, feel free to send me a PM and we can work out the details.

[AbhChallenger]

Is there any possibility for engines that run on methane to fit into the balance? So we can build lifters that are similar to the New Glenn or the SpaceX Mars craft?

[WRBClimber]

I have a bug to report with the SSTU-SC-B-CM Re-Entry Module. I'm using 0.5.34.132 on KSP 1.2.2.

When I switch to any vessel that has the Module all components attached to the bottom of it are ejected and not to be found.  Has any one else had this problem.

This is the list of Mods that I am using.

KSP: 1.2.2 (Win64) - Unity: 5.4.0p4 - OS: Windows 10  (10.0.0) 64bit
000_AT_Utils - 1.4.2
Filter Extensions - 2.8.1.2
USI Tools - 0.8.16
B9 Animation Modules - 1.0.5
B9 Part Switch - 1.7.1
B9 Aerospace - 6.3.1
B9 Aerospace - 6.3.1
B9 Aerospace HX Parts - 6.3.1
B9 Aerospace Legacy Parts - 6.3.1
B9 Aerospace Procedural Parts - 0.40.11
BDArmory - 0.11.1.6
Better Science Labs Continued - 0.1.9
BetterTimeWarpContinued - 2.3.5.4
CameraTools - 1.7
Color Coded Canisters - 1.5.1
Colorful Fuel Lines - 0.3.2
Community Category Kit - 1.2.2
Community Resource Pack - 0.6.6
CommunityTechTree - 3.0.3
Contract Configurator - 1.22.2
Contract Pack: Clever Sats - 1.4
Contract Pack: Field Research - 1.2
Contract Pack: Historical Progression - 1.4
Contract Pack: Kerbal Academy - 1.1.6
Contract Pack: Bases and Stations - 3.6
Contract Pack: RemoteTech - 2.1.3
Contract Pack: Grand Tour Contracts - 0.1.10.3
Rover Missions - 0.1.7
Contract Pack: Unmanned Contracts - 0.3.27
Contract Pack: Tourism Plus - 1.5.2
Contract Reward Modifier - 1.0.2.4
Crew Light - 1.4
DMagic Orbital Science - 1.3.0.8
CapCom Mission Control On The Go - 1.0.2.5
Contract Parser - 1.0.5
Contracts Window Plus - 1.0.7.3
Progress Parser - 1.0.6
Easy Vessel Switch - 1.2
EditorExtensionsRedux - 3.3.11.1
Firespitter - 7.5.1
Fuel Tanks Plus - 1.11
GroundConstruction - 1.1.2.1
Hangar - 3.3.1
Historical Progression Tech Tree - 2.0
RasterPropMonitor - 0.28
Kerbal Attachment System - 0.6.2
Kerbal Engineer Redux - 1.1.2.8
Kerbal Joint Reinforcement - 3.3.1
HyperEdit - 1.5.3
KerbNet Controller - 1.0.2.1
Kerbal Inventory System - 1.4.3
KSP-AVC Plugin - 1.1.6.2
KSPRescuePodFix - 1.0.0.6
KWRocketryRedux - 3.1.2
Infernal Robots - 2.0.10
Maeneuver Node Evolved - 1.0.2.3
ModularFlightIntegrator - 1.2.3
NavBallDockingAlignmentIndicatorCE - 1.0.1.1
Docking Port Alignment Indicator - 6.5.2
Kerbal Planetary Base Systems - 1.4
PlanetShine - 0.2.5.2
RCS Build Aid - 0.9.1
RemoteTech - 1.8.4
AmpYear - 1.4.6
SCANsat - 1.1.6.11
Celestial Body Science Editor - 1.0.8
SmartStage - 2.9.6
SSTULabs - 0.5.34.132
Stock Visual Enhancements - 1.1.6
TakeCommandContinued - 1.4.8
Kerbal Alarm Clock - 3.8.4
USI Core - 0.3.9
Asteroid Recycling Tech - 0.9.8
USI Exploration Pack - 0.7.3
Freight Transport Tech - 0.6.7
Konstruction - 0.1.11
USI-LS - 0.5.23
MKS - 0.50.16
Universal Storage - 1.2.2
Unmanned before Manned - 1.2.2
Waypoint Manager - 2.6.2
[x] Science! - 5.5

