scimas

Can someone explain how the AOA%, BrakerRudder%, Ctrl Dflct and Mass strength multiplier % values affect the working of a control surface? I browsed the wiki, but couldn't find any mention of those settings. What I can guess from the names is that Ctrl Dflct decides how much up, down, left or right a control surface can move, regardless of what you're using it for. The pitch, yaw and roll are also mostly self explanatory, it's how much the surface will respond to the respective controls. The thing is there is no direct "Angle of Attack" control in KSP as far as I'm aware. So I can't figure out how that value is affecting gameplay. Same goes for BrakeRudder and Mass strength multiplier.

Of course the devs would be the proper source of information and I could be remembering incorrectly; but I think it used to be that principia would have to integrate the trajectories from the default t=0 state to the time that it was added into a save. You can imagine how that might not be a preferable scenario. They probably changed it along the way somewhere so that the game can start at any time and principia can take over from there. This is what I'm basing my conclusions on, and misinterpretation is a possibility.

From steam, if that's where you're playing from, go to the game's properties - > betas, and select whichever ksp version you need. And yes, you can copy paste the steam version of ksp folder anywhere on your pc and rename it whatever you want. Ksp doesn't need steam running to launch the game. You can run it directly from the ksp 64 or 32 but exe. Quantifiable? Not really, but the number of bugs, feel of the game I notice easily when I play? Sure. How about the ugly reentry effects, or the exploding landing legs, or the fact that 1.4 doesn't support directx 11 and has the weird diagonal line in graphics all the way from the top left corner to bottom right corner? These are just the very few that come to mind immediately. I haven't played 1.4.2 after the first time I did. I'm usually excited for software updates, even if it changes enough that I have to relearn it. But 1.4.x just made feel like going from windows 7 to 8. .. Ok that may be a bit exaggeration, but the point stands.

There definitely is some problem of memory leaks, either with mods or stock KSP, but it's obscure. Very recently, last week or so, I had my RSS, RO install crash from out of memory problem. I have 16GB of RAM. The game crashed, caused windows display manager or something to crash and I had to hard reboot it. The thing is, it had never happened before that and hasn't happened since then. And I know I haven't changed anything in that install, same mods, nothing more installed, nothing removed.

I'm not playing on 1.4.x yet, and I'm assuming that 1.4.2 saves are going to be compatible with 1.4.3. So what happens to a ship placed in 1.4.2 exactly where the new runway would be in 1.4.3, and you then launch that save in 1.4.3?

Yes, that's what I have been doing so far. I was just wondering if there was a better way. Oh, I thought the "error when trying to push infinity to stack" only occurred if I actually assigned the value to a variable.

What is a good way of dealing with divisions by zero in kos? To be specific, sometimes I want to lock burntime calculation, which has a division by ship:availablethrust. The availablethrust is of course not guaranteed to be non zero at all times. I could limit the value by something like min(calculation_that_has_division_by_zero, ridiculously_large_number). So that it's unrealistically large, but still not infinite. But I would prefer to not have to do that if there are other more elegant ways to deal with it.

Okay, I'm not a professional programmer and all of the languages I've encountered use continue.

Yes, I meant the docs, 'wiki' was just a slip. Though I agree that "skip" might be more intuitive, wouldn't it be better to stick to convention? If people have been using 'skip' as a variable name, it might break (no pun intended, though it is a nice one ) their scripts. The same case can be made for 'continue' too, but I think those familiar with programming wouldn't use it as a variable name - leading to perhaps less number of broken scripts?

Is there any equivalent of "continue" (as in C++ or python, skip the rest of the loop and start the next iteration) in kOS? I couldn't find it in the wiki.

I think the confusion arises from the beautiful Earth screenshot in the OP. Perhaps you could point out which mods were used when taking that screenshot?

I know that this is just speculation, but if their goal behind a DLC was to attract new customers then the pricing totally doesn't make sense. I don't have anything against having another game mode. Do have another game mode, it's always nice to have more content. But the mission builder, what I've seen of it through streams and YT videos has so much potential to improve the career mode that it doesn't make sense to not be able to integrate it. It doesn't have to be a required feature of career mode, but if I'm buying the DLC, give me an option to extend career mode with the mission builder. I can't justify buying the DLC as it stands right now, maybe squad will improve it in the future, maybe not. If they do, I will gladly buy it. But even the stock game has these bugs / missing features.. The biggest ones are how ugly the new reentry heating looks and a lack of directx 11 support. I get definite improvement upto 1.3.1 with dx11, which 1.4 just broke. Then there's also the annoying diagonal line from top left corner to bottom right corner, which I guess was present in 1.2.2 but had been fixed in 1.3 (or forcing dx11 fixed it, I don't know). The thrust being off centre bugs in MH, I have no idea how those have survived. I can kind of understand graphics bugs avoiding attention of devs, but do you not check for gameplay affecting things or what? Apparently even after people had reported those?

