Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Everything posted by Snark

  1. Some content has been redacted and/or removed. Please avoid posting politics to the KSP forum, folks. It's against the rules, and never ends well. Furthermore, if you see someone else posting politics... please just report it, and do not respond. Responding just adds more to the mess that needs cleaning up. Thank you for your understanding.
  2. Some content has been redacted and/or removed. Folks, let's please try to keep politics out of the forum. It's against the rules (2.2.b), and never ends well. Thank you for your understanding.
  3. It's also worth noting that if you did accidentally permaprune important stock parts and wanted to get them back, then there's a good chance that you can repair your installation, depending on how you purchased KSP. For example, if you bought it through Steam, you can go into the KSP page of your Steam library and there's an option to "validate local files"-- doing that will cause it to scan your local installation, compare that with the "fingerprint" of what a fresh install looks like, and then if it finds any files that are missing or modified, it'll download them from the Steam servers and fix it up. I'm only familiar with Steam, myself, but I have the impression that other game purchase platforms tend to have something like that, too.
  4. Some content has been redacted. Folks, a gentle reminder that profanity's not allowed in the forum... and that means no linking or embedding to content (such as tweets) that contain profanity. Thank you for your understanding.
  5. Hi @tilliepops, Just a side note to let you know that we've snipped the large log file contents from your post. We understand that you mean well, and it's good to share log files. Please try to avoid pasting really big ones into the forum itself, though, because it causes problems for people. Even if it's supposedly "hidden" in a spoiler, it forces the web browser to download the entire contents even if the person doesn't open the spoiler. This can cause problems for folks, especially on mobile devices. There's nothing wrong with pasting a page or two into a spoiler. However, if the content is thousands of lines long, best to post it to some third-party file sharing site instead, and then post a link to it here in the forum. That way, everyone wins. We're sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you for your understanding!
  6. If you're running ReStock, then whatever issue you're having is almost certainly a mod interaction there; and it would be IndicatorLights Community Extensions that's the issue in that case, not IndicatorLights itself. Therefore, this would be a better question to ask over there: As @AmanitaVerna points out, that's not what those comments mean. They're not saying that you should do anything; they're explaining what this patch is doing. When it says "Fix duplicate models where...", what it's really saying is "The following lines are where I'm fixing duplicate models where..." So, in summary: There are no actions you're supposed to take. The mod is supposed to "just work". It's possible that there's some issue with ReStock and/or this patch (for example, if ReStock got updated in a way that makes this patch obsolete, so it needs updating or something). Best place to ask about it is over in the IndicatorLights Community Extensions thread.
  7. Ah yes, the notorious "we put the sun in the completely wrong place to make the image look neat" shot, which at least they have the good grace to be a bit sheepish about.
  8. Why would they be? Polar ice caps are at the poles, and for good reason (because the poles are coldest). Duna has zero axial tilt. Were you expecting the polar caps to be ... somewhere other than the poles, for some reason? Discussion of polar caps and axial tilt in spoiler, since this is a discussion that's more about IRL science stuff and would belong better in Science & Spaceflight, and is getting away from the topic of this thread (which is axial tilt in KSP2).
  9. It's certainly a legitimate discussion to have, as to whether Duna should have axial tilt for gameplay reasons or not. And certainly, IRL, Mars has axial tilt. However... the polar caps have nothing to do with the fact that there's axial tilt there. They're polar caps because they're at the poles, which are on average colder because they get less insolation than more equatorial regions. And that would be true even if there were no tilt.