 

Edited March 11, 2017 by WRBClimber

[Temeter]

On 7.3.2017 at 5:01 PM, Shadowmage said:

While working through fixing a problem with KSPWheels last night, I hit upon a solution for one of SSTU's longest-standing annoyance issues -- the 'can't surface attach an SRB or MFT until it is dropped and picked up again' problem.

To make a long story short -- it was a problem with layers -- KSP manipulates layers of parts in the editor to allow for raycasting against only the 'active' parts of a craft, any parts unattached to the craft should be set to layer 1, parts on the craft set to layer zero.  My modular part code was cloning new models and adding them to the part, using the default layer (zero), and thus the newly cloned parts were intercepting the raycasts that should have detected the surface attach positioning.

Yay for progress -- glad that SSTU is getting something useful out of all the work I've been putting into KSPWheel (even if it is just a bugfix).

 

Interesting! Might that also help with the problems with FAR calculating the aerodynamic profiles of MFTs?

Edited March 11, 2017 by Temeter

[StickyScissors]

On 3/9/2017 at 0:58 AM, AbhChallenger said:

Is there any possibility for engines that run on methane to fit into the balance? So we can build lifters that are similar to the New Glenn or the SpaceX Mars craft?

It was brought up right when SpaceX unveiled ITS, but i think Shadowmage decided to wait a while for Raptor to mature before adding it to SSTU. The BE-4 has, until recently, been cloaked in secrecy, and even now, there isn't much to build a model from, so i suspect until we get more detailed info/renders, we won't see it added.

Also, if they are already covered in the performance range by another, already-implemented engine, there isn't really much reason to add them and -another- fuel to go along with them. However, their uniqueness could potentially overrule the performance overlap restriction/guideline.

-

In other news, some screenshots from my most recent career game below. Warning: 5040x3150, because i'm too lazy to resize them and/or turn off screenshot_supersize.

Spoiler

ATS-1's Arion capsule sits atop a Vishera A1 launch vehicle, preparing to launch Escoria's first men into space.

-

The Arion capsule separates from the Vishera upper stage, floating freely in a 300x300km orbit. The Arion architecture has undergone a fairly large redesign since it's original deployment. Replacing the 8 SuperDraco-L engines and toxic propellant with 4 hydrolox RL10A-4 engines. 

-

Flying over the homeland.

-

Additionally, the space agency has managed to land it's first rover on another planetary body. Astraios-1 touched down safely on the Mun on Year 2, Day 90.

Edit: Wow, i sure am trigger happy with that screenshot key,. The folder has, over my last 2 years of playing, grown to ~4GB. Maybe i should delete some...

Edited March 12, 2017 by StickyScissors

[Shadowmage]

On 3/11/2017 at 6:55 AM, WRBClimber said:

I have a bug to report with the SSTU-SC-B-CM Re-Entry Module. I'm using 0.5.34.132 on KSP 1.2.2.

When I switch to any vessel that has the Module all components attached to the bottom of it are ejected and not to be found.  Has any one else had this problem.

This is the list of Mods that I am using.

KSP: 1.2.2 (Win64) - Unity: 5.4.0p4 - OS: Windows 10  (10.0.0) 64bit
 

Thanks for the report -- sadly you will have to do a bit of leg work if you would like to see this one solved.

It appears that the problem is a mod conflict.  Which mod?  That is yours to find out.

