• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9,465 Excellent

About Snark

  • Rank
    E Pluribus Boojum

Recent Profile Visitors

12,224 profile views
  1. Literally all it's doing is using ModuleManager to rescale the original part, then tweak some simple things that all the rescaled parts tweak, like cost, mass, part description, etc. Here's the config file: It's super vanilla-- this ain't rocket surgery, I'm basically just rescaling the part and adjusting values accordingly. Darned if I can see anything that's dangerous-looking. No errors. No crashes. Nothing in the log file. It simply... is stuck in place for no obvious reason. Had no idea that anything was wrong until I had to launch a ship that had this part in it and "hey, why won't the ship move". (Most comical test: a lander can with Mk1 engine plate attached, suspended up in the air with a launch clamp. When the launch clamp fires, the ship is left hanging there in mid air. The nailed-in-place engine plate is on the bottom, so the ship falls over to put the CoM under the pivot point, and then just pendulums. It would be really hilarious were it not the fact that I really need this part, dammit.)
  2. I'm sorry if English is not your native language and you're having trouble reading this. Outside the international forums, everything posted here must be in English (it's a forum rule, 2.3.c), which means basically the only options for non-English speakers are either to make do with translation software or else post in the forum for their language (if there is one). We currently have international forums for the following languages: Spanish Portuguese Japanese Chinese Russian French German Italian Hope you may find this helpful, sorry we can't do more than that.
  3. Hi all, Just a note that I've got the next release of BetterBurntime (for KSP 1.5 compatibility) ready, but not released yet. I'll release it (and post here) just as soon as SpaceDock updates their site so that it's possible for me to mark it as 1.5-compatible. Just a heads-up to let you know what's coming. This is a pretty simple change: basically, all I've done is to remove the "maneuver node" tracker that calculates the burn time for maneuver nodes and shows a countdown. It's removed because the snazzy new burn-time indicator in KSP 1.5 renders this pretty much obsolete, so there's not really any point in keeping it around anymore. The other "trackers" -- for surface impact, target rendezvous, and atmosphere transition-- remain in place and continue behaving exactly as before. (By "exactly", I mean, for example, that they still use the same calculation methods as before, they still show "you don't have enough delta-V" like (~this), and they don't take staging into account, same as always.) Anyway, I'll have it up just as soon as I can, just waiting on SpaceDock at this point.
  4. Hi all, I've gotten the next release of MissingHistory, for KSP 1.5 compatibility, ready but not actually released yet. I'll release it (and post here) just as soon as SpaceDock updates their site so that it's possible for me to mark it as 1.5-compatible. Just a heads-up to let you know what's coming: I've removed the Porkjet reskins of the 1.25m fuel tanks, including Jarin's gray/orange variants. These tanks all have their own stock variants now. I may re-add these variants in the future (no promises!), but I'm kinda swamped at the moment and for now it's simplest to just remove them. Very, very sadly... I've removed the 1.25m engine plate. Really didn't want to, because it's one of my favorite parts and I really need it. However, KSP 1.5 appears to have a physics bug in it that makes any ship that has this part in it completely unusable. The 1.25m engine plate problem is a real shame. The symptom is, for some bizarre reason, that one part just gets physically "nailed in place" upon launch. Is utterly immovable. It's free to rotate, but not to actually translate along X, Y, or Z axes. As far as I can tell, there's nothing I can do about it and it's just a bug in the stock game. Anyway, it still exists (so that if you have an ongoing career that has already-launched ships with this part in them, they won't refuse to load)... but I've edited it to set its editor category to "none" so that it's hidden in the VAB and SPH and therefore won't be available for constructing new ships. Really sorry about this one folks, nothing I can do. Whoa! Now that sounds super cool. I'm kinda swamped these days (not just IRL stuff, but am scrambling to update my mods for KSP 1.5), but in the relatively near future why don't I drop you a note and we can work out what to do. Would love to get the variant tankbutt stuff available in MissingHistory.
