Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by marce

  1. Hi! I haven't played KSP in a couple years now, but today I felt like trying out all the new things that have been added in the meantime. With Breaking Ground (yeah, I bought all the DLCs even without ever trying them, because, you know, KSP vanilla was too cheap for the value back then anyway) it seems we no longer need KIS/KAS to transport parts and weld them to vessels - at least I thought so. I tried to attach an additional radiator to a vessel, but ran into the problem that the part is way to large to be put into a Kerbal's inventory. I can move the part to where it is needed by rover, no problem (makes sense that Kerbals can't carry a ton around) but I'm lost at how to get into "attach mode". With KIS/KAS the part was shown in a green glowing outline and while the Kerbal was close to the storage and the place I wanted the part to be placed I could just put it there and it appeared. How can I do that with the stock system? Or am I only able to use that system with parts <40l? Then why can I add bigger ones to the inventory at all? Thanks in advance guys!
  2. In an ideal world: both Start with a couple parts with a specific size [and resource for tanks]. Then later on allow to research procedural parts which allow to choose size[, shape][, resource] as needed. If no procedural parts are provided I think at least a scaling option (like TweakScale) should be in which also reduces part count (and clutter) in the editor.
  3. @Just Jim pm'd you a simple craft which shows the issue on my machine.
  4. @ZodiusInfuser awesome, thanks for figuring this out! @SQUAD: if you need anything else please notify me, otherwise I suppose you have enough information to pinpoint the issue.
  5. Of course. Just tried without all mods (no change) and then after verifying local files (2 files were re-downloaded) and without mods => still the same issue. I haven't used KSP in quite a while so I'm a little out of touch: is there some debug log/mode I can activate and send you? Yes, all stock except for a custom flag (but that shouldn't be an issue I guess). Actually, I think it's not your eyes but YT hating my video and restricting it to 480p
  6. Just got Breaking Ground and started to play around with the robotics parts. Put a lander can on pistons, hinges and a servo. Up/down & left/right works fine, but when rotating the IVA view does not follow the rotation. But: Navball does move After a timewarp the camera snaps to the correct position Tried to make a quick video (sorry for the poor quality but it should still show the issue)
  7. I'm talking about the view one gets when clicking the "View" button on the Kerbal portrait. I think it's just a bug, because the navball is rotating and I just discovered that the camera position snaps to the correct one after a timewarp. Trying to make short video, but would be interested to know if others see this behavior as well or if it's on my side.
  8. Was hyped, first thing I tried was a contraption with a lander can on a servo. IVA view does not move with the can's window - disappointed EDIT: to be exact up/down & left/right works, just the rotation doesn't
  9. Agreed. Until they get to it you can change the value in the settings.cfg file in your installation directory.
  10. Sorry for necroing this thread, but I remember reading Unity to be on a 4.6+ Mono by now. Is that relevant for KSP or are mods still stuck on a .NET 3.5 target?
  11. Boy, I'd love to have that much free time. 1000 hours, that's like, half a year of vacation (aka work-days not worked on)? My play-time is about one or two hours per week or so. Will take me only about 10 years to reach 1000 hours as well
  12. Not the compiler, the runtime. And Unity is to blame (at least for a big part) because they keep using this stone-age version of Mono instead of paying Miguel (now that would be MS I suppose) for a new one. Anyway, I think I read something about Unity working on a .NET Native like project to improve performance.
  13. Having not seen a for loop in quite some while your statement actually startled me for a moment. While you are, of course, correct it is astounding how different circumstances influence the use of the same language even if it's one where you don't have full control of the machine code. This for vs. foreach discussions is a great example: I am on a strict foreach-only policy where even classic counting loops have to use something like foreach (var pos in Enumerable.Range(0,10)) which would not be a good idea at all in your case. While this approach may seem strange the reason behind it is quite sound: the moment you have database access, service calls (maybe even over the network), general IO, everything regarding allocations and gc (except for maybe the LOH in special cases) becomes practically free. So the only concern is to be as expressive as possible also if you consider that hardware is cheap, but dev hours are painfully expensive so maintainability has to be as high as possible. Anyway, since LINQ is the closest C# has to a piping workflow I feel for you not being able to use it. I'm sure you did tests and if you feel the performance impact is worth bloating the code I believe you since nobody would attempt that without very good reasons
  14. Saw the xkcd as well. Interestingly I can remember my exact thoughts: "Well, if it's good enough for Randall it's easily good enough for me", went to Steam and bought it.