These mods I know all work fine with SSTU:
 

Spoiler

USI Tools - 0.8.16
B9 Part Switch - 1.7.1
Firespitter - 7.5.1
Kerbal Attachment System - 0.6.2
Kerbal Engineer Redux - 1.1.2.8
Kerbal Joint Reinforcement - 3.3.1
HyperEdit - 1.5.3
KerbNet Controller - 1.0.2.1
Kerbal Inventory System - 1.4.3
KSP-AVC Plugin - 1.1.6.2
KSPRescuePodFix - 1.0.0.6
KWRocketryRedux - 3.1.2
SSTULabs - 0.5.34.132
Stock Visual Enhancements - 1.1.6
Kerbal Alarm Clock - 3.8.4
USI Core - 0.3.9
Asteroid Recycling Tech - 0.9.8
USI Exploration Pack - 0.7.3
Freight Transport Tech - 0.6.7
Konstruction - 0.1.11
USI-LS - 0.5.23
MKS - 0.50.16
[x] Science! - 5.5
SCANsat - 1.1.6.11

These mods -- no clue, untested.  You'll need to try removing them one at a time until your problem goes away.

Spoiler

000_AT_Utils - 1.4.2
Filter Extensions - 2.8.1.2
Fuel Tanks Plus - 1.11
GroundConstruction - 1.1.2.1
Hangar - 3.3.1
Historical Progression Tech Tree - 2.0
RasterPropMonitor - 0.28
Infernal Robots - 2.0.10
Maeneuver Node Evolved - 1.0.2.3
B9 Aerospace - 6.3.1
B9 Aerospace - 6.3.1
B9 Aerospace HX Parts - 6.3.1
B9 Aerospace Legacy Parts - 6.3.1
B9 Aerospace Procedural Parts - 0.40.11
BDArmory - 0.11.1.6
Better Science Labs Continued - 0.1.9
BetterTimeWarpContinued - 2.3.5.4
CameraTools - 1.7
Color Coded Canisters - 1.5.1
Colorful Fuel Lines - 0.3.2
Community Category Kit - 1.2.2
Community Resource Pack - 0.6.6
CommunityTechTree - 3.0.3
Contract Configurator - 1.22.2
Contract Pack: Clever Sats - 1.4
Contract Pack: Field Research - 1.2
Contract Pack: Historical Progression - 1.4
Contract Pack: Kerbal Academy - 1.1.6
Contract Pack: Bases and Stations - 3.6
Contract Pack: RemoteTech - 2.1.3
Contract Pack: Grand Tour Contracts - 0.1.10.3
Rover Missions - 0.1.7
Contract Pack: Unmanned Contracts - 0.3.27
Contract Pack: Tourism Plus - 1.5.2
Contract Reward Modifier - 1.0.2.4
Crew Light - 1.4
DMagic Orbital Science - 1.3.0.8
CapCom Mission Control On The Go - 1.0.2.5
Contract Parser - 1.0.5
Contracts Window Plus - 1.0.7.3
Progress Parser - 1.0.6
Easy Vessel Switch - 1.2
EditorExtensionsRedux - 3.3.11.1
B9 Animation Modules - 1.0.5
Universal Storage - 1.2.2
Unmanned before Manned - 1.2.2
Waypoint Manager - 2.6.2
TakeCommandContinued - 1.4.8
ModularFlightIntegrator - 1.2.3
NavBallDockingAlignmentIndicatorCE - 1.0.1.1
Docking Port Alignment Indicator - 6.5.2
Kerbal Planetary Base Systems - 1.4
PlanetShine - 0.2.5.2
RCS Build Aid - 0.9.1
RemoteTech - 1.8.4
AmpYear - 1.4.6
Celestial Body Science Editor - 1.0.8
SmartStage - 2.9.6

Once you have found what the problematic mod(s) are, then you can file a proper bug report with that information.  Without that information there is nothing that I can do about it.

 

18 hours ago, Temeter said:

Interesting! Might that also help with the problems with FAR calculating the aerodynamic profiles of MFTs?

