Lisias

If the guy really knows about space crafts and engineering (what's is expected from a Astronaut/Cosmonaut), he would do the sabotage in something expendable to avoid compromising future missions. The compromised part is expendable itself, don't playing any part on the most dangerous leg of the travel (reentry). And the hole itself is enough to trigger an alarm, but not to do any harm neither to the crew, neither to ISS. So, it would fit the requirements I think a hypothetical astro-saboteur with a strong determination but yet faithful to his profession and fellow crew-mates would had. But… Boy, this is almost unbelievable. These guys are screened - kicking butts out of this world is extraordinarily expensive. And keeping such butts wiped and clean there (and bringing them home safely) is yet more expensive. And since currently there're no vehicle available in the World to (re)build a new Station, failure is just not an option. This wold be the last nail on NASA's coffin, and they know it. I would check cautiously the source of such theories looking for a plot inside the plot. — POST - EDIT -- Mutinies, however, are not a novelty on the NASA History…. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/mutiny-space-why-these-skylab-astronauts-never-flew-again-180962023/

I missed that. You touched what appears to be the most important issue ever about KSP, and I almost let it go unchecked. Sorry. I remember I saying in the past that Managing User's Expectations is harsh, and perhaps something Squad should be doing differently. I think it worths mentioning it again. I'm afraid I don't have the slightest clue about how this should be handled, however. The growing list of long discussions in which I'm recurrently involved in this forum appears to corroborates this, by the way.

#sigh Ok, I'll bite the bait. For me, it's plain clear that MH was rushed into production. By the time 1.4.0 hit the shelves, It was plain clear to me that they already knew 1.4.1 would be issued. Fast. They had a non-functional requirement to meet, and it should had be a hell of a requirement. What got Squad with their pants down, IMHO, was the need for the 1.4.2 and 1.4.3 releases in order to get things working again. (observing the bug-track can be a source of insights). My guessing (and it's all what it is, a guessing) is that Squad is currently fighting a multi-front war: they are dealing with technical flaws from third parties products, they are dealing with some technical debits from the past (a awful part created by that flaws on third parties products on the past), and they need to cope to some strategical, non-funcional, requirements. The first two fronts are easy to watch from outside. The last one? Not a bit. It would be of value to add that the current year's hiring announces are, by themselves, another source of insights. IMHO Squad is aware to the problems and they are taking proper measures to solve or at least mitigate the problems. Any reasoning that looks only on the flaws of the past, and plain ignores what was done since them, is an uninformed guess (even by being a educated one). You are not informed enough to do a proper analysis (neither do I, by the way - I AM GUESSING TOO). If we are not informed enough, it's speculation. Agreed. What's wrong is to handle them as they're already guilty for a problem they didn't caused yet. One thing is to say "I think they should use the efforts on something else", or "I failed to understand how they plan to push KSP to the next level", or even "I can't see how they would implement the changes without more grief - modders are being consistently annoyed by new releases". These are some valid points that I think would be worth some (nice, civilized and educated) discussion about. (I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of these points, I'm just saying it would worth discussing them). Another one is to say "they are incompetents that doesn't know what they are doing", what's appears to be the tone on most vitriol criticism I find, some of them implied on the revamping parts effort. I'm not saying they are competent. I'm not saying they are incompetent. I'm saying we do not have enough information to even consider something about the matter. Competence is not the absence of errors. Competence is the ability to reach your goals besides (and sometimes, due!) the errors. How I could measure competence without knowing the goals and constraints?

As I said "(and granted, not only you - you only had the bad luck to be that last drop on the cup of water)" So please pinpoint where the revamping parts are failing on the subject! Unless you have some insider information (what would be a problem, as Strategy is usually a confidential subject - harshly punished if leaked, by the way), you are way over your head. Right now, I can think on at least 3 reasons such measure would need to be done, and none of them would be discussed to the wide public. You are projecting your limitations as it would Squad's ones. You have absolutely no ground to do such affirmation. All we had saw are a couple parts, it's not enough to tell if they are just shoving new styles on some parts just because, or if they are initiating a "revamp effort", where the aesthetics would be normalized and a new set of guidelines are being stablished. Since Squad already stated they are "revamping the parts", my best guess is the later. Of course they can fail on the process, and of course historically such transitions are not smooth (and yeah, this need to be improved). But none of us have enough information to tell they are already failing - all I see is wild speculation, uninformed guesses and an implicit accusation of incompetence here and there. — POST - EDIT — Given the direction this discussion is taking, I think it's time to thank people for this interesting discussion - since I do not attend Squad's strategic meetings (and would had signed a beautiful NDA if I do), I don't think that anything productive could come by insisting on posting about.