  5. Well, BetterBurnTime's not quite obviated-- it does have a few features that are not in stock (i.e. assistance with vacuum landings, target rendezvous, and atmosphere transition). But yeah, the big feature that's probably the reason most folks really liked it is now not just stock, but better in stock. So, well done Squad, as far as I'm concerned. That's a seriously shiny new toy there. (I mean metaphorically. As opposed to the actually, literally shiny toys you've given us in 1.5 too...)
  6. Ahem. I think what you meant to say (in standard forum font, without SHOUTING ANGRILY IN ALL CAPS) was something more like this: "Gee, thanks for the mod, @Beale! Really great parts, I'm enjoying the mod a lot. By the way, I notice that the Kosmos used to have an orange checkered texture on it, which seems to no longer be available. Was it removed on purpose? I really liked that texture, and would love to be able to continue using it. Thanks again for all your hard work!" It's great that you're enthusiastic about the mod, @Dan_Kerman. I expect your enthusiasm just kinda got away from you for a bit, there. Do please remember that mod authors put in a lot of hard work in their scarce free time, for free, to give us these nifty shiny toys, for free. They're doing us a huge favor by doing that, so please try to remember that and don't yell at them. Even if you mean it in a jokey "ha ha" sort of way, it's easy for it to come across as being demanding. Best to keep things polite. Also, remember that not everyone wants the same things, so while it's fine to provide constructive feedback (i.e. "I really like <thing>, could we have that?"), it's important not to do so in a demanding way. (For example, if there's a thing that used to be in the mod that isn't anymore, that might be a simple oversight... or maybe the mod author actually did it on purpose because they like it better that way. It's their mod, so it's their decision. It's fine to offer suggestions, but nobody is in a position to make demands.) So, in summary: liking the mod a lot = great constructive feedback = great demands or angry-sounding posts = not great, please be careful Fair 'nuff?
  7. Hi everyone, Some content has been redacted and/or removed. Let's keep it civil please, everyone. This is a friendly community, we're all pals who enjoy helping each other, so there's no call to be nasty with anyone. This is a community where people help each other and are generally mutually supportive, which is a rare and precious thing on the internet, these days-- let's keep it that way, shall we? I'm sure we all understand where mods come from and how all of this works, but in case anybody may have forgotten, a brief FAQ may be in order. See below. If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's the TL;DR: There's no current "official release". There may never be one. The people who are posting here these days don't own the official release, so yelling about it won't help. The unofficial release works for most folks. If it doesn't work for you, probably it's because something is wrong with your setup, not with the release. So yelling about it won't help. If you need help getting it working, great! Lots of friendly people here will try to help you. But they'll need information to be able to help you, so if they ask you for it (e.g. log files), then you need to provide it. Otherwise there's nothing they can do. Yelling at people who are trying to help you is a pretty good way to make nobody want to. In which case you won't get any help. So perhaps it would be wiser not to do that? Longer modding FAQ in spoiler. Thank you to everyone who works to maintain this mod, official or unofficial, so that everyone can enjoy it. Thank you also to the people who try to help folks when they post troubles here; I'm sure we all appreciate it. Let's please try to keep the discussion here on-topic and not allow it to get sidetracked into bickering. If someone wants help, they can ask for it. If they don't wish to take the advice offered, there's nothing anyone else can do, and so the matter can simply be dropped, no? Okay, unlocking the thread now. I trust we can all comport ourselves civilly. Thank you for your understanding.
  8. Some posts have been redacted and/or removed. Folks, let's please remember that we're all pals here, and try to keep it friendly! Everyone understands that it's frustrating to work with a bug... but we also understand that nothing in life is perfect. And we also understand that we're very lucky to have modders who put in lots of hard work for free, in their scarce free time, to give us shiny toys. For free. So we know we're lucky to get what we get, and that it's not going to be "perfect", and that fixes and new features take time. Unlocking the thread now. I trust we can keep things positive? Thank you for your understanding.
  9. Also Mission Control, yes? Maneuver nodes require that both the tracking station and Mossion Control be upgraded. (If you update the tracking station but not Mission Control, you'll get patched conics but not maneuver nodes.)
  10. Snark