No... FAR's hatred for the MFT's is something else entirely.  I believe it is caused by FAR not respecting the enabled/disabled state of a GameObject, so it is erroneously voxelizing fairings that are not present/not setup for that part.  Been a long time since I looked at it though, so it could have changed / have entirely new problems that I'm unaware of.

 

9 hours ago, StickyScissors said:

It was brought up right when SpaceX unveiled ITS, but i think Shadowmage decided to wait a while for Raptor to mature before adding it to SSTU. The BE-4 has, until recently, been cloaked in secrecy, and even now, there isn't much to build a model from, so i suspect until we get more detailed info/renders, we won't see it added.

Also, if they are already covered in the performance range by another, already-implemented engine, there isn't really much reason to add them and -another- fuel to go along with them. However, their uniqueness could potentially overrule the performance overlap restriction/guideline.

Yep, pretty much exactly that.

-If- I were to do the engines, I would need 1.) Good schematics/diagrams, and 2.) They have to fill a gap in the engine lineup or have a unique -use- not covered by other engines (especially in the case of these where they would also need a new fuel type).

[jdub3350]

1 hour ago, Shadowmage said:

Yep, pretty much exactly that.

-If- I were to do the engines, I would need 1.) Good schematics/diagrams, and 2.) They have to fill a gap in the engine lineup or have a unique -use- not covered by other engines (especially in the case of these where they would also need a new fuel type).

If it helps, and I'm not sure it does, RealFuels has some methalox engines.  I'm not sure if that saves on creating a new fuel type or not in your mod.  

[blowfish]

16 minutes ago, jdub3350 said:

If it helps, and I'm not sure it does, RealFuels has some methalox engines.  I'm not sure if that saves on creating a new fuel type or not in your mod.  

I think adding the fuel type is the easy part.  Modeling the engine is hard.  And like Shadowmage said, it has to fill a gap in the current engine lineup.

[AbhChallenger]

Isn't there a gap in the heavy lifting upper stage engine between the hydrogen and standard fuels? A gap where the increased ISP helps but you are still volume constrained?

[tater]

Messing around finally and remembered some screenshots. Career mode driving some part choices.

I added in the Gemini command pod from TRAILS (awesome!), and built an early career set of alternate Titan LVs. Everything but the chute (thought the docking ring has one as well) and the capsule/heatshield in this image is SSTU, including the SM for the capsule. It's hypergolic props, some mono for the attitude control, and some extra EC. Oh, and the stock RCS parts as the SSTU ones are just too large.

TMI burn:

 

Munar lander extraction (obviously more stock parts in there as well):

 

This is the lander having returned. This mission profile used the MEM solars panels for all power generation, and the extra EC in the CSM allowed it to have plenty for the landing and return.

 

 

 

 

[Shadowmage]

A quick heads up regarding the upcoming pre-releases:

The current released SSTU version will be the final version for KSP-1.2.2.

Future releases will be for KSP-1.2.9+ -- however I do not expect to have any 'pre-release' compatible versions, and would expect the next full SSTU release will only be available after KSP 1.3+ has been officially released.

[Calvin_Maclure]

1 minute ago, Shadowmage said:

A quick heads up regarding the upcoming pre-releases:

The current released SSTU version will be the final version for KSP-1.2.2.

Future releases will be for KSP-1.2.9+ -- however I do not expect to have any 'pre-release' compatible versions, and would expect the next full SSTU release will only be available after KSP 1.3+ has been officially released.

Have SQUAD announced anything about a 1.2.2+ version?

[Shadowmage]

1 hour ago, Calvin_Maclure said:

Have SQUAD announced anything about a 1.2.2+ version?

Yep:

In a nutshell --

1.2.9 is the pre-release that will be available for testing on the 16th (this Thursday).
1.3.0 is the full 'retail' version of the pre-release that should be available several weeks after the 16th.
--- and some stuff about a contest that is already finished.

