rmaine

Ah. I had basically the same question. Thought I'd search here before asking. Like Mush_Morton, I've gone to Mun a zillion times - enough so that it's just pointless tedium to manually create the nodes. Tried the new maneuver creator app just for kicks. Guess I'll continue using McJeb for this (or Astrogator, which sometimes seems to do better for interplanetary transfers).

I also read and didn't submit it. Regardless of their lawyers wanting excuses for employment, I seldom click "agree" on overly long legalese like that. If I were serious about agreement, I'd want to spend significant time pondering it's exact implications instead of just skimming for "well, it's probably getting at something like..." If I'm not serious about it, well, there needs to be more motivation for me to overcome the aversion of "agreeing" to something without being sure I really understand it. The thing I find most annoying (and I forget whether this one had such a clause or not) is the common item saying that I promise I have read and understood all this. I figure the lawyers that write crap like that ought to be found guilty of knowingly encouraging fraud of some sort because they darn well know that almost everyone who agrees to that will be lying. If there's a spot for comments, I occasionally add one to that effect and explicitly say that, contrary to the check box, I did not in fact read or agree to the whole thing. Never yet had any pushback from my addition of such a disclaimer. Reminds me of pay time sheets at NASA from back before I retired (and when the time sheets were actual sheets of paper). We were supposed to put down what project or other bean-counter code we had worked on down to something like tenths of an hour. Sort of silly in the first place (and extra so because some mandatory stuff didn't have codes so we were supposed to just put it down as whatever we most otherwise worked on). We were then supposed to sign this statement promising that it was all true. But the system's processing of time sheets was slow enough that they were required to be turned in a few days before the end of the time period were were testifying about. Oral explanation was that if something else ended up happening, we were supposed to adjust it later by a balancing lie on the next pay period. Of course, that's not what the legalese actually said. I took to hand inserting the word "planned" above the pre-printed legalese. That made it at least plausibly honest (well, except that I didn't track what I worked on that precisely anyway - but at least the hours of leave were honest). First time I turned in a sheet like that, I expected it to get bounced back to me. Nope; nobody seemed to actually care. As long as there was a signature, they were happy, even if I was signing to some quite different statement.

The tradeoff, of course, is that multiple people asking means more work for the person responding. As you are asking the favor of someone else taking the time to respond, it is generally considered polite (as well as more effective) to make at least a token effort before asking. This principle of also considering other people's time applies to life in general, I might add - not just to forum posts. As a software author (before I retired), I occasionally ran into people asking me to essentially read the documentation to them - documentation I had spent a lot of time writing so as to keep from having to explain the same thing to many people. I'd point them to the exact page, but they still wanted my time to essentially read that page to them. Those people tended to make it on my list of ones not worth responding to in the future. I don't think anyone expects you to paw through 150 pages of thread, but it doesn't take much effort to check at least the last few posts for something so likely to have come up recently. Look up the somewhat snarky acronym lmgtfy on similar matters.

As a devout Pastafarian, I have to say that noodlecraft sound like a good idea to me. :-)

And don't tell the students about the dev build. :-) I suppose there's some merit to that, as students who can't find it probably shouldn't be using it. Oops, blew that as Sarbian has a link to it in his sig in addition to the one on the first page.

Unless I'm confused (which I suppose is possible), there is no stock alarm system prior to 1.12, which does make that pretty much a 1.12 issue. Mind you, it's also an issue I'm interested in, but I have patience. Quite a few mods I'd like to see updated to 1.12; it will happen in time, I'm reasonably confident.

That was a real thing for Gilly. I had been known to take advantage of it. Sometimes on purpose. And then sometimes by accident when being a little too impatient moving around on the surface. :-)

Ooh. A lot of bugfixes, I see. Some of them sound relevant to me. Guess I'll have to try this out.... as in right now. :-)

I'll be buying KSP2 just because I've already gotten so much enjoyment from KSP1 that it will still have been a superb deal even if I buy KSP2 and it turns out to be a complete dud. Heck, I actually bought 2 copies of KSP1. Bought it first from GOG. Then some years later it was cheap enough on some Steam sale that I bought copy there just for convenience. Don't recall how much time I have in KSP, but at a rough guess I'll be talking in the area of 10 cents/hour of entertainment, even after buying 2 copies of KSP1, one of the making history DLC, plus one of KSP2.

Ohh. Ahh. Excited about what looks to be KAC and TWP in stock. Those have long been two "must have" mods for me. But in a way I'm more hyped about the ability to load saved craft from different save games. After all, as important as KAC and TWP are, at least the mods for those exist. But it's been quite a pain when I start a new career and want to copy over a craft design that I had previously spent a lot of time doing. Have had to quit the game and copy over the craft files manually.

