Snark

The issue is that the videos posted in the OP aren't really germane to the feature request, for the most part. In order, the videos are: explanation of what a sonic boom is MS Flight Simulator implementation - this is relevant, with some caveats, see comments below MS Flight Simulator - irrelevant, because it involves a stationary 3rd party perspective that doesn't exist in KSP Warthunder - irrelevant, same reason as #3 above Grand Theft Auto - irrelevant, same reason as #3 above Another game video, irrelevant for same reason as above Falcon Heavy landing, also irrelevant for same reason as above ditto Of all of those, the only one that's actually relevant (because it involves a viewpoint that's flying along with the craft, like KSP), is this video, #2 in the above list. However, that video doesn't have the OP's requested features in it: No Doppler shift (correct, because realistically there shouldn't be one) No sonic boom (correct, because realistically there shouldn't be one) The only thing that that video shows is that they've correctly modeled the "cone of sound". When the viewpoint is in front of the shockwave cone, then there's no sound from the plane and it's silent. When the viewpoint moves into the cone, then you're hearing the sound of the plane's engines. (Without any Doppler, which is correct.) That is realistic, and it would certainly be possible to model that in KSP if the devs wanted to. However, I think it's arguable whether it belongs there. KSP has a lot of realistic physics details in it, but it's clearly designed as "game first, simulator second", and it's by no means obvious that most players would want such an implementation in the game. If you're flying a jet plane, hearing the engine sound is not only immersive, but also can give you some useful feedback about what's going on (e.g. you can hear changes in engine pitch as you throttle)-- is it really doing the player a service to make them unable to hear the engine depending on camera angle? Tastes vary, of course, but just speaking for myself, I would find the implementation of "silence outside the shock cone" to be intrusive and unhelpful; it would just irritate me, and I wouldn't want it in my own gameplay. And there would be no Doppler experience at all, of course. Total agreement there. Sonic booms and Doppler shifts become very relevant when there are moving objects that fly past you. There currently aren't any such, in the game, because there can be only one moving object (your own craft), and your viewpoint is always following along with it. As soon as there are other objects, e.g. other players' craft in multiplayer, then this is a very different scenario and these features would totally make sense. Very nicely done, thanks! Your suggested implementation looks like it's pretty much what MSFS would do. It's certainly cool, and it's reasonably realistic (at least for the cone-of-sound, though there shouldn't be any Doppler). That said, the question becomes: what would be the attitude of the player base towards something like this? That is, among the players, what fraction of them would fall into each of the following camps? That's awesome, cool, and realistic. I want it. It's an annoying and unhelpful distraction, I prefer not to have it. I don't care much one way or the other. It's way down my priority list of things I would want implemented in the game. Some players, such as yourself, are in camp #1. Others, such as myself, are in camp #2. At a wild guess, I'd suppose most players would be in camp #3. #2 is a good reason not to implement the feature. #3 is also a good reason (because implementation takes time and engineering resources, and the devs have plenty of more important fires to put out). So the only scenario I could see where it would make sense for them to implement the feature would be if a majority of players are in group #1, and it's not obvious to me that that's the case. (As @Periple points out, though, there's much more reason to have such a feature once multiplayer is added to the game.)

I've never used the mod, so I don't know exactly what it does. I'm having trouble picturing an implementation that could simultaneously be "cool" (i.e. engaging for the player) and realistic. Those two things feel mutually exclusive to me. How does it behave, exactly?

I'm having trouble picturing what you have in mind. The game only lets you fly one craft at a time, so the only sounds you hear are from your own craft, generally speaking. And you're "riding along" with the craft, as it were: that is, your frame of reference is a viewpoint that is moving along with the vehicle. And, crucially: Doppler effect and sonic booms are phenomena that you can only experience in a different frame of reference from the source. For example: Suppose you're a stationary observer, standing next to a race track, and a car goes whizzing past you. Then you get a Doppler effect as it goes past, nyooooooom. Very exciting, yes. But to the driver of the car, there's no Doppler; they just hear the engine at a constant pitch as they zoom along. Similarly, if you're standing on the ground and a supersonic jet goes whizzing past, then you hear a sonic boom as it goes past you. But to anyone aboard the plane (or a hypothetical observer flying along right next to it, if they're in the cone), there's no boom, there's just the continuous sound of the plane. Since KSP pretty much forces the observer to be traveling along with the currently piloted craft, therefore, there's rarely an opportunity to hear any sounds from any other moving objects besides your own craft. Doppler effect and sonic boom only happen when the observer is moving relative to the source. In KSP, you're always moving with the sound source, so the relative motion is essentially zero, so Doppler effect isn't a thing. Sonic boom isn't a thing. How did you envision such a feature working?