  10. I think that in general, newer players will find it easier without the axial tilt involved, and that there can be plenty of axial-tilt challenges to be had in other star systems. That said: I don't think it's super critical. A few bodies here and there (like Pol, Bop, Gilly, as you mention)? I don't see that it would particularly harm anything to include tilt, there. Like I said, I don't feel especially strongly about it. Yep. The concept that it exists, is pretty easy to explain. I'm talking about flying missions, and making the game harder than it needs to be in the early stages. After all, Earth has a substantial axial tilt, and space launches happen from facilities that aren't on the equator, and the Moon's orbit is inclined with respect to Earth's equator. Yet KSP gives Kerbin zero tilt, and puts KSC right on the equator, and gives Mun a perfectly circular orbit with zero inclination. Why? Because it's easier to fly in KSP that way-- even though an elementary-school student can understand these concepts by looking at a globe. You're also mis-stating my position. I don't think it's unreasonable to have tilt in the game. On the contrary, I think it's very important to have tilt in the game, and the fact that KSP 1 didn't was a major hole; I've long been astonished that they didn't put it in. What I said was: I think it's reasonable to keep the axial tilt at zero for the home-system bodies. Absolutely for Kerbin / Mun. I lean towards it for the other home-system bodies, too, though as mentioned above, I don't feel as strongly about that. No, but I've never said that. What makes me (and an awful lot of the folks here on the forum) "not like other players" -- or, at least, not like most of them -- is that I can, in fact, land on the Mun and manage interplanetary travel. Most KSP players don't get that far. I would contend, from what I've seen, that a substantial majority of KSP players don't make it as far as a Mun landing. I realize that the above statement is a pretty strong one, and may sound rather hard to believe. Once upon a time, I would have had trouble believing it, myself. Here's a discussion from a few years back, however, that I found quite eye-opening at the time: Another data point: I was able to attend PAX West 2019, when KSP 2 was announced. There was a presentation session that the developers (Star Theory) did, at the time, that was pretty well-attended. Must have been well over a hundred people in the audience. The presenter asked "How many people here play KSP?", and basically everyone's hand went up. The next question was "How many of you have gotten to orbit?" and a lot of hands went down. By the time they got to asking "How many of you have successfully landed on the Mun?" ... it was only a tiny minority-- I don't have an exact count, but it was well under 20% of the crowd, and may have been under 10%. I realize that's not a particularly big statistical sample. But it was a lot fewer than I would have expected, and it's worth bearing this sort of thing in mind when considering "what should the developers do when designing the game." To be clear: I'm not primarily making an assertion that it would be a good idea for the home-system bodies to all (or nearly all) have zero axial tilt. My primary assertion is that the game needs to be accessible to a large percentage of the player base, and not have a learning curve that's steep enough that it may put people off before they can really sink their teeth into the game. I just happen to think that keeping players from having to worry about axial tilt until they've gotten well into the game-- including a fair amount of interplanetary exploration-- is a reasonable choice on the path towards that goal.
  11. I agree that it would be possible to implement in a way that would be fun for some players. I disagree, fairly strongly, that it belongs in the stock game. But more to the point, this thread is about axial tilt, not about communication delays, so the whole matter is off-topic here. I certainly agree that the question of communication delays is an interesting one, and I think it would make a great thread under KSP2 Suggestions (if there isn't one already) where folks can debate the matter to their hearts' content. However... probably best to drop the matter in this particular thread.
  12. That, unfortunately, I don't remember. It's been a few years. I remember that I didn't have to deal with an atmosphere, but the wiki tells me that the sun got an atmosphere in KSP 1.0, and I'm pretty sure this was after 1.0. For one thing, I'm pretty sure I was running Scatterer, mainly because I remember being wowed by the stark "whiteout / black shadow" effect it gives under super-intense sunlight; and that means it would have been after 2016 when I did this. [UPDATE] Ah, nuts. Never mind. Turns out that my memory was conflating different things. I found this old post of mine, which dates my sun-skimming expedition to KSP 0.90, which is before the new heat management. ...and it was PlanetShine, not scatterer, that was giving the cool lighting effects. So, sorry for the false alarm, I was mis-remembering. It was in the "easy" days. (The thing I was conflating it with, in my memory, was playing with the New Horizons mod, which includes a planet that orbits at 1300 Mm, and the sun has about 2.4x the luminosity of stock, so heat management becomes pretty important.)