  15. I might be missing your point here, but KSP has been released a year ago. This is not a beta despite the early-beta quality. Actually, that's the whole point: community says "we love KSP, but it has still a long way to go before release, please take your time", SQUAD says "naaah, it's fine, we'll release it anyway". Then the community demands release quality and people are surprised, because they look at the product and think "this has to be in beta still, what are those guys complaining about?" while in fact customers demand what the publisher promised (=release quality). Frankly, imho companies like SQUAD are one of the reasons software quality is broadly considered a bad joke nowadays. /rant end
  16. I'm missing the "Would you have preferred SQUAD finishing 1.1 before releasing it, not needing all those half-baked hotfixes and going on vacation whenever the individual people want to instead of all at once at the worst possible time" option. I pick that one.
  17. When I decided to take a look at 1.1 today I not only played KSP for the first time in months but also for the first time without mods in about two years. I quickly (I quit after half an hour or so despite the actually nice performance improvements) realized that I can’t enjoy KSP any more without the following mods as a bare minimum (in order of importance): MJ. Not only for the readout, but also because I happily admit that I suck at flying and get my enjoyment mostly from building things which I wouldn’t get anywhere interesting without the auto pilot. Procedural parts. While some seem to enjoy the challenge of working with the stock part selection I simply can’t. If KSP could load CAD files directly I’d probably sit down with SolidWorks designing several parts of a mission exactly the way I desire them to be. PP is far from perfect in this regard, but so much better than stock. KJR. Wobble and phantom forces are my fun killer number 1. FAR. I think it’s less a gameplay issue (since the areo overhaul) but more of a psychological thing that I need the feeling to know aerodynamics are actually calculated based on vessel shape not based on the parts it consists of. I know that this is only my very special point of view, but it really disappointed me today how desperately I was missing those mods (and others to a lower degree). The feeling was like getting into the car, anxious for a fun road trip just to realize the steering wheel is missing.
  18. I’m sorry if the advice was already given; might have been in one of the deleted posts or I overlooked it, but when I just read through the thread I got a pretty bad feeling about one aspect not bring mentioned: please don’t get an expensive server right away. I do encourage you to learn and create the application you have in mind. But I strongly suggest you start with a server on your local machine or at most get a cheap (<5$/month) hosting package. Once you see your website taking of you can still upgrade to strong, dedicated hardware and migrate quite easily. Full blown servers come with responsibilities and (depending on your income situation rather large) costs attached. Please, just don’t get yourself in a situation which may lead to serious regrets if things don’t go as planned. Best of luck!
  19. We should be so grateful KIS/KAS and IR exist. They at least simply double the fun you can have with KSP.
  20. The design change is nice, but what I'm really hoping for is "stocking" yet another mod: freezing the menus on mouse-over so that they are actually usable and not rotate away with the vessel, which I consider rather annoying and not "fun".
  21. For me there are two aspects to procedural parts (which I love and use wherever possible): Ability to make a vessel look "right" (e.g. streamlined). This is somewhat possible with stock only parts, but if you consider FAR voxels you want to be as close as possible. Pretty sure we won't get that. Reducing the number of parts. Even with U5 we need this imho. Either by adding real procedural parts or providing a stock welding option. There is no reason for having to calculate 25 parts if they are meant to act as a single piece anyway. Maybe something the devs can look into for 1.3 or beyond.
  22. It does. Pro tip: to test share links just use a private browsing tab.
  • Create New...