A pet peeve of mine. I know that English isn't the first language of all the development team, and its irregularities are also sometimes a bit tricky. But "craft" is such a basic word for KSP that it pains the figurative ears to read it misspelled so often. The correct plural of "craft" is "craft" - not "crafts". At least that's so for the sort of craft relevant to KSP. One can talk about "arts and crafts", but that's a different sort of "craft". P.S. Otherwise looking forward to 1.12.

I also buy games on both GOG and Steam. In fact, I have bought KSP on both platforms. That was long enough ago that I forget exactly why. Probably it was on sale real cheaply on Steam so I picked it up for convenience or something even though I already owned it on GOG. No big surprise that both platforms have their problems - just different ones. GOG can be a bother for updating games - possible, sure, but just a bother. So as you say, i like it for games that are no longer being updated (though you can still run into problems with operating system releases that require old games to be updated to keep working - see all the 32-bit games on Mac OS that no longer work with Catalina; I'm thinking of keeping two versions of Mac OS on the two drives I have on my Mac). Steam is, if anything, a bit too aggressive about pushing updates, forcing you to play tricks like copying the game to a separate directory that Steam won't touch (which doesn't work easily with some games, though it does with KSP).

II realize that 145 pages of this thread is impractical to read through, but I might point you at the very first line of the very first post... the one where it asks for logs. I doubt you have provided enough information for anyone to help.

A bit wide of topic, but we clearly have vastly different perspectives on the 737 Max. Not the time or place to detail everything now, but the 737 Max concept was flawed from the start and is not really fixable. The very short version is that Boeing needed something to compete with more fuel efficient planes, but did not want to spend the time and effort to actually design a new one. So they hacked new engines onto the old plane. Those new engines didn't physically fit, so they substantially moved them, which did all sorts of bad things to the basic stability. They tried software hacks to work around that and then did a horrid job on those hacks. Even when the software is improved, it remains a hack around a basically poor design. P.S. And there is a new 737 Max grounding just this week from yet another problem.

So one is good to eat and the other is fun to play with? Hmm. :-) Or maybe we could throw in hamburgers, which are not made with ham. :-)

A little bit wondering that myself as well. In an attempt to swing this in a positive direction, let me note that I also like Planetary Base Systems... and... it integrates quite well with MKS.

My acquaintances see that one after I recommend that they buy the game... which I do recommend. I also tend to recommend that they don't even read threads like this one because they will enjoy the game a lot more if they just play it instead of reading this .... um... stuff. :-( P.S. And I even very much like some of the recent improvements, such as that my bases no longer tend to go sliding and flying around now (at least not nearly as much so).

This is very common and even has a name: rubber duck debugging, or sometimes teddy bear debugging. Google it. You explain your problem to a rubber duck sitting at your desk and by the time you finish explaining it, you realize the answer. Before retirement I used to have a bit of a local reputation for helping people debug their codes. Part of that was actual help, but a goodly fraction was done without me saying a word as I played the part of the rubber duck.

Aha. I had the same problem (which I first noticed in seeing that none of my parts had settings for tiers in the PAW). After quite a lot of mucking around, I think I found it. I fiddled a lot with deleting and reinstalling stuff to no avail. Then I took a quick glance at the KSP.log. That's often too cryptic and full of cra^h^h^hstuff for me to figure much out, but this time I noticed right near the beginning a "poodle" (as the forum software likes to bowdlerize a term also used to refer to female dogs :-)) about PKS throwing an exception. Seemed to be related to being unable to find things in contract configurator. I'm not even using contract configurator. Hmm... I wonder... Added contract configurator and that seemed to solve it. I'm guessing the newest version of PKS added a hard dependency on contract configurator, but that dependency didn't get added in CKAN. I suppose I ought to mention this in the CKAN forum, but I don't know how (or if it is even possible) to post a single message to both fora ( @HebaruSan ?). Also, I probably ought to verify my guess with @NermNermNerm.

Probably depends on what you are trying to do. I'm successfully using EL with KSP 1.11.1 and without KIS. But that's not because EL now uses the stock system for KIS-like functionality (I'm moderately sure it doesn't). You only need KIS for things like survey stakes. If you aren't using survey stakes, you have never really needed KIS, contrary to what CKAN used to say (subsequently fixed). I'm just using the disposable micro-pad (great for expanding a base) and the K&K launchpad from Planetary Surface Structures for when I want to build a rover or ship. (EL's launch pad 2 also works, but I've found the K&K one handier to work with my bases).