  13. I've done a solar orbit whose Ap was under 1000 meters. As in, a circular orbit under 1 km from the surface of the sun. To be clear: I'm quite sure I'm not the only person who has done this, because the reason I did it was that I was using a mod that involved harvesting a resource that was only available in that very thin zone. If I did it, then I expect a lot of users of that mod would have done it, too. The mod in question was Karbonite+, and the resource was Karborundum (which is used to power sci-fi engines with unrealistically high Isp). There are two reasons why a really low solar orbit would be hard: needing monstrous amounts of dV solar heating I'll happily grant you that effectively I "cheated" on #1, since to get there, I did in fact use the overpowered modded engines. I didn't do that using stock engines and fuels. However regarding #2, that was totally legit. I didn't have any cheating or mods to deal with heat flow; I just spammed the heck out of deployable radiators and was fine. [EDIT] Never mind, upon further detective work I was able to deduce that I actually did this in KSP 0.90 before the new heat management, and that I was getting it mixed up in my memory with a different thing. Sorry, my bad.
  14. Moving to Gameplay Questions.
  15. Moving to Add-on Discussions, since this is about mods.
  16. Fair 'nuff. I think it's one of those things that really has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. There are certainly situations where the devs shouldn't implement a feature, and it should be left up to modders. The most common example of that would be if the feature is specialized enough that only a very tiny fraction of players would actually use it. Software development is a zero-sum game, and spending more time on one thing means spending less time on another. If less than 1% of the player base would use the feature... it would be better to just skip it, and spend that time instead on some feature that, say, 10% or more would use. Leave the "under 1%" features to the modders. So, trying to answer the question "should it be stock or should it be left to modders" requires having some idea of what percentage of users would use it... and as players, you and I don't necessarily have a good view on that, since we don't have access to any sort of statistics or focus groups or whatever. So for any given feature, we can guess... but since it's just a guess, we could be wildly wrong. And different people could come to different conclusions about how popular any given feature might be. My impression has been that an awful lot of folks here on the forum vastly overestimate what the average KSP player does (in terms of how far past Kerbin's surface they get), and I think this can often lead them to propose features that "should be stock" that, IMO, really shouldn't be. Speaking for myself: I've seen quite a few discussions / arguments that fall into "they should make this stock!" / "no they shouldn't!" category... and I gotta say, in most such cases I've come across, I usually find myself agreeing with the "no they shouldn't" side. Reasonable people can differ, obviously. Having these things as difficulty settings potentially makes sense to me (depending on how many people would use them): non-random part wear and failure wind Lightspeed communication limit is... potentially problematic, depending on how it meshes with the rest of the game design. It's not at all clear to me that there's one "right" way to design it, and I fear it would add too much code and UI complexity, relative to the amount of challenge it adds. (My impressions on this are based on playing with lightspeed delay turned on with RemoteTech, back in the pre-CommNet days. It was fun to play with for a little while, but I ultimately concluded that it wasn't a feature I'd like to see in stock.) I happen to think that axial tilt shouldn't be a difficulty setting, mainly because it involves the actual geography of the game and would fracture the community experience. (For me, "turning various physical simulation types on and off" makes sense for difficulty, but "changing the actual physical behavior of things" shouldn't.) The preceding couple of sentences are a very brief, over-simplified summary of a topic that I've thought a lot about, mainly because I figure I should spare you the multi-page rant. But it boils down to this: I am with you on the subject of difficulty settings in general-- I think they're a powerful mechanism that allows a wide variety of skill levels of players to enjoy the game in their own way. But for various verbose reasons, I don't think planetary configuration should be one of them. I don't think that specific thing should be a difficulty setting. I think that should be basically fixed, and that the way to accommodate players of differing abilities is in the universe design. (i.e. "Kerbin is easiest, then Mun; then the solar system is harder; then the other solar systems are harder still.") (I do think it would have been a good idea if they'd added one more planet to the stock system-- say, a Saturn analog like OPM's Sarnus, out past Jool-- which could have axial tilt and so forth. This would provide useful and interesting gameplay, including axial-tilt features, without requiring the player to go interstellar. It would also be a nice way to jazz up the home system, for those of us who have been staring at the same seven planets for the last decade...) I acknowledge that this is a matter of taste.