It depends of the playing style. Stock KSP has the mechanics of a LEGO set: "here, take this parts. See what you can do with them". Building things with a limited (and sometimes, insufficient) set of parts is their way of simulating the hard decisions people had to make on the beginning of the Rocket Age. Some people (me included) want to do crazy, "magnificent" and/or beautiful things with near SciFi tech. Others, want to stay the closest it's possible to the origins. IMHO Stock should reflect the majority of the gamers by a simple reason: they need to sell new copies of the game. And since that bunch of people wanting to do crazy/magnificent/beautiful things are engaged enough to build the new parts themselves (as the procedural tanks!), it appears to me the status quo is, currently, their best option. But this is only my opinion. I, as you, could be wrong.

@Borv413, could you please publish your KSP.log? I can't solve the problem here, I must assume it's something environmental. I decided to delete "Kerbin.cfg" to see what happens and I got exactly the same result as using "removeLaunchSites", what corroborates my thesis that Kerbin.cfg is not being processed at all. Oh. Now I see. I will download Galileo and see what happens — POST - EDIT — That's the thing: GPP doesn't reparent Kerbin. It plain delete it, and then create another planet with the same name. So, whatever is bugging NH, doesn't affects GPP. I'm considering this to be something to be handled by Kopernicus - it appears to me that something else must be done in order to keep Kerbin in the loop, and Kopernicus appears to be instrumented to only get rid of this planet. Or perhaps we should do the GPP way: delete Kerbin and recreate a new planet with the same name. I'm still on it. I will advise as soon as I have some new info.

Guidelines and copycatting are two different things. If you had played Assassin's Creed since the first one, you would had noticed differences on the characters design. There're guidelines? Yep. But now and then such guidelines changes. Did you noticed how much the Animus changed in each version? Guess who proposed such changes? I'm also a long time Tomb Rider player. Believe, there're a lot of design changes on each game - even at the times at Core Designs. Google for Toby Gard. I think you need a mirror at home. The implications of your insinuations are near offensive. You are implicitly saying that Squad are allowing a random artist to "ruin the game" and are unable to prevent such catastrophe. You are also implying that every game artist are mere copycats, unable to create and innovate. Yes, there're guidelines. But yes, such guidelines change. Did you notice it on the last Lara Croft models, didn't you? Had you played MGS on the last 30 years? And, above all, how do you think you are able to decide if the artist is running wild, or merely defining a new guideline ? Once a game studio decide to renew the aesthetics of a game, who do you think they will hire for the job? An accountant? You (and granted, not only you - you only had the bad luck to be that last drop on the cup of water) are making a lot of assumptions without any solid ground. You don't build a game the same way you build a Web Site, a commercial application or a consumer gadget. It would be wise.

It is. Here is "my" Kerbin.cfg: @Kopernicus:NEEDS[!GalacticNeighborhood]:AFTER[Kopernicus] { removeLaunchSites = Desert_Launch_Site, Desert_Airfield, Desert_GroundObjects, Woomerang_GroundObjects, Woomerang_Launch_Site @Body[Kerbin] { @Properties { sphereOfInfluence = 6000000 initialRotation = 55 rotationPeriod = 21549.4251830898 solarRotationPeriod = false } @Orbit { semiMajorAxis = 5.4302e+7 inclination = 0 eccentricity = 0 longitudeOfAscendingNode = 0 meanAnomalyAtEpoch = 0 epoch = 0 } PostSpawnOrbit { referenceBody = Sonnah } } } My guess is that the removeLaunchSites, by some reason, is aborting the CFG processing on my installment. I'm clueless on this, the KSP installment I'm using for testing has only Kopernicus, New Horizons and Module Manager. — POST - EDIT — Kopernicus cache is involved. I'll do some more tests tomorrow. — POST - POST - EDIT — Nope. Deleting Kopernicus cache didn't solved anything,

Mine works. But I have to link the raw image, not the link Google gives you. For example, this image (that shows Kerbin as the 6th planet from Kerbol - the glitch I have with the MH fix above): Is from my Google Photos album: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNGp1bML32cEX3MTBSdwT9CaY4ySEmemBleRtSYuTIMJ5WRirJAMFDC0BzzBDNzcQ?key=aGVkcl9QQ1hZSk9ZSFRfekNmb2JHb2Z0SVhiS3F3

PorkJet's parts (re)defined the the game aesthetics. He did exactly what you said an artist should not. And you should knew that, as you were around here at that time while me had to scavenge old KSP versions and play them one by one to see the evolution. On the bottom line, my argument can be resumed to "Le Roi Est Mort, Vive Le Roi!". I love PorkJet's aesthetics, and I'll probably resent seeing his work being replaced (and I probably will have at least one KSP installment with a mod that resurrects his parts). But any other argument or opinion about the replacement must wait until I see the thing. It's not unusual that things change for the better, you know. I don't think I could bring anything new to this discussion, so… Thanks for the chat.