[AbhChallenger]

Is there anything in 1.3 that will benefit you as a developer? To be honest this is the first time I have been more hyped for a mod update than a game update.

 

Another request if you have not already discussed this a thousand times. The early game is made artificially more difficult by how long it takes to reach the first solar panel in the tech tree. Because I am playing with Galileo's planet pack. I had to use some of the fuel tank to store a LOT of electrical charge in order to get any science from Iota. (Yes I use Mechjeb.) Never mind trying to reach Ceti. I don't consider this cheating. Yet It does break the immersion a bit which sucks because we know that in RL. Probes had solar panels nearly from the start.

In my opinion what is needed is an early game configurable solar panel. One with many disadvantages that encourage you to move towards the regular solar panels.

• Is very heavy and inefficient which does have an effect at this stage of the game.
• VERY easy to break. The slightest exposure to atmosphere while deployed will break it.
• Only lasts for about a month or so. Perhaps an upgrade can make it last a year?
• Very slow tracking. Encouraging the use of extra EC as a reserve.
• Perhaps quite expensive. Solar power was VERY expensive in the early days. Perhaps it should be expensive enough that the player needs do to a few contracts more to afford the mission.

That is just my opinion. Some may consider having solar that early in the game to be OP. Yet I would rather the difficulty be in building the probe than trying to work around an artificial problem that the real world space program did not have.

[tater]

The tech tree layout in stock is absurd. A better solution, @AbhChallenger would be to use a tech tree mod.

[AbhChallenger]

3 hours ago, tater said:

The tech tree layout in stock is absurd. A better solution, @AbhChallenger would be to use a tech tree mod.

I am already using community tech tree. And it has the same problem as stock. The problem is there are no 60s and 70s era solar panels for early nodes. Just hyper advanced frankly overpowered panels that have to be later in the tree because they instantly fix your power issues once you have even the most basic panel.

Edited March 15, 2017 by AbhChallenger

[blowfish]

5 minutes ago, AbhChallenger said:

I am already using community tech tree. And it has the same problem as stock. The problem is there are no 60s and 70s era solar panels for early nodes. Just hyper advanced frankly overpowered panels that have to be later in the tree because they instantly fix your power issues once you have even the most basic panel.

CTT doesn't fundamentally change anything about the layout, it just adds new nodes.  There are other tech tree mods around that do more to address the weird order in which you get parts in KSP.

[Shadowmage]

11 minutes ago, AbhChallenger said:

I am already using community tech tree. And it has the same problem as stock. The problem is there are no 60s and 70s era solar panels for early nodes. Just hyper advanced frankly overpowered panels that have to be later in the tree because they instantly fix your power issues once you have even the most basic panel.

That is the problem with -any- solar panel.

Smallest stock static OX-10 panel?  Instantly fixes power problems the moment it is unlocked for craft that you would be using at that stage in the career.  It might be small'ish by station standards, but is more than overkill for any probes, landers, or general orbiters.  The larger stock panels are only ever needed (in stock) for running ion engines or science labs.

I fully agree though -- the situation with the stock tech-tree is absurd in quite a few areas.  Power generation being one of the large ones -- there is no power generation available during the first half of the tech tree at all -- both solar and fuel cells are way further in the tree than they logically should be if following a true-to-history type of progression.  Some form of power generation needs to be available directly from the start... whether that is RTG, solar, or fuel cell, doesn't really matter.  This is even more important when playing early career mode with LS mods installed (as they also use/rely upon EC).

Perhaps the progression for those parts needs to be re-examined from that perspective.  What are those parts used for?  Why is it beneficial to the player to lock them behind tech-tree unlocks?  What is gained by denying the player those parts for so long in career?