  17. To be clear, when I say "I don't feel strongly one way or the other, about it, as long as it's easily moddable": what I mean by that is, I believe that as a matter of game design, they should design the game to appeal to a broad audience and should give a lot of weight to making it fun and accessible to the majority of KSP players. It's the right call. It will make the player base the happiest (in the aggregate), which in turn will help sales, which will help encourage further development, which will benefit all the players, so everyone wins. You'll note that I didn't say that they should design the game to appeal to me, personally. That's because I am not a typical KSP player. The typical KSP player finds it a challenge just to make it to the Mun, and going interplanetary at all, even when everything is zero axial tilt, is a major leap. (I'm not being judgmental about that at all, merely commenting on what I perceive the statistics to be.) I mean, sure, if they designed the whole game to appeal perfectly to my personal tastes, to the point I wouldn't want or need any mods at all, then that would be great, as far as my own play experience is concerned... but it would be pretty short-sighted of me to want them to do that. Because my own idiosyncratic tastes are a tiny minority of what the overall player base wants. If they designed the game to appeal specifically to me... they would render it less attractive to the large majority of their prospective customer base. Which would tank the game's sales. Which would pull the plug on any further funding, which means I would lose, in the long term. Therefore, as a self-interested, selfish player ... what I want is not a game that caters to my personal tastes. I want a game I enjoy, sure, but what is really important is that lots of people need to find it fun. That's what will get me the largest amount of sustained kerbal goodness into the future, so it's what I want. Which means, I have to be okay with options that are less than what I, personally, would prefer to play with. Personally, I think it's the right call for them to keep the home solar system's bodies at zero tilt, mainly because I think that will make the solar system more accessible to a lot of players-- without killing the enjoyment for me (after all, I've been happy to plow thousands of hours into KSP1, which doesn't have tilt at all). I can get my jollies from having interesting planet designs in other systems (including tilt). And in that context, when I say "I don't care much, as long as it's easily moddable", what I mean is: that lets me, personally, tweak the home system as I like. Which mitigates any angst I might feel about their correctly (in my opinion) deciding to leave the home bodies with no tilt. Well, sure, so do lots of people. Heck, I was playing the game for a year-- I mean, a lot, more time than I'd ever plowed into most games-- before I ever installed my first mod. Suppose the game had been built in a way that it was completely unmoddable. I still would have enjoyed the heck out of it, I still would have plowed hundreds of hours into it, I still would have been utterly happy with my purchase and convinced that I got my money's worth dozens of times over. (But I probably would have eventually have gotten bored and wandered away from it after a year or two.) I'm a little confused by your raising this point, though-- do you have some reason to believe that KSP2 won't be a good stock game? Or that it won't have any difficulty options? I haven't seen anything to indicate either of those two things to me, and was curious whether you've been reading something I haven't. I agree that mods shouldn't be a crutch to fix the game. I disagree that they are one in KSP1. I'm sure it's possible to have a lengthy and spirited debate on that question ... but I won't go into it here, because it would be off-topic for this thread, which is specifically about axial tilts in KSP2. Same here. My guess is that probably most players are in that boat, too. (Even with a "great mainstream, balanced experience" that I can enjoy with 0 mods, though, I'd still eventually end up playing with mods, anyway, if only because they open the door to variety and help extend how long I'm likely to play it.)
  18. My understanding is that, Unlike KSP1, yes, there will be axial tilt in KSP2. They don't intend to change any of the orbital characteristics of the original bodies of the home solar system, so we shouldn't expect to see any axial tilt there. That's my understanding of what they will do. What one thinks they should do is another matter, of course. Personally, I would say that absolutely it's the right thing to keep Kerbin and Mun at zero tilt, at the very least, mainly due to how hard a lot of players find it to master the early elements of the game. A training ground, as has been remarked. If they keep the rest of the home system at zero tilt, I'm fine with that, too, though I don't feel strongly one way or the other about it, as long as it's easily moddable (which I expect it will be). I do really look forward to exploring new planets which have some tilt.