I was so excited about Making History when it was first announced a year ago (or was that 2 years? Don't remember). But reading all of these bug reports since 1.4 just turned me off from it. And MH itself doesn't feel like that big of a deal anymore either. You get a bunch of extra parts and a mission building system that doesn't integrate into anything else? (the name of the game is 'space program' not single space missions). And that too for the price of more than half of the base game (the game is priced at ₹849 and the dlc at ₹459). As a result I still haven't bought it, I was so confident at the time of the first announcement that I would be buying it on day 1..

Yes, but both default to Active and from their names sound like something that may interfere with what Principia does. That is why I asked the question. I've been playing KSP since 1.2.2 only, but I found some old reddit posts about some calculation errors in versions < 1.1.3 were causing drag on orbits. The posts also suggest that they fixed the problem in 1.1.3, but the bug had also become a kind of feature that modelled atmospheric drag on orbits. Apparently that is why the fix was included as an option, so the people that liked the drift could keep playing with it.

Does the "Orbital Drift Compensation" option in the settings affect gameplay with Principia installed? I just started 1.4.1 and while going through the settings I realised that I had never given this a thought. Edit: Same question but with the "Ease in gravity"?

Hey devs, are you releasing the next version with support for 1.4.1? Also, are you planning on supporting the DLC? Given that the mission builder can spawn things at arbitrary positions with arbitrary velocities at arbitrary in game time, I don't think principia can handle that atm. But are there any plans on supporting such behaviour in the future?

Why? It's perfectly a good enough reason. 1.4 was released about a week ago, 1.4.1 will come in 2-3 days. Why would you want to release an update that's going to be used for only about 10 days? You do realise that mod developers don't get paid for the work they put in, don't you? Depending on the amount of work needed to get the mod working for a new ksp version, it is a massive waste of their personal time if the update is used only for a few days. And it isn't a working version from the devs. A non developer person got it working for themselves. The devs aren't holding back a working version.

If I remember correctly, the latest version of kOS was specifically released to address some issue with 1.2.2. That version isn't compatible with 1.3.1, but the second to latest version is. Hence CKAN showing latest supported version 1.2.2.

I actually went to visit the website. It requires me to accept the new terms and conditions to access kerbalspaceprogram.com website.... I'm really lost right now.. So people have to agree to T2's terms even before they have bought KSP? On the website they sell said product? Like what...? Just think about it.. I've just heard a lot of good things about KSP from my friend, so I decide to take a look at it myself. I'm a potential customer, I go to KSP's website to check out any features page, screenshot, perhaps even official trailers if any exist and I'm obstructed by a freaking "Accept our terms or you can't see this website" dialogue box. That's like a car dealership suddenly covering all their windows with black paint and telling everyone coming there to sign a legal document to even take peek at which cars are for sale. Just what are you doing @SQUAD / T2??? That's some next level of dedication to turning away customers, especially when you're releasing new content to attract new ones.

Understood, and fair enough. Thank you. So, in particular, I was referring to 2.2.I and 5.1 in my original comment regarding use of links to forum pages in the terms that we must agree to.

Do tell where in my post I have said that these are the rules that we must agree to? And no I was not talking about either of those links. There are certain points within the rules itself that link to forum posts. Like others have pointed out, those are about addons and other topics. Since I don't know how to access that page agin, I can't take screenshots anymore. And anyway, how is your point relevant anyway? If you (read squad or t2) are giving me links to elaborate on some points in an agreement that I must accept to access my forum account, I expect to be able to access those links. It's a major [snip] up as far as I'm concerned that we can't even read those things without agreeing to the updated terms. Some circular system that is. Again, how is that relevant in any way to the point I was trying to state? I stand by what I said about squad handling this transition extremely poorly. Your reply (as a moderator) in fact supports that statement given that you couldn't even find any links within the terms that directed to forum posts, except for those at the very bottom.

This, there isn't even a link on the page to log out, I would have had to clear the browser cache, cookies or something for it to log me out automatically.

I'm extremely disappointed in how @SQUAD or T2 have handled the updated terms situation. As soon as I opened the forums today, I was greeted with the "accept these terms or you don't get access to the forums" page (yeah, I hadn't logged out last time). The perplexing thing about that page is that it links to a lot of pages on the forum to elaborate on certain points, WHICH IT WONT EVEN ALLOW ME TO ACCESS BECAUSE I HAVEN'T AGREED TO THE NEW TERMS. Seriously, I had to open a 'private browsing' window just to access the pages I was supposed to read in order to agree to the updated terms. Good job, squad!

I'm not a console player, but after reading the patch notes for their latest patch, I can understand the frustration. After reading replies in this thread about grammar corrections listed as bug fixes, I went and read the patch notes. 15 out of the (claimed) more than 90 bug fixes are text corrections of some kind, I counted.

I haven't used it, but someone has posted a syntax highlighting and such plugin for vim, google it, it's somewhere on github. Somebody has also created a plugin for microsoft's visual studio code, I have used it, but not extensively enough to say what all of its features are.