1.) Is obvious -- used for power generation on early spacecraft so that you don't have to spam batteries and rely on throw-away spacecraft that are effectively dead when their batteries expire.
2.) No clue -- absolutely nothing beneficial is done for the player.  Forcing them to consider 'throw-away' spacecraft designs might be a possibility... but only if the rest of the stock battery/probe-core-ec-draw stats were balanced to allow for reasonable designs.  As is, in order to pack enough batteries for their mission duration, using stock probe cores, the probes must be mostly battery even for simple Mun missions, anything beyond Minmus is nearly impossible.
3.) Same as #2 -- nothing is gained by denying the player access to simple quality of life parts.

About the only reason I can think to have the solar and fuel cells hidden halfway down the tech tree is to force the player to consider less-than-optimal designs, to make them happy when they are finally unlocked, and to delay specific parts of career progression until that point.  It should be player choice if they want to design an ultra-optimized 'throw-away' spacecraft that relies on just enough batteries for its mission, not something that is forced on them without the tools to do it right and without the balance in place to make it usable (e.g. mission-duration calculations for EC use, proper battery power density, proper probe-core EC use).

[tater]

The first RTG flew within a few months of Alan Shepard as I recall. Power in general needs a total rework for the sake of realism---because it makes for better gameplay. This is a fundamental problem with KSP as designed. The game at the core is about spacecraft design, and creating more trade offs makes the game more, not less interesting. Having to chose between fuel cells, batteries that run out, solar, RTG, etc is cool, just as ideally there would be reliability/safety issues modeled (so that hypergolic propellants have a real raison d'être, reliability---when your engine absolutely, positively needs to restart).

I was playing with stations, and realized I needed a docking hub earlier than it was available (500 puts in stock tech tree!), but of course I could use an SSTU part with a hub adapter, and just make one, or grab another COS part, and slap docking ports around it. Given the "low part count" nature of SSTU, when it is fitted to something like ETT, I suppose the hubs should come as soon as any station part that has hub adapters. The balance could be in the entry cost for the item (obviously not a thing with "free" research in terms of funds, but some of the super awesome SSTU parts can always have a total cost that includes everything they do as a modifier---pay funds, reduce part count!

Edited March 15, 2017 by tater

[Akira_R]

14 hours ago, AbhChallenger said:

*snip*

The early game is made artificially more difficult by how long it takes to reach the first solar panel in the tech tree. Because I am playing with Galileo's planet pack. I had to use some of the fuel tank to store a LOT of electrical charge in order to get any science from Iota. (Yes I use Mechjeb.) Never mind trying to reach Ceti. I don't consider this cheating. Yet It does break the immersion a bit which sucks because we know that in RL. Probes had solar panels nearly from the start.

*snip*

Might I suggest taking a look at ProbesPlus?

 

It adds a lot of gorgeous probe parts to the game and a number of very early solar panels and such that do have disadvantages, specifically deployable but non tracking panels and not having very great Ec/s values.

Now I can't speak much to it's balance necessarily, I play a very heavily modded 3.2x Galileo's Planet Pack game with lots of my own tweaks to parts and moving things around the tech tree, and generally start my career games off with very low tech sounding rockets and am not launching any probes until I get to around the third or fourth "science tier", but the stock panels aren't unlocked until much later on (160 science I believe?) and I had the ProbesPlus panels shortly after or even before I got to orbit and I didn't move any of them around. I didn't unlock any tracking panels until well after I had already landed a few probes on Iota and sent many other science missions to Iota orbit.

I find it looks fantastic along side the incredible SSTU parts and is my go to mod for probe and science parts now since the death of AIES.

[rasta013]

6 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

*snip* nothing is gained by denying the player access to simple quality of life parts.

And this is why I have several custom tech trees but I think my favorite so far was where I literally threw all the parts in a single node and then played with part research costs turned on.  That way I had every single part I had installed available too me but I had to pay the funds to unlock each one.  Gives me control over design decisions and when running with a controlled contract reward plus mod to turn science to funds and I've got a fun path that makes me work to unlock stuff without being artificially tied down.  