  19. Hi all, I've released PlanetInfoPlus 1.4.2, which includes the following bug fixes: Now correctly says "meters" instead of "kilometers" for near space height. (Thanks to @alartor for the bug report.) No longer gets NullReferenceException when used in a new game. (Thanks to @linuxgurugamer for the bug report.) (For the curious: The reason LGG was seeing this bug and I wasn't, was that it's a thing that happens when you've started a new game and haven't explored much, yet. There are some data structures that aren't actually initialized yet and are null. I never noticed it because even though I was running the same solar system mod as LGG, I had already been playing for a bit when I wrote & installed PlanetInfoPlus, so I never experienced "run the mod from the very start of a new game". Live and learn, I suppose!)
  20. That's... really odd. I wrote PIP and then used it for a couple of months while playing a New Horizons career game, with nary a problem. I'll need to dig into this.
  21. Thanks for the report! I'll have a look as soon as I get a chance. It's kind of interesting that you're hitting the error with New Horizons... because it was starting a New Horizons KSP game that prompted me to write PlanetInfoPlus in the first place. So clearly it basically works with New Horizons itself-- at least, when I was playing, I didn't run into any such error. I wonder if it has to do with your playing a sandbox game (which I didn't test as much, since my own gameplay is generally all career mode). I'll see if I can reproduce this.
  22. Thank you for the suggestion, but I'd say I'm unlikely to make such a change. I tend to be very "strongly minimalist" when modding-- I deliberately write my mods to do the bare minimum of what's needed to accomplish some particular task, and tend to be strongly averse to adding in functionality for which the game provides some other mechanism. For example, my own answer to the problem that you describe is at construction time (i.e. making sure docking ports are the right way up). To be clear, I'm not saying it's a bad suggestion-- it's a pretty good one. It's just not my cup of tea for how I put my mods together.
  23. Well, probably not anytime soon, to be honest. I mean, it's not like I've decided definitively "no" or anything. It's just that, when I'm modding, my proclivity can probably best be described as Frustration Driven Developmentā„¢, and I've basically got my frustration cleaned up at this point. I'm a problem solver, not a creator. I mod the game because I find something in the gameplay to be personally inconvenient, so I set out to fix that... and for me, once the problem is solved, it's solved, and I tend not to be strongly motivated to tinker with it further unless something new comes up. In the case of this mod, it's been seven years since I first released it, and I've got thousands of hours of KSP under my belt since then, so at this point the rough edges have all pretty much been sanded off, as far as my own gameplay is concerned. If there were some important "missing feature" that I really cared about, I probably would have already added it by now. And since KSP development itself is pretty much done at this point, it's not as though I've got any new changes in the game for which the mod needs updating. That's not to say that there aren't some nifty features that could be added, and I've had a few possibilities in mind for a long time. Atmospheric suicide burn times (as @dtondo mentioned) would be one such example. Having more accurate vacuum suicide burn times-- which actually project trajectory and the terrain ahead of the ship, so as to be substantially more accurate, would be another. The problem is, any idea that's really cool and wouldn't be a massive undertaking to implement (and/or risky as to how well it would work), I've pretty much already done. Those remaining items tend to be complicated, risky, and (in my own gameplay) not all that necessary for me. (Plus, with KSP2 looming closer on the horizon, my motivation to spend more time developing KSP mods has been waning; I expect that once KSP2 arrives, I'll probably jump into that without a backward glance, and my original KSP will just gather dust. So I have this sense that any modding I do now will become obsolete and unused-- by me, anyway-- within a few months, so I'm less motivated.) Anyway, I'm sorry I couldn't be more helpful.
  • Create New...