Noir

This is easily the best autopilot I've used. Been using it with a compound helicopter (of all things!) in FAR and it works near perfectly. Thank you!

Spent the past 2 days updating my helicopter/VTOL to use the new cyclic controls. Main body/design was made for FAR back in 1.7, but I've updated it in the stock aero for 1.9, since FAR has been updated just quite yet, and so people can download it if they wish. A big upgrade from the 1.7.3 version. https://kerbalx.com/Noir/Hillcliff-VX-12D-SA

I know, and I will. Was just stating that a 2nd person was having the same issue with 1.8 FAR in 1.9. In other words, anyone checking to see if FAR works in 1.9 will need to use the pre-release.

Can also confirm that FAR doesn't work with 1.9. Haven't tried the pre-release version yet though.

Nice. Looking at the bracket, the next round is going to be interesting. Good Luck @Pds314 and @Pds314!

This. I've seen maybe a few dozen comments asking for multiplayer over the past 7 or so years. About as many people have asked for multiplayer in KSP as they have for in Fallout. And pretty much your entire comment (along with many others I have seen) indirectly scream "Fallout 76"! People have a right to be concerned...

Oh even better! Allow a paid mod be a base mod for a bunch of other mods! That would never end badly! You could call the system the Kerbal Kreation Klub 2.0! Hmm... where have I head that one before? And no, the joke isn't the acronym. Shouldn't need to say that.

Miss type. A few to many many twos to keep count of. Both have had similar issues in the past.

I know this community hates anybody who doesn’t follow the hype train blindly, but when I first saw the announcement, I honestly thought it an out of season April fool’s joke. Because that’s what KSP2 has always been. I’m not really sure how to express my thoughts into written words. It just looks horrible. And the blind hype for it is terrifying. This isn’t helped with the lack of gameplay shown. I’m sure more details, including gameplay, will come soon. Maybe they’ll surprise me by having Kerbin’s soupmosphere on par to FAR’s, along side FAR's other features. Or that the comms network have been updated to be closer inline with RemoteTech’s system. Or maybe all DLC for KSP1 will be in the base game for KSP2. Maybe they will even fix the propellers and rotors. Maybe they’ll even have sound! But where things stand currently, beyond performance, there is nothing persuading me to buy the game. I’m not asking for a discount or anything. Besides, the hype train would get mad if I did. It would be nice if they did try to persuade me though. But I have no idea what they are offering for $80-100AUD. Maybe I'm just a bit salty that Age of Empires 3 DE wasn't mentioned at Gamescom. Or maybe it's because I've been down this road before with Bethesda. Remember that time when Skyrim didn't have microtransactions? I do. I know the basic argument against this is: And I probably won’t. I have other games that I’ve neglected for years which I’ll play. And I’ll happily continue to play the sub 20 FPS version of KSP. At least until KSP2 is confirmed to be good. But maybe they’ll surprise me. Maybe it'll be good. Sadly that's the same maybe I used for Fallout 4. I'm sure the hype train will be mad regardless.

Careful, people 'round here don't like that type of attitude. Now please present your Hype Ticket© to the man at the counter.

No idea if it's really called "Maneuver mode". That's just what the devs called it during a KSPLoading. EchoLima just called it a orbital information panel, which makes more sense. Just feel that the mode would be more useful if it wasn't hidden away by the flight controls. UI should not be hidden behind UI, unless it's only used for a short period like the resource tab. I just don't like having to chose between the flight controls or useful information. The terrain height could be in the orbital information panel, like how KER does it. The sea level altimeter is normally used to gauge how high up you are, and I don't think anyone uses it as a 100% perfect value. I mainly just use it as a guide line. Knowing that you are roughly 2km off the ground when flying is great, even if you are only 1.5km up. But being told you are 500m off the ground while trying to land on the 76m high runway isn't great. Kerbal G limits can be turned on in the settings. But it isn't a 1:1 between Kerbal Gs and craft Gs, since different Kerbals have different tolerances, as Loskene said. However, G forces don't effect the craft beyond stress overload, but that's normally when a sudden changes happens. In real life, some parts might have a G limit before they break. So G forces don't really do anything unless you have Kerbal G limits on, and if the Gs are effecting your craft, the game will tell you when your wing falls off. Lights are good for landing and not running into things. Having the UI change slightly is useful in knowing if the lights (or breaks) are in a on or off stage, since lights can be turned on and off independently. Worth pointing out that the UI button for breaks is a toggle, while the shortcut is a hold button. The abort button slides out when hovered over, so the same system could apply? Either way, backspace is the keyboard shortcut and is easier to hit. Normally when using aircraft with FAR. The tiniest bit of trim along with SAS turned off works really well with FAR (and a good design). But it would be nice to know where the trim level is. It would also be nice to set some control surfaces to pitch, and another to only trim, like a real aircraft... But ya know... I guess robotics can do that.. An interesting thing about that is the original devs didn't want that to be the case. They just wanted a wacky rocket launching game that used semi real physics. They wanted players to rely on trail and error. This would also explain the vertical speed display. As Loskene said, I also do use the vertical speed display, but only to see if I am slowly gain altitude or losing it. And that's only with aircraft and FAR. I think it would be fine if they just moved it next to the nav ball. But they could always get rid of it and replace it with a more basic indicator on whether you are gaining or losing altitude. But as I said, if the devs were to redo the UI, they should consider redesigning elements of it opposed to just changing the styling of it. That doesn't mean they couldn't use your new style of cause.

It looks great! But I feel that if the devs were to update the UI, the time would be better spent redesigning where UI elements are instead. This is more directed at the devs, and not you. Your work looks greats. But this is coming from someone who has spent many many many years playing this game. While also watching new UI elements added awkwardly into already occupied space. Semi-long list of possible changes and an example picture in the spoiler: All of this is just examples of how the UI could be redesigned. The UI works, but could be better. Just feel that since there is already discussion on the UI, now would be a good time to discuss updating and redesigning it.

One small think I'd like to see changed is how the PAW sliders work. The fact you moved the hash (#) toggle button from the top corner to next to the slider is great! But I feel it would be even better if the hash button was replaced with the input box instead, moving the numbers out of the slider. This would allow users to adjust the values by either sliding the slider or punching a number in, without needing to toggle between them and reducing the number of clicks needed. It's something I wish the devs did originally anyway. Other than that, everything else looks amazing!