    Moving very heavy parts in-flight?

    Moving to Add-on Discussions, since this is a question about mods. Though it's worth noting that if you have a question about a specific mod, the best place to ask is usually in that mod's release thread, since that's where all the expert users (and author!) of that mod tend to hang out.
  11. Snark

    pure stock Starship Enterprise

    Moving to Spacecraft Exchange. (Also, I took the liberty of fixing your Imgur link for you, since it was just showing up as a broken link. Just FYI, trying to insert an album doesn't work too well in the forum. Best to just insert individual images. The way to do that is, host your image on imgur, then go to your imgur page, right-click on the image, and choose "Copy Image Location". Then paste that link into your forum post and it will automagically turn into an inline image.)
  12. Snark


    Various posts have been removed, which completely derailed the thread into a lengthy and somewhat acerbic off-topic debate about, of all things, Google image searching. Folks, this is a challenge thread; let's try to keep the conversation here at least reasonably related to the challenge? And, if it's not too much to hope for, in a reasonably friendly fashion, without criticism of our fellow forum members? Also, please do not "backseat moderate". Don't tell other people how to post or how not to post; it's not your place, and it's against forum rules (specifically, 3.2). You're not a moderator, so please don't try to moderate. If you think someone is doing something so inappropriate that they're actually breaking forum rules, then please just report the post, which will ping the moderator team and we can have a look. It's what we're for. Thank you for your understanding.
  13. Well, without having direct access to the forum's internal database, I don't see any easy way of getting that-- all I have to go by are the total numbers reported on the forum front page. So, "everything up to now" is about all I can do. That said, though, it might be kind of interesting to see how this graph looked in the past. So, I went off and picked an arbitrary date in the past-- say, early 2013, i.e. late enough that the forum was somewhat "established", early enough that it's long-before-now and might look different. Then it's off to our friends at the Wayback Machine: here's a snapshot of the forum front page from July 3, 2013. Taking those numbers and feeding them into the same sort of graph, here's what the forum looked like then: It makes for an interesting comparison with the 2018 chart. It's not quite apples-to-apples, of course, since the forum organization has changed a bit. But the overall picture looks remarkably similar in terms of the relative sizes of the various groups, for the most part-- for example, the Lounge-equivalent ("The Junkyard") was about the same size as the KSP-Discussion-equivalent ("General Discussion"), same as today. And so forth. The one really notable change that jumps out at me is that the "Add-on Releases" is a significantly bigger fraction of the total in 2018 than it was in 2013. If I had to speculate on the reason, it may just be a matter of "product velocity"-- i.e. back in 2013 the core game was under rapid development and changing a lot, so I expect there would have been a lot of chatter about that as players try to keep up. In 2018, development has slowed way down (from the players' perspective) for the last couple of years, so I wouldn't be surprised if that tends to shift the forums' "center of mass" farther towards mods. (Or maybe I'm completely barking up the wrong tree and it might be something more prosaic, like maybe the "Add-on Releases" forum was a relatively recent addition in 2013 and hadn't had as much time to accumulate content, or something.)
  14. Sure, they're pretty small, but I'd be careful about reading too much into it. Things can be well-populated or sparse for a variety of reasons, and all of those make perfect sense to me that they'd be relatively small: Daily Kerbal: This is only official pronouncements from the company, and players' direct responses thereto. There are hundreds of thousands of players and only a few Squadders, so seems perfectly reasonable to me that the volume there would be a lot lower. When you have a tiny handful of people talking to a few hundred thousand, you're going to get a much smaller volume than when you have hundreds of thousands of people talking to hundreds of thousands of people. Announcements: Same deal as Daily Kerbal (to an even greater degree, since "Announcements" tends to get reserved for rare-but-important bits of information.) Making History: I think most of what's going on here is that players end up just ignoring them and using the other forums instead. People ask Making History questions in Gameplay Questions, and discuss Making History issues in KSP Discussion, all the time. I suspect that part of that is simple habit (people have been posting in the well-traveled subforums for years, and tend not to switch); part of it is "network effect" (people prefer to post in bigger forums with more posts so that they get more responses / visibility, which ends up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy). Plus, of course, these forums are much newer than the others and haven't had as much time to accumulate content. Welcome Aboard: This one's just math. A typical forum user may make dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of posts in the forum over the course of their forum "career", but they'll usually just make one or two introductory posts in Welcome Aboard before moving on to other things. My read of the numbers is that most of it is just the O(N2) effect of large groups talking to themselves. Forums that tend to be "players talking to each other on an ongoing basis" are generally going to be higher volume than forums that are either "small group talking to players", or places that individuals tend to only post in briefly rather than on an ongoing basis.