Some content has been removed. Folks, a gentle reminder:

Some content has been removed. Please stay on-topic, and don't make things personal. The topic of this thread is TweakScale. Therefore: If you're a TweakScale user, and you have a problem with it, this is the right place to post. If you are able to diagnose the user's problem, and it's TweakScale-related, this is the right place to answer. If you're able to diagnose the user's problem, and you believe that the problem lies elsewhere (i.e. is not actually a TweakScale issue), then it is appropriate to do this: explain that this isn't a TweakScale issue identify what software you believe is the issue point the user at where they can go to engage the maintainer of that software What is not appropriate: personal attacks, airing of grievances accusations, such as assertions of blame/fault (it's perfectly okay to say "software X is the problem", which is helpful and objective, but not "the maintainer of X did <bad thing>", which is unhelpful and accusatory) discussion of interpersonal dynamics (e.g. who supposedly did what to whom, what other people's motivations supposedly are, etc.) Thank you for your understanding.

Some content has been redacted and/or removed. Let's not make things personal, folks. Thank you for your understanding.

Some content has been redacted and/or removed. Please avoid accusations and personal remarks. Thank you.

Some content has been removed due to off-topic personal remarks. Folks, you're welcome to argue with people, but please don't make it personal. Personal remarks are not allowed. Of course you have a personal opinion about other people's behavior, just as they have opinions about yours. But this forum is not the place for them. Naturally your own behavior is above reproach and it's always the other person who's being a jerk, but you're not allowed to say that. If you think someone's behavior is so egregious that it's violating forum rules, then please file a report, and the moderator team will have a look as soon as we can. If we decide that action is merited, we'll take action. If not, then we won't. Either way, you're not a moderator, so it's not your place to tell other people how they should be. If you find yourself describing a fellow forum member's behavior rather than simply addressing the content of what they post, then you're out of bounds. Please don't go there. Thank you for your understanding.

Done.

Some posts have been redacted and/or removed. Folks, it's fine to disagree with what people say, but please don't make it about the people themselves. Rebut arguments, by all means, but please don't make it personal. Thank you for your understanding.

Some content has been removed. Please try to stay on-topic, folks. The topic of this thread is: the re-entry heating feature and how the company is handling it. The topic of this thread is not: what you think of how other people choose to post, either here in the KSP forums or elsewhere Thank you for your understanding.

Some content has been removed. Please try to stay on topic.

Some content has been redacted and/or removed. Let's not make things personal, folks.

@Corporalsimmons, as you can see from the preceding exchange, the answer to your question why basically boils down to "because there is substantial contention between the TweakScale and CKAN maintainers to which they have not been able to come to an agreement." Any further details of "why" (including "whose fault is it") is going to depend on whom you ask; both of those folks have weighed in, above, and this thread is unlikely to provide a more definitive answer than that for you. I would guess that what you really care about is "will this get resolved any time soon?", to which the answer seems to be "probably not", given the rancor already displayed here. Given how contentious the thread has become, and that it's already given you probably about as much of an answer as you're likely to get, there's not really any point to further discussion here. Accordingly, the thread is now closed, and shall remain so.