Been playing with KSP 1.11.1 for a while now. Between improvements in stock 1.11.1, plus parking brake (same principle as the USI ground tether, but a bit simpler), the problems with bases randomly exploding on scene change seem under control. And Bon Voyage takes the rover stuff down to the level of just painful (which is a big improvement). My current reason for posting is an issue of transferring resources. The new stuff in PKS is mostly ok on that, but I'm having one big pain, which I think is going to drive me back to reinstalling SImpleLogistics, which I've been doing without so far this playthrough. Sometimes fuel and lox just fail to transfer. This makes setting up a base for refueling.... awkward. Log files linked below for an example, though I can't detect anything that seems likely related amidst the huge amount of noise that seems typical of the log files. For the example logged, I started the game, immediately went to the tracking station and thence to "tanker", which is basically just a huge fuel tank with an engine and enough support stuff to fly and grab onto craft needing the fuel. It is landed next to my "gilly base 2", which is set up to mine and make fuel and has oodles of it stored. I bring up the PKS GUI transfer window and tell tanker to "take" fuel and lox from the base. Clicking "start" results in the progress meter immediately jumping to finished, without any transfer having happened. Doing a reset and trying again has the same result. I was able to transfer a token amount of residual fuel from the "gilly supply" craft, but not nearly enough for the mission. Just can't get any of it out of the base. Darn; that's what the base is here for. Round trip from Kerbin to the surface of Eve and back really needs the refueling help. https://www.dropbox.com/s/r6yni6jd3stn3xw/KSP.log?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/nr923xqvf3d5t7f/Player.log?dl=0

Just ignore the error message. It doesn't actually mean anything concrete. It's just a test of the KSP version number against a value compiled into this mod. Doesn't actually mean it is necessarily incompatible. I'm using it right now in KSP 1.11.1. I mean the "right now" part literally - KSP is running on my Windows game machine while I'm typing this on my iMac. Yes, it gripes (I have to be careful to avoid using the word that comes most naturally to me there because the forum software will change it to "poodles"), but then it runs fine anyway.

I'm not at all sure the problem I'm about to describe has anything to do with MechJeb. That's a bit of a shot in the dark on my part. KAC also occurs to me, or it could be in the stock game. I've seen this on multiple versions of KSP, usually when I'm right in the middle of something that has me too preoccupied to do even a half-(um, I better avoid the second part of that word lest the forum filter decide to bowdlerize it :-)) job of a bug report. Anyway, I just now hit again and quit the game pretty promptly afterwards, so it might be easier to find the relevant stuff in the logs. This time I'm running KSP 1.11.1 and MecJeb 2.12.0.0-1043 (yep, just updated today), but as I noted, I've seen this on many versions. Installed with CKAN, so all the dependencies should be fine. Symptom is that I change to a craft in flight, usually using KAC to do the change. Craft ought to be doing nothing much interesting. In today's case, it was in an orbit of Kerbol between Kerbin and Duna, far from anything else. There's a maneuver scheduled for, I think it was about 30 days out - not particularly close anyway. Things ought to be pretty boring. But I notice that the delta-V of the planned maneuver is changing; then I notice that's probably because my orbit is changing as though I were under thrust (I'm not). If I just stare it it in a daze wondering what is happening (which is what I certainly did the early times that this hit me), the pseudo-thrust just keeps up and I end up pretty badly off of my planned orbit. What "fixes" it is to jump to any other scene, preferably quickly before things have gone too awry. Then jump back and things are stable. In today's case the problem craft was "duna return". I jumped to at at 7:43 PM, noticed the problem happening, jumped to the KSC center, and then jumped back to "duna return". Seeing things were now stable, I quit the program, so all this stuff is pretty near the end of the logs. I'd been playing a while, so the logs are pretty big, but the "interesting" stuff is around that 7:43 PM switch to "duna return". I find the logs really hard to interpret. Even when things are going well, there are always scads of things in the logs that look bad. I notice a lot of nasty-looking stuff about temperatures in these logs, I'd guess from the "dynamic battery storage" mod, which I just discovered and installed a day or two ago. But I'm confident my mysterious pseudo-thrust isn't from that mod because of all the times I observed it before I had even heard of that mod. Logs (I forget which is most useful, so here are both) https://www.dropbox.com/s/35nfs74j7tebz2c/KSP.log?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/7rnd0of3pvjwnxy/Player.log?dl=0

Have to get Maja to answer that for sure (or just try it), but I suspect not because you do have to be "landed" and I doubt that would count.

Well, it works with craft that don't even have wheels... or landing gear either.