[Shadowmage]

... and with SQUAD's announcement of a -paid- DLC for the game, of several features that should have been in the base game from the start.... I'm pretty sure I'm retiring from KSP modding very soon.

I have no problem with paid DLC (a company has to make money).  What I have a problem with is making a paid DLC for features that you advertise as part of your core game (career mode); and parts?  Really?  What happened to the rocket part revamp?  Oh... they reworked it into a DLC.  Instead they should have made a DLC for cosmetic things -- kerbal uniforms, heads/faces/whatever, texture packs, non-gameplay effecting things.  But they don't even bother including the things the game has actually needed (dV readout, twr/other stats), in either the pre-release nor their just announced DLC, nor is this 'expansion' even a proper fix for career mode, its just merging the 'challenges' section of the forum into the game.

I'll likely still pack up a final SSTU release this weekend for KSP 1.2.2; but I do not have the heart to keep working on mods for a game by a company that does that kind of BS.  I'm going to give it a few days to see if the sour taste in my mouth goes away, but I wouldn't consider it likely.

[tater]

While I agree that many of those features should have been in the game from the "1.0" version, I've certainly gotten far more than the $20 I paid worth of value from KSP, and I'm happy to buy the DLC (because as you say, they have to make a living). heck, I'll buy two---if buying you, @Shadowmage, a copy eases your annoyance, any   (and just because I've gotten more value out of SSTU than my addition to the coffee jar).

My understanding regarding the dv readout is that while it is pretty easy for rockets that look like rockets, it's much, much harder with contraptions that many people make in KSP. For those of us who never even considered making weird, pancake looking rockets, I know this is odd, but look at what people post as design solutions in some of those threads, spiderwebs of struts, and they launch them from KSC, in one, huge chunk, lol. Anyway, I recall that this was why dv stuff is so hard in stock, that it has to account for people doing dumb things. I would instead have one, and just make the caveat that it only works for things that look like real rockets---do otherwise, and YMMV (KER is sort of flakey for me, for example, I don't entirely trust the readouts). My suggestion to them ages ago in the "kerbal" style was a cartoon dv indicator where Werner shows a doodle with the craft's arc as a parabola hitting the ground (not even dv for orbit), an arc to a dotted orbit with a ? there (might make orbit), an arc leading to orbit (certainly enough), and then perhaps the Mun, or escape velocity, etc. Very simple, with ? at some if it's within a couple hundred m/s.... slop it up so that "krazy kontraptions" even get reasonable readouts---or anything with kooky thrust vectors (engines pointed odd ways, etc) automatically gets a ? .

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by tater

[The-Bean]

Darn, hopefully you decide to stick around, this mod is the only reason I still play KSP, and your progress updates the only reason I visit the forums. I really feel like they should stop updating KSP, at this point it's just becoming annoying. Just fix a few of the remaining bugs and be done with it, leave the rest up to modders.

[tater]

Since the add-on is an add-on, shouldn't that mean that any bug fixes, or base feature improvements (dv readout, for example) be in KSP updates, not DLC updates/patches? So perhaps it's not as bad as it seems. When it comes to parts, for example, that;s a great addition for stock players, but I don;t use stock parts anyway, lol, this addition won't change that, I cam make a better R7 with SSTU than I could with the DLC. The real addition is this career/mission builder thing.

I have to say, I'm sort of torn. Chances are that the new career paradigm will in fact not really be any better than what we have if they just tag it on without really, really thinking about it. A good career system is honestly at least as hard to do as the whole physics aspect of the game itself. I'd happily pay money for a DLC that fixes career mode if it's outside the scope of what should have been in 1.0---a space race, for example, since I think that has always been a "Bridge too far" for the stock KSP.

Looks like the "mission builder" is really maybe just a drag and drop way of making what are "scenarios/tutorial" type things now? That's not much of a leap, you can cheat ships to places now, and share a save game.

Edited March 17, 2017 by tater