Many posts have been redacted and/or removed, due to: personal remarks and accusations arguing about arguing; off-topic getting defensive about differing opinions Folks, please don't make things personal: Don't argue with opinions, but feel free to state your own. Everyone has opinions, and people are going to disagree because they like different things. It is not possible for an opinion to be "wrong" because it's merely a statement about what a person likes or doesn't, which is entirely personal to them. Arguing about opinions is as silly as getting into an argument over which flavor of ice cream is better, vanilla or chocolate. (Chocolate.) This is fine: "I disagree with your opinion, I like the opposite thing, and here's why." (Because you're just stating your own opinion.) This is not fine: "Your opinion is wrong. You're somehow bad because you have the opinion you do." (Because you're trying to judge someone else's opinion, which you have no place to do.) Arguing about statements and claims is fine... but please do so respectfully. If someone is making claims that are about objective matters rather than their own opinions about what's good or bad, that's fine to argue with. State your disagreement, and cite your evidence for it. But please don't make it personal. Address the post, not the poster. It's not your place to characterize what other people are like. Do not make personal statements. Don't make claims about other people. For example, saying "you don't understand", or calling people names like "elitist". If you do that, you're talking about the person, rather than the content of what they posted. That's a personal remark, and it's not appropriate. Basically, if you find yourself making declarative statements with "you" as the subject, you're probably getting on risky ground here. Take a step back and try re-wording your statement to avoid "you" language. Be alert to red herrings, particularly over terminology. Not everyone interprets the same words as meaning the same things. If two people have substantially different interpretations of what a word means, they can get into a bitter, flaming argument where they're just talking past each other, because neither of them have noticed this fact. Regarding that third point (about terminology): I bring that up because I think part of the current flare-up involves people talking past each other over the definition of a word. The word is micromanagement. Some people use the term to mean "any experience that requires me to tinker with detailed settings". Other people distinguish between setup time and ongoing play time: such people consider "micromanagement" only to be when you have to "baby-sit" a system on an ongoing basis, and they do not consider "detailed setup requirements" to be "micromanagement". Neither of those two groups is "right" or "wrong", they just like what they like. Which is fine. If you like complex setup, that's fine. If you prefer simple setup, that's also fine. But please don't get into a rage over a simple difference of how you or someone else likes to use the word "micromanagement"-- just state what you like and why. If you're arguing about terminology, you're probably off-topic. Good: "That's not what I mean by micromanagement." Bad: "You don't understand what 'micromanagement' means."

Several posts have been redacted and/or removed, due to: being off-topic ad hominem or personal remarks arguing about arguing telling other people what to do (a.k.a. "backseat moderating") Folks, please play nice. We understand that this is a topic that people have strong feelings about: not just about the science itself, or even just about proposed policies, but also about the awful behavior of the people who are on the opposite side of the argument from yourself, and frustration with how those wrong people can keep on being so wrong. Anger and frustration tend to lead to unhelpful posting behavior, such as described above. Such behavior doesn't solve anything, doesn't strengthen your argument, and all it achieves is to spread rancor in the forum. So please, don't do that. To be clear: The topic of this thread is sea level rise (and, by association, global warming and its causes). Note that the topic of this thread is not the behavior, attitude, motivation, honesty, or level of understanding of anybody other than yourself. That's off-topic speculation and doesn't help anyone, including yourself. "Anybody other than yourself" includes your fellow forum members, as well as third parties you may cite. Please, address the post, not the poster. This applies both to folks here in the forum you're directly interacting with, as well as any third-party sources you cite. You can make your point without getting personal. Forum example: If someone in the forum says something you believe to be Wrong™, don't say "you clearly don't understand this", or "you're being dishonest", or "you're just adhering to dogma", or anything like that. Instead, just indicate why you believe that their point is incorrect, and cite your evidence for believing that. Third-party example: Someone cites a paper to support their position. You disagree with the paper's methodology or conclusion. Don't try to attack it based on "but they're just spouting the party line" or similar ad hominem speculation. Instead, say that you disagree with the paper, and cite your evidence as to why you believe that. Also note that "arguing about arguing" is off-topic. When you're in a frustrating argument with someone who is Wrong™ and is being stubborn about it, ask yourself this each time you post: "Am I writing something about sea level rise and global warming? Or am I complaining about how other people make their points?" If it's the latter, you're off topic and need to take a step back. Remember, if someone's wrong, it's enough to just demonstrate-- with evidence-- why their points are incorrect. Making any statements about how someone else makes their points is never going to end well. This thread has been locked for 24 hours to give tempers some time to cool off. Once it's back open, please keep the debate civil, everyone. Thank you for your understanding.