You weren't around before PorkJet's, were you?

Too late. I popped some pop-corn by the way. Want some? Doing his own thing and working for KSP are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps the guy was hired precisely to give the game a new look? There should be a reason they are calling this effort a "part revamp". Neither do I. I'm just a grumpy old fart that likes things to be "as they always were". And I'm playing this for less than a year. However, I already saw some things changing for the better in the past, most of the time, with my complaining about how things are changing. So I learnt to wait and see. We can mod the game back, anyway.

Artists are rarely motivated by copycatting other people's works. We are not talking about tools, we are talking about art. It's unavoidable that the new artist would prefer to use his own style. If by not anything else, to enrich his portfolio. The guy is a professional after all, he have his professional future to care about. It's the best for the KSP? Who knows? Someone on Squad thinks it is - and I don't have any logical argument to say he's wrong. And the die hard fans always can mod the game to get things back. So...

And that's all that matters. Since Porkjet moved on, it's unavoidable that the art will move on too. It's just pointless to complain about Porket's fan preferring his work instead. It's years of KSP playing using his art, you can't fight people's memories.

Probably a typo on the Tidus.cfg. This is mine, and it's working: If even by verifying (or just copying over) this file you still have the problem, please publish somewhere your KSP.log. I'm testing New Horizons on a vanilla KSP installment. All I have added is the latest Kopernicus (with the ModularFlightIntregator that came on the package) and Module Manager 3.0.7 (a requirement). Note: It's @Lyneira's fix, not mine. I just realized it how to run on KSP 1.4.5!

Doesn't matter if the artist's works are easily cloned, copied or mimicked. People tend to prefer the "original" over any kind of copycats. There's a reason anyone could buy a poster with Van Gogh's "The Portrait of Doctor Gachet" for a few bucks, or even a very good artesanal and faithful copy for a few thousands. But yet the original would cost you about 150M USD. There's a lot of people able to mimic and surpass Porkjet's work. But yet, it's Porket's works that have fans around here, not them. You can debunk the Porkjet's "legacy" how many times you want, it's pointless. We are not talking about a tool, we're talking about art and style.

"KSC, we have a probem…" This does not works: @Kopernicus:NEEDS[!GalacticNeighborhood]:AFTER[Kopernicus] { removeLaunchSites = Desert_Launch_Site, Desert_Airfield, Desert_GroundObjects, Woomerang_GroundObjects, Woomerang_Launch_Site @Body[Kerbin] { @Properties { sphereOfInfluence = 6000000 KSP loads and goes to the Main Menu, but nothing is clickable. No Exceptions or warnings on KSP.log neither Player.log (Unity's log on MacOS) were found. What's essentially the problem i faced after applying Lyneira's workaround. So, I tried this: @Kopernicus:NEEDS[!GalacticNeighborhood]:AFTER[Kopernicus] { @Body[Kerbin] removeLaunchSites = Desert_Launch_Site, Desert_Airfield, Desert_GroundObjects, Woomerang_GroundObjects, Woomerang_Launch_Site { @Properties { sphereOfInfluence = 6000000 And things now works, except that Kerbin is not reparented, and it's orbiting Kerbal as usual (and not Sonnah as expected). This may or may not be a problem, it depends of the player. I would prefer having Kerbin orbiting Sonnah as intended by the mod's author, but it's a matter of taste - I'm pretty sure that someone would prefer Kerbin this way. What's bothers me is that this appears to be a glitch or side effect caused by something unexpected, not an intended feature. Even by deleting Making History, this change blocks Kerbin from being reparented.

I think it's unlikely (huge unlikely) the drilling happened on space. The reverberation would run unchecked through the metal structure, fatally reaching some sensor. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/ubnt.html

I feel you. Language barrier is a beach..

Life is way bigger than C. Scratch is the closest thing we have to the original Object Development Environment that were created "on the good old days", and the direct replacement of something I used to use as a Youngster: LOGO.

It's 10 C (about 50 F) here. Thank God I took a bath three days ago...

Bingo! @adsii1970

This week is not a great time to live on my country. Really. We're living in interesting times around here.

Too easy.

0011/1010. or you are an Infiltrated extraterrestrian that doesn't know for sure what's Tetris, or you are a youngster that never played Tetris on somen cheap Chinese LCD portables. Since youngster don't know what's Tetris, I suggest you phone home! I'm human bec...BUUUUUURP. Sorry.