As far as I can tell, the only contents of this mod that you've posted are the following file types: Config files Part models Part textures Sounds It's noteworthy that "source code" isn't a thing for these file types. The files themselves are the source, essentially. The requirement for posting source code generally only applies to executable code, e.g. DLLs that are compiled from source code. From looking at your mod, I don't see that you have any DLLs in it anywhere. Can you please confirm that this is true? Assuming that it's true, then "source code" isn't really a thing for your mod, and therefore you're not "missing" anything. In other words: As long as your mod has no DLLs in it, then you're fine.

A large amount of content has been removed, due to being off-topic. Folks, yet another reminder: The topic of this thread is limited to the downloads available in this thread. If you don't see a link to it in the OP, it's not on-topic here, please don't ask about it. Volumetric clouds are not publicly released and are off topic for this thread. That's why they're not mentioned in the OP. Please do not post or ask about them here. Yes, we understand you're excited, and understandably so. blackrack makes amazing stuff. But you'll have to find somewhere outside the KSP forum to discuss matters that are outside the KSP forum. Please respect the forum rules, and also @blackrack's stated wishes: Thank you for your understanding.

Once again, some content has been redacted and/or removed. To repeat, since apparently the last time wasn't clear enough, please refrain from personal remarks and insults. The topic of this thread is this mod. If you have a comment, feedback, bug report, or what-have-you about this mod, then this is the right place to post that. The topic of this thread is not: your opinion of other people's behavior your opinion of other people's motivations ...your opinion about other people, period. If you have a personal problem with someone, that's your prerogative, but keep it to yourself, please-- it's not your place to critique others here in the forum. If you think someone's behavior is sufficiently egregious that they are violating forum rules, then by all means file a report about it and the moderators will have a look. Beyond that, though, other people's behavior is not your concern, so please stop with the personal sniping. It accomplishes nothing and makes the forum less pleasant for everyone present. Thank you for your understanding.

Some content has been redacted and/or removed. Kindly leave the hostility at the door, folks, and refrain from personal remarks and insults.

More content has been redacted and/or removed. Folks. Seriously. Please, when we say ... we do in fact mean it. Thank you for your understanding.

If the "motor" is all one solid piece with nothing moving relative to anything else, and it all just rotates together... then no, this would not work in a vacuum. Because it wouldn't work at all, anywhere. (And wouldn't work in this video, either, which means that the video creator "cheated" by tipping the table or blowing on it or something like that.) So, no, you haven't discovered a new kind of space drive.

Clearly there's some other interaction going on in the video. Either all parts are not actually moving together, or else there's some sort of interaction with the table or something going on. (For all I know, the person who made the video is trolling with that one, and is tilting the table or something. Who knows?) This is because it's not physically possible to build a device that can simply start spinning with net angular momentum without any external interaction. It would violate conservation of angular momentum, which doesn't happen. So, no, you haven't discovered a new form of space drive.

Sure, it should work just fine in a vacuum, same as any other kind of motor. That said, though: this is not some sort of magical angular momentum machine. Conservation of angular momentum still applies. Like any other motor or rotary device that's free-floating in a vacuum, it will simply rotate the armature in one direction, while the rest of the device rotates in the opposite direction. Action/reaction. Net angular momentum remains zero. Therefore, in this particular example: what I would expect to happen is that the little wire would spin around rapidly in one direction, whereas the rest of the device (battery plus magnets) will rotate slowly in the opposite direction. (The battery etc. will rotate a lot slower than the wire will, because it is much more massive and therefore has a much higher moment of inertia.)

Nope, there isn't one. A Unity UI programmer, I am not. The UI that the mod adds just basically "clones" an existing piece of UI, and doesn't do whatever-it-might-need-to-do to respect UI scaling, because frankly I have no clue how to do so and don't have the many hours of spare time to investigate by trial-and-error. Once upon a time, many moons ago, someone pointed out the UI scaling issue, and I spent a day or two delving into it and trying to play around with the various UI transform objects I could find, and nothing seemed to work, so I just gave up. If anyone ever solves the problem and can present me with the correct, bug-tested code on a platter, then I'd be happy to look into incorporating it; but until and unless that happens, I don't have the time or energy to investigate the matter further myself.